Nationality and Borders Bill
Monday 19th July 2021
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have to report that the reasoned amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition has been selected.
5.55 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The British people have had enough of open borders and uncontrolled immigration; enough of a failed asylum system that costs the taxpayer more than £1 billion a year; enough of dinghies arriving illegally on our shores, directed by organised crime gangs; enough of people drowning on these dangerous, illegal and unnecessary journeys; enough of people being trafficked and sold into modern slavery; enough of economic migrants pretending to be genuine refugees; enough of adults pretending to be children to claim asylum; enough of people trying to gain entry illegally ahead of those who play by the rules; enough of foreign criminals, including murderers and rapists, who abuse our laws and then game the system so that we cannot remove them.
Priti Patel
The British people have had enough of being told that none of these issues matter. They have had enough of being told that it is racist even to think about addressing public concerns, and to want to fix this failed system.
Priti Patel
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to either intervene or listen.
The British people have repeatedly voted to take back control of our borders, something that the Labour party has repeatedly voted against and complained about. The British people finally have a Government who are listening to them, because our priorities are the people’s priorities. For the first time in decades, we will determine who comes in and out of our country. Our plans will increase the fairness of our system.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I hope my right hon. Friend will forgive me if I intervene in this way, but she is giving the impression that no Conservative Government since 2010 have tried to address these issues. Can I assure her, on the basis of six years in the Home Office, that they have been addressed? I will refer in my speech to the fact that Governments constantly have to look at these issues relating to immigration, rather than thinking that one piece of legislation will deal with the problem forever.
Priti Patel
I thank my right hon. Friend for making that point, which the Labour party should also recognise. A little earlier, the hon. Member for Hove (Peter Kyle) said, “In 11 years, what have you done?” As my right hon. Friend has just pointed out, cumulative efforts have been made—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin) would like to listen as well. It is important to note that over the years —my right hon. Friend is right, and in fact I am going to refer to a piece of legislation with which she will be familiar—change did come in, but unfortunately, for a range of reasons, the system is now being abused and gamed.
Priti Patel
I will give way shortly.
Our plan will increase the fairness of our system so that we can better protect those who are in need of genuine asylum. That is absolutely right, and it is important that we have that fair principle. However, it will also do something that I sense does not interest the Labour party: it will deter illegal entry to the UK, and, importantly, will break the business model of the smuggling gangs and protect the lives of those whom they are endangering.
Stephen Timms
One of the big problems at present is the very long time that it takes to determine asylum applications. Since the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), left the Home Office, the number of case workers has gone up but the number of decisions has gone down in every single year. Why has that catastrophic fall in productivity been allowed to occur?
Priti Patel
I shall go on to refer specifically to the time it takes to process cases, but the right hon. Gentleman will also be familiar with the number of appeals involved. This is not just about initial decisions; it is about the system itself, seen from an end-to-end perspective. That is why—and I will go on to make this case as well—in our new plan for immigration, as the right hon. Gentleman and all other Members will be aware, we are speaking about comprehensive end-to-end reform of the asylum system that looks at every single stage.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Will the Home Secretary explain why the number of initial decisions—not appeals—made by the Home Office dropped by 27% between 2015 and 2019, before the pandemic started?
Priti Patel
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. In relation to the initial decision making—this point is absolutely in our new plan for immigration—we are looking not just at caseworkers, but at digitalising the system to make it much more efficient. The fact is that when more cases are coming in that are down to things such as illegal immigration—people being exploited by coming into the country illegally—the number of cases in the system has gone up. That is a fact. Cases have gone up over a significant period of time.
Priti Patel
I will shortly, but I am going to make a bit of progress. It is important to reflect on the fact that when it comes to reforming the immigration system and tackling many of these complex issues, there is no one-size-fits-all approach. I think it is important for all right hon. and hon. Members to recognise that we would be kidding ourselves if we thought there was a silver bullet and said, “There is one thing that could be done.” There are a range of cumulative issues that this legislation seeks to address.
When we launched our new plan for immigration, Labour effectively spoke out about many of the measures in the Bill and in the new plan for immigration. I think it is fair to say that the Opposition seem to think that the British people have the wrong priorities when it comes to tackling issues of migration and illegal entry.
Priti Patel
I will give way shortly, but I want to make progress first. The Opposition argue that it is wrong to deport murderers, rapists and dangerous criminals—[Interruption.] It is a fact. They think that border controls are wrong. They think that ending free movement is wrong. Well, Labour Members can sigh and shake their heads, but the fact of the matter is that over the last 12 months, when it has come to ending free movement and having discussions about reforming immigration and our points-based system, they seem to think that open borders are the answer. They obviously do not support our new plan for immigration. They do not like the people’s priorities when it comes to these issues, yet they have no plan.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
The public seem to want a fair, fast and affordable system, so can the Home Secretary tell the public how much more the taxpayer will pay for her new proposals?
Priti Patel
In fact, the taxpayer will be saving money in the long run. We already spend over £1 billion a year on dealing with the failed and broken asylum system. If the hon. Gentleman has read the Bill and the new plan for immigration, which I urge him to do, he will see that there are a range of measures—
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Sir John Hayes
I am extremely grateful. Is not the truth of the matter that too often our courts exaggerate the significance of international treaties and obligations and, by so doing, frustrate the process by which we deport illegal immigrants, including large numbers of foreign criminals?
Priti Patel
I thank my right hon. Friend for his question and for his observation. There are a range of aspects, certainly through this Bill, that we are seeking to address in order to make courts and immigration tribunals more efficient. It is wrong for them to have endless appeals, where individuals frustrate the appeals process and clog up the system. It is right that we do that because otherwise there will be individuals—genuine people seeking to claim asylum—who are simply not getting their cases heard, and we want to make sure that we can give them the support.
Priti Patel
No, I will not.
For years, people have risked their lives to enter our country, such as those crossing the channel in dangerous boats to claim asylum. [Interruption.] I have been generous in giving way and I will give way again shortly, but I would like to make progress.
If there were simple and straightforward solutions to many of these challenges—my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) has touched on this—issues such as illegal migration to the UK would have been resolved by now, but illegal entry to the UK and the subsequent claims of asylum have become complex because of the nature of cases that arise. But I am absolutely clear that no one should seek to put their life, or the lives of their family, in the hands of criminals to enter the UK illegally, and I would like to think that that is an important point that this House can unite on.
The Bill will finally address the issues that over a long period of time, cumulatively, have resulted in the broken system that we have now. It is a system that is being abused, allowing criminals to put the lives of the vulnerable at risk, and it is right that we do everything possible and find measures to fix this and ensure that a fair asylum system provides a safe haven to those fleeing persecution, oppression and tyranny.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We are receiving emails saying that this Bill is somehow cruel to illegal migrants, but is not the cruellest thing to do nothing? This very day, hundreds of people are putting their life at risk by crossing the channel. If we close these loopholes, if we clear up the doubts about human rights legislation and if we create safe havens, this trade will stop dead, as it did for Australia.
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are many ways in which we can address this problem, and creating safe and legal routes, which are in the Bill and are something I have spoken about many times, will build upon the generosity of our country. We are generous as a nation when it comes to providing refuge and support to people fleeing persecution, but what we have to do right now is stop this trade in which people are being exploited so that they can come to the country illegally.
Priti Patel
No, I am giving way to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who has been waiting patiently.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Home Secretary for giving way. One of the things that greatly concerns me and others in this House, and I know it concerns her, is the children held in immigration detention. The figure has dropped since 2019, down to 73, but they often arrive having been separated from their family, or they arrive unaccompanied, unaware that they will be placed in detention straightaway. What will be done to help children in particular?
Priti Patel
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I will shortly address some of these wider issues, but obviously, along with our work on safe and legal routes, we have to provide the right pathways and a secure environment for children to rebuild their lives. That is at the heart of our work in being humane, compassionate and fair.
Our system is overwhelmed, and it is a strong point of reflection that, because of the trends we have been seeing in organised immigration crime and gangs that are effectively exploiting vulnerable individuals, we now need to be able to provide support and to understand where those needs are coming from. Genuine people are being elbowed aside by those who are paying traffickers to come to our country.
Priti Patel
I will not give way.
As a nation, we have always stepped up to support refugees in need, and rightly so. This is a great source of national pride for our country, and of course that will never change.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Priti Patel
No, I will not give way.
Since 2015, more than 25,000 refugees have been resettled in the UK from regions of conflict under formal schemes, more than in any other European country. Again, reflecting on the comment made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead, this has happened at a time when we have seen all sorts of challenges around the world and have seen people fleeing persecution, oppression and conflict.
In addition, more than 29,000 close relatives have joined those refugees in the UK over the past five years. Our country is not mean spirited or ungenerous towards asylum seekers, as some may claim.
Chris Bryant
May I gently say to the right hon. Lady that I do not think the issue is whether we are mean spirited or generous? The issue is whether the legislation that she is introducing will actually solve the problem. Every single Member of this House is opposed to illegal migration and every single Member of this House hates the trafficking that has made many vulnerable people put their children in terrible positions, through no will of their own. If we really are to have an end-to-end solution, do we not need to be able to answer the question of my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), the Chair of the Homes Affairs Committee? Do we not all have to be able to say how we will make sure that the factors that push so many people out of their country, when they would much prefer to stay, are dealt with?
Priti Patel
If the hon. Gentleman had followed much of the work undertaken by the Home Office prior to the introduction of the Bill, and if he had looked at our new plan for immigration, he would fully appreciate the end-to-end work that is already in train. There is a lot of upstream work to go after criminals outside the United Kingdom, not just in France but across Europe. We do a great deal of work with our partners around the world and across Europe on intelligence to go after criminal gangs, but he will recognise that that is one component of our work.
I have already spoken about the refugees we have resettled from parts of the world where there has been oppression and conflict. It is a fact that, since 2015, this Government, with the generosity of the British public, have spent billions of pounds on accommodation, education, healthcare and amenities to resettle people and keep them in their own regions. That is absolutely right. I can say from my time as Secretary of State for International Development that economic development in countries upstream is at the heart of everything we do. Of course, there is much more that we need to do on that.
Chris Bryant
This is a really important point. The vast majority of people who, as the Secretary of State said earlier, put their children at risk by putting them on boats to cross the channel are doing so only because they were forced to leave their country—they did not do so of their own free will. The more we can do to prevent that happening at source will, in the end, save us from some of this headache, will it not?
Priti Patel
There are a number of points to make on the hon. Gentleman’s intervention. First and foremost, no one would dispute the work that we do in other countries around the world, or how vital it is. All of our Governments have had a very strong record on that—on investment in people, in livelihoods, in women and girls, and in economic empowerment. That is fundamental to the work of the Government and always has been.
Secondly, we must recognise that, given the trends we are seeing in illegal migration, the majority of people entering the UK illegally are travelling through safe countries across the EU where they could claim asylum. Indeed, the figures bear this out. France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Greece are all safe countries, yet these people are being trafficked through those countries. Furthermore, the majority of people entering the United Kingdom are young men, not women and children, and they are paying the people smugglers to push those women and children to one side. That is why—
Several hon. Members rose—
Priti Patel
If I may just finish my remarks before I go back to my speech. That is why our focus is on creating safe routes and looking at what we can do outside the United Kingdom to help support women and children and families to come to the United Kingdom to resettle. These are important principles that we have already established in our resettlement schemes, and we do want to do much more in this area.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making a very good speech. As we can see from the Bill, much needs to be done. I want to draw her attention to part 4, which deals with modern slavery. I was very proud when the Centre for Social Justice brought forward the paper and very proud that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) brought forward the world’s first legislation on this subject. There are problems with part 4. I gently ask her and her team to retain an open mind about changes that may come forward, because we really do want to lead the world on this and be generous to those who are not just trafficked, but trafficked for the most abominable reasons.
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. He will know from our discussions that we will continue to work with him and others to ensure that we are doing the right thing. I will come to part 4 later in my remarks, but let me expand on exactly where we are seeing the problems and anomalies within the system. Of course we want to close them down, because modern slavery is absolutely abhorrent, but there are key elements that we also need to address.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I cannot let the comment from the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) just pass. He made the point that people who seek asylum here are always fleeing their country because of persecution. I have many concerns about the immigration Bills that have been passed in this place, many by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), the former Prime Minister. It is naive to think that the people coming through irregular routes are only seeking asylum for reasons of persecution. There are a large number who are seeking asylum based purely on economic migration. Is that not one reason why separating out regular and irregular people is such an important change in the way that we are pursuing the legislation?
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is right, and that is where the system becomes conflated and there is no separation between the two. He is absolutely right to make that point.
Priti Patel
I will not give way. [Interruption.] I have been very generous in taking interventions, and I would like to make some progress.
It is important to reflect on the fact that, when it comes to anyone claiming asylum in the UK—this is established in long-standing legislation—we have a statutory duty in relation to accommodation, subsistence, cash and transportation. The system, as I have already mentioned to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), is currently costing the taxpayer more than £1 billion a year. It is right that we look to reform the system, and not just to make it efficient but to ensure that we do the right thing. The very principle of seeking refuge has clearly been undermined by those who are paying to travel through safe countries and then claiming asylum in the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) said, many of those are economic migrants and not just those fleeing persecution. People should be claiming asylum in the first safe country that they reach and not using the UK as a destination of choice. That is why our intention is to work—
Priti Patel
I will not; I have given way several times now.
Our intention is to address the wider system to fix this problem so that we can help those who are in genuine need to resettle here. We are strengthening through the Bill the safe and legal ways in which people can enter the UK, adopting a fair and firm approach. From today, I will be granting indefinite leave to remain to refugees resettled under our world-leading resettlement schemes, giving them the vital freedom to succeed from the moment that they arrive in our country and, importantly, offering certainty and stability to help them rebuild their lives from day one.[Official Report, 22 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 9MC.] That is absolutely the right thing to do. From that, we can also learn and build better schemes going forward.
We also want to continue to strengthen our proud record to support those in need, such as, over the past few months, the brave Afghan nationals who have worked alongside our brave military and who are now benefiting from a bespoke resettlement scheme. That is in addition to the type of scheme we have set up for British nationals overseas from Hong Kong whose liberties were restricted and who are now able to live freely in the UK, with a full pathway to citizenship, thanks to the route that we opened up this year. We will always give people coming through safe resettlement schemes the support that they need, which is of course the right thing to do. From learning English to gaining employment and training, they will gain essential skills to build a new life in the UK. New pilots to support refugees into work are already happening. Community sponsorship schemes that are well-established and have been established over recent years are making an enormous difference and helping local communities to support refugees directly. We want to do more, and we are empowering more schemes like these every day.
Those displaced by conflict and violence will also be able to benefit from access to our global points-based immigration system to enable skilled people who have been displaced and who have fled their homes to come to the UK safely and legally through established routes. We will work with the charity Talent Beyond Boundaries and other partners on this pilot project. Up to 100 refugees in Jordan and Lebanon will be supported first to gain sponsorship from a UK employer. These are the types of schemes that we will continue to build on.
This is in addition to our world-leading resettlement schemes. Providing greater support to refugees arriving safely will reduce the incentive to enter the country dangerously and illegally, because when the British people object to illegal entry, they are right to make the case as to it being absolutely abhorrent. In 2020, 8,500 people arrived in the UK by small boat, 87% of whom were men and 74% of whom were aged 18 to 39. Those who claim that it is heartless to stop these illegal crossings have it all the wrong way round, because it would be heartless and immoral to let them continue to do so through these dangerous and perilous journeys. People have drowned in the channel, and thousands, some only recently, just three weeks ago, have died in the Mediterranean.
It is not just illegal sea journeys that are lethal. One of my first and saddest tasks as Home Secretary was to respond to the devastating and, really, preventable deaths of 39 Vietnamese people in a trailer found in Essex. The judge described their deaths through suffocation as “excruciatingly painful”. This terrible crime was organised by a gang; it was all gang activity. In recognition of the severity of this appalling crime, five members of the people-smuggling gang were jailed, with two ringleaders going down for 20 and 27 years respectively. Two lorry drivers were imprisoned on manslaughter charges with sentences of 18 years and 13 years, four months. Such cases are not just heartbreaking; there is only one word for them: they are evil. We have a moral duty to prevent such appalling atrocities from happening again. There is simply no justification for what is going on. People-smugglers are motivated by profit. They line their pockets with the takings to finance other crimes such as drugs and firearms-trafficking. They do not organise illegal entry by small boat and in the back of lorries out of kindness.
Three weeks ago, to give another example, late at night, I received what I can only describe as a sickening call from officials at the Home Office. They told me of reports of a family attempting to make their way across the channel who had been separated. They said that people smugglers in northern France had forced a mother and father to get into a small boat at gunpoint. They said that their family, their two young daughters, would be put in the next boat to make the crossing. When the parents refused to be separated from their children, the people smugglers threatened them again.
The anguish and distress of those parents is absolutely unthinkable, but it is all too common for families to be put into many such perilous situations by criminal gangs. Organised gangs involved in exploiting and trafficking children are of course involved in modern-day slavery. We have also had recent accounts of facilitators using violence. The threat of guns and violence has now become the norm. The threat of violence also includes rape to control people. We are talking about unimaginable wickedness. We cannot, in good conscience, fail to act. We have a moral obligation to stop this vile trade, because human beings are not cargo.
The status quo is entirely unacceptable. That is why I and this Government will look at all options—every option—and work with international partners on how to fix the system and save lives. We are determined to smash the criminal gangs who cause such misery. We are absolutely determined to break their business model.
Let me turn to the key measures in the Bill. It is illegal to arrive in UK waters without permission. Those who bring migrants to the UK and facilitate illegal entry will now face a life sentence. That criminal and exploitative behaviour can now be punished with the severity it rightly deserves. A maximum prison sentence for entering the country illegally will increase from six months to four years. We are sending—we need to send—a signal to those criminal gangs that there is increased risk of paying for propping up criminal activity to get to the UK illegally.
The Bill will also give Border Force additional powers, including powers to seize vessels used to facilitate illegal entry to the UK. Border Force will be able to search all freight for people suspected of seeking illegal entry, to prevent illegal trafficking and facilitation, like the case of almost 50 minors who were found recently hidden in tiny crevices in the back of a lorry with no chance of escape. This is what we are dealing with.
In addition to the changes and the powers for Border Force, we intend to make the border fully digital, which will not only allow us to count people in and out, but, importantly, help us to stop dangerous people coming here. Anyone who is not a British or Irish citizen will need to provide more information about themselves before they travel, including any history of criminality. Electronic travel authorisations have been a major step in our border security. Carriers will check that passengers have the digital authorisation, or another form of digital permission such as a visa, before they travel. They will risk a civil penalty if they fail to deny boarding to those without permission. We are also increasing the maximum penalty for hauliers caught entering the UK with an illegal migrant onboard from £2,000 to £5,000.
In addition to many of the changes included in the Bill, we will introduce new accommodation and reception centres, which are already used by many countries across Europe and elsewhere. They will provide new accommodation for processing and speeding up claims, and that will include the reforms to and digitisation of much of our own processes within the Home Office. Asylum seekers will be allocated to accommodation centres by the Department and the Home Secretary, rather than being dispersed across the United Kingdom, as we do already.
Currently, detained appeals are subject to the same rules as non-detained appeals. There is no set timeframe in which decisions have to be made. That can result in appeals taking a long time. We will reinstate an accelerated appeals process that is fast enough to enable claims to be dealt with from detention, while ensuring that a person who is detained has fair access to justice. That will expedite the removal of people without a legitimate need to claim asylum in the UK.
In recent years we have seen some of the most shocking cases of grown adults—mostly men—claiming asylum as children. Through deception, they have been able to access children’s services and education, leading to the most worrying cases and safeguarding issues. This Bill will change how someone’s age is assessed. Many countries around the world and across the EU already employ safe scientific methods, and we will start to do so. This will stop people falsely claiming to be children and protect genuine children from being moved into the adult asylum system.
The British public are incredulous that it is so hard to remove foreign criminals and failed asylum seekers from our shores. We are therefore amending the early removal scheme to help us to remove foreign criminals from the UK as early as possible. The British people have also had enough of foreign criminals getting one over on us. One foreign national offender first claimed asylum in 2001. He chose to leave the UK voluntarily in 2009, re-entering in 2011 with his wife and child and claiming asylum for a second time. He was deported in 2015 after a 15-month sentence for sexual assault on a child. He returned to the UK in breach of a deportation order in 2017 and was arrested and detained. He then went on to make a fresh asylum claim. He then appealed that refusal and eventually exhausted his rights to appeal.
In detention, this man sewed his lips together, refused food or fluid and declined healthcare. Then, in 2018, he was released on health grounds with electronic monitoring. He appealed this decision through the family courts and a hearing was scheduled for months later, acting as a barrier to removal. Then, in early 2018, he cut off his electronic tag. In 2019, he was arrested on suspicion of murder after his estranged wife was found dead. That is not justice, and it shows that our system is simply not working. Things cannot continue like this, and we must change the law so that we can remove dangerous foreign criminals and ensure that justice is done.
The Bill raises the minimum sentence for any foreign criminal who returns to the UK in breach of a deportation order from six months to five years.[Official Report, 22 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 9MC.] It speeds up appeals and stops the endless cycle of baseless claims. People who are subject to removal action often wait until the very last minute to make a challenge, leading to cancelled flights and delayed removals—I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead could recount many tales from her time as Home Secretary—and this has become standard practice when it comes to too many of these cases with foreign national offenders and others.
Time and time again, we see murderers, rapists and child abusers launching numerous last-minute claims to attempt to try to stay in the UK. That simply is not right. These last-minute claims and appeals mean that criminals can thwart removal from our country, even when they are on the tarmac ready to be removed from the UK. We have had far too many cases like that, and we and the British public are sick of it.
Through this Bill, all protection-related issues will need to be raised up front and in one go, and that includes, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) has already said, claims of modern-day slavery. It will stop the endless cycle of people raising repeated claims to frustrate their removal. Our approach is fair, but firm. It is firm where we have seen too many abuses over many years and, in fact, decades. The notice period of an intention to remove someone will be standardised, and we will provide fair access to justice and legal advice for individuals.
Slavery is one of humanity’s greatest evils, and it has never gone away. It was a Conservative Government who pushed through the Modern Slavery Act 2015, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead when she was Home Secretary. The House recognises—we all do—that she deserves immense credit for the work that she undertook. It was an act of good faith that other countries have since been inspired to follow. We will continue, as we have done, to protect victims of modern slavery by creating a statutory grant of leave for confirmed victims. They of course need the time and the support to recover from their horrendous and appalling ordeals, and the authorities also need time to bring perpetrators to justice.
I would also like to pay tribute to many colleagues in the House and to policing partners as well, who have worked diligently. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green has already mentioned the Centre for Social Justice, but we have worked with policing partners as well to look at many of the cases around law enforcement and bringing perpetrators to justice—how difficult some of those cases are. But the law on modern slavery is being exploited.
Priti Patel
The hon. Gentleman will have his chance to speak shortly.
There has been an alarming increase in the number of illegal entrants and foreign national offenders, including child rapists and people who pose a national security risk seeking modern-day slavery referrals to avoid immigration detention and frustrate removal from the UK.
One individual, who was granted indefinite leave to remain in the UK, had that leave revoked following persistent offending that led to a prison sentence adding to more than 12 months. They were subject to a deportation order, a decision upheld by the courts. On the day that they were due to be removed, they went on to make an asylum claim. Once that was refused, they claimed to be a victim of modern slavery in relation to incidents several years before they came to the United Kingdom. This was then referred to the national referral mechanism, which rightly identifies and supports victims of modern slavery. Decisions on these cases currently take around 12 months, with a low bar for postponing removal. The person was released from detention and their removal was postponed. They subsequently absconded and went on to commit further serious offences.
The Bill contains vital measures to ensure that victims are identified as quickly as possible, while making it easier to distinguish between genuine and non-genuine accounts of modern slavery. It is absolutely right, as I have said throughout my remarks this afternoon, that we are doing the right thing to support genuine victims and genuine asylum seekers. This is where we absolutely need to reform the system, to close down loopholes and gaps that are being exploited by those who have been a harm to British citizens and who have no legal right to be in the UK.
Help and support will be available where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is a victim, rather than that they may be a victim. People claiming asylum or human rights protections will be required to provide relevant information relating to being a victim of slavery or human trafficking within a specified period. In response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, I say that this is exactly the area where we need to do more work. We will absolutely work with Members of the House and other organisations to make sure that we have the right protective measures in place for those who have absolutely been victims of modern-day slavery.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The Home Secretary is being most generous in giving way. The time in which people are granted leave to remain has a bearing on whether we can prosecute those who are guilty, because they need to be settled, in a settled state, able to give evidence and not fearing what will happen next. This will have a huge impact on the ability to prosecute those who traffic them.
Priti Patel
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Without going into detail here, I give him the assurance that this is effectively what we are seeking to achieve and are working on right now. The point has been very well made by him and by the Centre for Social Justice. Linked to his comment, it is right that we pool all our resources into helping genuine victims of modern slavery and that we do not allow dangerous foreign criminals, who are effectively pushing aside real victims, to go on to abuse the system for their own despicable means.
We already maintain a list of safe countries that consistently adhere to international human rights law, to stop people delaying removal by falsely claiming that their human rights are at risk. Every EU country will be on that list, as they are safe countries. That speaks to the point frequently made and discussed in this House that people moving through safe countries—through EU member states—should seek to claim asylum in the first safe country, not to come to the UK as a destination of choice. Furthermore, we are taking a power to allow us to remove countries from the list as well as adding them to it, so that the list can remain relevant and appropriate to our needs as assessments change.
If someone’s human rights claim is clearly unfounded, there will no longer be a right to appeal. Whether someone has complied with the asylum or removal process will also be considered when deciding whether to grant immigration bail. Other countries must co-operate when taking back those citizens who have no right to be in the UK. If countries do not co-operate in the return of their nationals, their access to our generous, fast and open visa system will be at risk. Every effort will be made to remove those who enter the UK having travelled through a safe country in which they could and should have claimed asylum.
For the first time, how people arrive in our country will impact on how their claim is progressed. Those we cannot remove but whose claims prevail will receive only temporary status with limited entitlements. Anyone who arrives in the UK via a safe third country may have their claim declined and be returned to a country they arrived from or a third safe country.[Official Report, 22 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 9MC.] People who make a successful claim after arriving via another safe country may receive new temporary protection status without the same benefits and entitlements, and that will be reassessed periodically.
The Bill also makes it easier to remove someone to another safe country while their asylum claim is being processed and enables us to recover taxpayers’ money from lawyers where their unreasonable behaviour wastes the courts’ and other parties’ resources.
Priti Patel
No, I will not give way. I have taken many interventions.
We are also closing the loophole that has prevented the defence of some immigration decisions on the ground of national security.
I am resolute that we must fix a terrible injustice suffered by the Windrush generation and others who were denied British citizenship unfairly—
Priti Patel
By successive Governments, if the hon. Gentleman had read the Wendy Williams report about Windrush. I have already overhauled the Windrush compensation scheme. I urge colleagues across the House to help us encourage people to come forward. What happened to them must never be repeated. That also means fixing our outdated nationality laws. The Bill gives the Home Secretary power to grant British citizenship to people who would have become British citizens if not for unfairness and exceptional circumstances beyond their control. For example, in one case, an individual was refused citizenship due to an absence from the UK on a given day, despite many years of previous residence. Of course it was not his fault.
The Bill provides further flexibility to waive residency requirements to help members of the Windrush generation and others acquire British citizenship more quickly. That will also mean that children unfairly denied British overseas territory citizenship can finally acquire citizenship here. That was one of the anomalies that came out in the Windrush scandal.
Our laws must be clearer and easier to understand. The “Windrush Lessons Learned Review” by Wendy Williams also said that immigration and nationality law is complex. The Bill gives the Home Secretary the power to simplify and consolidate immigration law so that we can address many of the citizenship anomalies that have existed for too long—for decades, in fact.
The British people are generous and compassionate. As I said to the hon. Member for Rhondda earlier, they give billions of pounds every year in overseas aid to provide support in countries around the world, to empower countries and communities and to invest in many economies. The British public also embrace those in genuine need and want people to succeed. They also want a system that is fair and firm—fair to the British people and to those in genuine need, but firm against the criminals and those who exploit our generosity by gaming the system.
The Bill is critical to delivering that new fair but firm system. It is also central to our new plan for immigration. It goes a long way to addressing decades of failure and challenges, in the law and illegal migration and in immigration courts and tribunals, in the way in which I have just reflected upon. The Windrush scandal has shone a spotlight on many of the anomalies that have existed when it comes to citizenship. We will change those areas, with secure borders and rules that will be easy to understand. That is part of the cumulative end-to-end change that we seek to introduce.
We want to slam the door on foreign criminals, put organised crime gangs out of business, and of course give help and support to those in genuine need. Everyone who plays by the rules will encounter a new system—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I hesitate to interrupt the Home Secretary, but does the hon. Lady have an actual point of order?
Debbie Abrahams
As the Home Secretary is very eloquently saying, this is an incredibly important piece of legislation, and the lack of opportunity to hold the Government to account on it is a source of real concern. Can she invite—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. That is not a point of order. We are starting a debate, the purpose of which is to allow this House to hold the Government to account. We will be doing so until 10 o’clock tonight, and then again tomorrow. That is not a point of order, and the hon. Lady knows that.
Priti Patel
This is an important Bill, and it is right that we have given the House plenty of time to debate it.
We are seeking to achieve systematic, end-to-end reform of this system, but it is complex—it is absolutely complicated. Throughout this debate and in Committee, I hope all hon. Members will reflect on some of the points that have been made by Government Members. Over decades, we have found anomalies in our system. I have mentioned Windrush, tribunals and many of the processes that we want to streamline, which will of course deal with efficiency and productivity in case management.
Fundamentally, the new system will be fair to those who need our help and support. Everyone who plays by the rules will encounter a new system that is fair but firm. As representatives of the British people, we will be finally in control of many of these highly challenging issues that many successive Governments have sought to address in different ways, but now this Government are committed to fixing the broken system.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Before I call the shadow Home Secretary—[Interruption.] I would be obliged if the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) did not speak loudly while I am on my feet. He can heckle other people, but he should not be heckling the Chair. I draw to the House’s attention the fact that there is obviously a very large list of people who wish to take part in this important debate. Therefore, there will be an initial time limit of four minutes, which will be reduced to three minutes at some point, depending on how fast we proceed.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Nationality and Borders Bill, notwithstanding the need to address the increasing number of dangerous boat crossings in the English Channel, because the Bill breaches the 1951 Refugee Convention, does not address the Government’s failure since 2010 to competently process asylum applications which has resulted in a backlog of cases and increased costs to the taxpayer, fails to deal with the serious and organised crime groups who are profiteering from human trafficking and modern slavery, does not address the failure to replace the Dublin III regulations to return refugees to safe countries, fails to re-establish safe routes and help unaccompanied child refugees, and fails to deliver a workable agreement with France to address the issue of boat crossings.
We on these Benches will be opposing this Bill. It is a Bill that is wrong and will make the dangerous situation in the English channel worse. We on these Benches do not want to see people risking their lives making a sea crossing in some of the busiest shipping lanes in the world, often in boats that are unfit for purpose, but the measures proposed will not address that.
By judging claims on the type of journey people make, Ministers will create
“a discriminatory two-tiered approach to asylum”.
Those are not my words but the words of the United Nations Refugee Agency. That must be our starting point today. Any proposals—I will come to some in a moment—to address this profoundly serious issue must be compliant with the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees.
We should in this House remember the circumstances in which that convention was created. Drafting began in 1946, after the end of the second world war, as the full horrors perpetrated in that conflict had been brought into public view. It was a noble ideal for nations to work together to prevent such awful things from happening again. Countries came together to ensure that, across the world, we would offer a new protection to those who suffered persecution. Countries would not look the other way when there was systematic persecution in other parts of the world. We all bore a responsibility in our common humanity to help others.
The convention was signed under the post-war Labour Government in July 1951, but the document became one of the foundation stones upon which all post-war British Governments stood—a matter of pride to our country and a sign of the values we stand for around the world. It sent a clear signal that Britain was a force for good and was setting a strong moral example that gave it the authority to argue that other countries take responsibility as well. It is to this Government’s shame that they stand outside that fine British tradition. Seventy years after the 1951 convention was signed, this Government have decided to renege on its commitments. [Interruption.] I hear what the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), the Minister for immigration compliance, says, but do not take my word for it. This is what the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says about the proposals:
“The international refugee protection system, underpinned by the 1951 Convention, has withstood the test of time and it remains a collective responsibility to uphold and safeguard it. If States, like the UK, that receive a comparatively small fraction of the world’s asylum-seekers and refugees appear poised to renege on their commitments, the system is weakened globally and the role and influence of the UK would be severely impacted. UNHCR is concerned that the Plan, if implemented as it stands, will undermine the 1951 Convention and international protection system, not just in the UK, but globally.”
If the Minister doubts that, this is what the United Nations Refugee Agency had to say ahead of this Second Reading debate:
“Plans to create a new lower class of refugees are discriminatory, breach commitments in the Refugee Convention and should be dropped”.
They are breaching commitments in the refugee convention that a past British Government who truly believed in a global Britain had signed.
In fact, the UN Refugee Agency said the two-tier approach is:
“a recipe for human suffering, social problems, inefficiency and greater cost to the taxpayer.”
Frankly, it is a dangerous and ill-thought-out proposal with profound consequences.
Stuart C. McDonald
Given that there seems to be unanimity that the Bill should be interpreted in the light of the refugee convention and apparently the Government intention is to follow the refugee convention, surely there could be no possible objection to an interpretation clause in the Bill. We can all work together to put that in there to ensure that all the provisions follow refugee case law and the refugee convention as it is.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. In reality, this is a Bill based on an immigration plan that is harmful. Just listen to the story of Waheed Arian, now an NHS doctor who escaped the Taliban in Afghanistan as a child. These are his words:
“When I arrived alone in London, a bewildered 15-year-old with nothing to my name but $100 and my hopes and dreams, I had no idea I’d end up two decades later working as an NHS doctor fighting Covid-19 on the frontline in A&E. As a former child refugee from Afghanistan, under the UK government’s so-called New Plan for Immigration, it is doubtful I would be here at all.”
I repeat:
“It is doubtful I would be here at all.”
We also know the serious concerns that have been raised by campaigners across the LGBT+ community about the Bill. The way it is so badly drafted risks us turning our back on people fleeing persecution. This is particularly chilling when we know the scale of the dangers faced by so many LGBT+ people across the world, including state-sanctioned persecution. The plan is wrong and it is wrong-headed.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
If the right hon. Gentleman had listened to the Home Secretary, he would realise we are not on about Waheed. We are not on about stopping him from achieving what he wants to do. We are on about people who are coming here through safe routes, often adults using the child route, and stopping them from abusing that system. If the right hon. Gentleman had actually listened to my right hon. Friend, he would have probably picked that up.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
With the greatest respect, if the hon. Gentleman had listened to me, he would realise they were not my words I was quoting—it was Waheed Arian himself I was quoting.
The Government say that the asylum system is broken. I totally agree. And it is the Conservative Government who have broken it over the past 11 years. Under this Conservative Government, the asylum processing system has imploded. Their own incompetence, removing targets from the system and failing to run it properly, has completely undermined it.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
The right hon. Gentleman says it has imploded under the Conservative Government. I remind him that after his party had been in power for 10 years, there was a backlog of nearly 500,000 asylum cases and 120,000 of them were put in the controlled archive because they were unable to trace them.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
If the hon. Member wants to hear about statistics, try these: the share of applications that received an initial decision within six months fell from 87% in 2014 to 20% in 2019. That is the scale of the failure of this Government. At the end of March 2021, over 66,000 were waiting for an outcome on their initial claim. Seventy-five per cent. of them—over 50,000—have been waiting over six months. New research from the Refugee Council shows that, according to the most recent data available, over 33,000 people have been waiting for over a year. I have been intervened on about the last Labour Government, but that represents a tenfold increase in the past decade—tenfold. It is failure heaped upon failure, and not only that: the initial decision making is so poorly judged that around 40% of initial decisions are overturned: so four in every 10 decisions are wrong. Yes, this process is broken and, frankly, it is getting even worse.
Mrs May
I note the right hon. Gentleman has made the point about initial decisions. Does he not recognise that one of the problems has been the ability for people to bring extra evidence after that decision has been made, so that the court is often looking at a case that is different from the one on which the initial decision was made?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I will come to that point in a moment because I have deep concerns about that. The right hon. Lady passed, as has already been pointed out, the legislation on modern slavery, but it is also the case that victims often feel too traumatised to talk about their experience at an early stage, so this idea of giving such minimal weight to later evidence I find very concerning, particularly in the modern slavery context. I will come back to that in a moment because I know it is a matter of concern on the Conservative Benches as well as on these.
Mrs May
I do apologise to the right hon. Gentleman and he is very gracious in giving way, but can I just say to him that that comment about modern slavery—and he will hear that I have some concerns about the modern slavery aspects of this Bill—did not respond to the intervention that I made?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
With great respect to the right hon. Lady, she was making the point about late filing of evidence, and I was making the point in response—I will come on to it in a moment, and I am quite happy to give way to her again when I do—that the way this Bill is framed, in terms of the direction to give very little weight to late evidence, is very concerning with respect to victims who are unable to talk about their trauma at an early stage in the proceedings. I will come back to that and I will be very happy to give way to her again when I do.
On asylum accommodation, the idea of sending people to offshore processing sites is dehumanising and unconscionable. As the UN Refugee Agency puts it,
“The UK should abandon plans to ‘externalise’ its refugee commitments, which would see it shift responsibility for protecting refugees on to states with less capacity and more refugees.”
Frankly, it is an attempt to distract from Government failure on the housing of those seeking asylum.
Stephen Timms
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I agree with him about this point. Of course, Australia has undertaken offshore processing, and there are terrible stories, which shame Australia, about what has happened to some people in those places. Has he had any indication: where might these offshore places be where asylum applicants could be processed?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that. Unfortunately, I have had no such indication beyond leaks to the media, a fact which will probably not surprise him.
Last month, the High Court judgment on Napier barracks found inadequate health and safety conditions and a failure to screen victims of trafficking and other vulnerabilities. The Home Office continued to house people against the advice of Public Health England, endangering those in the accommodation, staff and the local community. It resulted in what the Court described as an “inevitable” covid outbreak in January 2021, with nearly 200 people testing positive for the virus. No wonder the independent chief inspector of borders and Her Majesty’s inspector of prisons published an emergency report that raised “serious safeguarding concerns”. On asylum accommodation, this Government have failed and failed dangerously.
The idea that this Bill helps those fleeing violence and persecution does not stand up to scrutiny. Let me take one example, because the former Prime Minister raised it a moment or two ago. The Bill says that evidence submitted late without good reason should be given only “minimal weight” by asylum judges. Asylum seekers have been required for the past 19 years to submit arguments and evidence at an early stage. Now it seems we are going to have a situation where judges are directed to have minimal regard to evidence being given late. But there are many reasons why refugees, and particularly victims of human trafficking, cannot provide evidence at an early stage, not least the fact it is difficult for survivors of trauma to talk about their experience immediately, including—and, indeed, especially—women and other survivors of sexual violence. That shows the real failure at the heart of this Bill. It fails victims of human trafficking, and it is a glaring missed opportunity to address the vile crime of people smuggling. Instead, the Government will turn their back on some of the most vulnerable people on Earth.
The Bill changes the law so that helping an asylum seeker will no longer need to be done “for gain” to attract criminal liability. That is what the Bill does, and it is a profound and dangerous change in the law. It could criminalise the Royal National Lifeboat Institution for saving people at sea, and it seems to take no account whatsoever of the international law of the sea, which requires ships’ captains to assist those who are in distress. Let us be frank about this. Had this measure been in place when Sir Nicholas Winton was rescuing hundreds of children from the holocaust on the Kindertransport, he would have risked being criminalised—[Interruption.] There is no point in Members shaking their heads, because this legislation risks bringing into the scope of the criminal law those who are helping people for humanitarian reasons.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The hon. Gentleman says that that is disgusting, but it is what is in the Bill. I suggest he takes it up with the Home Secretary. The Bill is wrong, it benefits nobody and it sends out the worst possible signal about the Government’s intentions.
Let me turn now to what the Government should be doing instead. First, we need legally binding targets for clearing asylum cases and proper resourcing for Border Force. The Government are failing, and they are not acting in the national interest. The system is hugely costly for the taxpayer, and it leaves people in the asylum system stuck in limbo, unable either to properly enter society and rebuild their lives or to be returned to a safe country. There is little wonder that performance has been so poor due to the cuts to Border Force.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. This might be me being naive, as I am quite new to the House, but is not the whole purpose of Second Reading to discuss the Bill so that we can go forward to the Committee stage where the Opposition can put forward their points, rather than voting against the whole of a Bill that would stop this broken system that they keep mentioning?
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Bill is wrong and it will not solve the problem. Let me just continue with the critique. The Government—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
No, I have already given way to the hon. Lady.
The Government should seek to rebuild the system so that it is fair. Quick, effective decision making is in the best interests of everyone, and Ministers should be legislating for legally binding targets for processing asylum cases. We need a proper plan to deliver deals with international partners to tackle gangs, because the measures outlined in the Government’s plans completely fail in their own terms. The measures are all dependent on deals with international partners, both to stop criminal gangs operating on the French coast and to replace the Dublin III regulation allowing those registered in a “safe country” before they reached the UK to be returned after a failed claim.
The existing arrangements with France on stopping gangs exploiting people and putting them into boats in the English channel are clearly not working. The Minister for immigration compliance has talked about his joint operational plan. He said that he would be completely cutting this route and that he would be working at pace “in the coming days” to make that a reality. That was 11 months ago. The Government talk about safe countries, but Ministers have not signed any of the required deals with any of the European Union countries to return those whose claims have failed. The Government have shown a complete inability to deliver these deals, which risks leaving people stranded in the UK, unable to be returned and in limbo. Yes, there should be full life tariff sentences for human traffickers and tougher sentences on modern slavery. The problem is that under these plans the Government will weaken protections for victims of modern slavery—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reads clause 48 of the Bill, because he will discover in it a higher bar for people receiving support as victims of human trafficking. That is despite the fact that recent reports show that four out of five rejected trafficking claims are overturned on appeal. These reforms risk leaving greater numbers of victims without support and more gangmasters free to commit further crimes. Human trafficking and modern slavery are vile crimes and those responsible should face the harshest penalty. Yes, there should be a full-term life sentence for those convicted for human trafficking and increased sentences for perpetrators of modern slavery, but such measures will not be effective if we withdraw support from victims.
I come to the issue of safe routes for claiming asylum and helping unaccompanied children. Following the outbreak of the Syrian civil war and the resulting refugee crisis, the Government agreed to Lord Alf Dubs’ amendment to accept unaccompanied children to the UK. The initial pledge was understood to have committed to provide support to around 3,000 unaccompanied children, but the scheme closed with the number having been capped at 480. It was wrong to close the Dubs scheme after helping just a fraction of the number of children promised help. It has meant that under this Government the UK has looked the other way when unaccompanied children have faced dire consequences, including when the Moria refugee camp was ablaze last summer.
Worse still, clause 9 introduces a new requirement for the registration of a stateless child aged five to 17 as a British citizen or a British overseas territories citizen, and maintains existing requirements in relation to those aged 18 to 22. No wonder there is concern about leaving children stateless, which would run contrary to the UK’s obligations under the 1961 UN convention on the reduction of statelessness.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
The shadow Home Secretary talks about the Dubs amendment and those 480 children. I remind the House that those children were already in safe European countries, and I remind the shadow Home Secretary that the United Kingdom currently has more unaccompanied asylum-seeking children—more than 5,000—than any other country in Europe, including Greece and Italy. Finally, on the point about providing protection to those in need in war zones, the resettlement schemes that have operated here since 2015 have seen in excess of 25,000 people being directly resettled not from Europe, which is safe, but from war zones such as Syria. That is more than any other country in Europe. This Government’s record is a proud one and we stand by it.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Well, we will see how proud their record is in a moment when we go through it. Let me just say to the shadow Minister for Immigration Compliance—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
I certainly stand corrected on that. The point is that there were local authorities that were willing to step up and help beyond that 480 and it was this Government’s absolute failure—[Interruption.] Including my local authority, yes, and I am very proud—
Nick Thomas-Symonds
Absolute utter nonsense. I have visited the Syrian refugees in Torfaen, so I hope the Minister will take that comment back because it is utter nonsense.
The Government often talk about the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme—I just heard it from the Minister—and I of course pay tribute to local government, including my own local authority of Torfaen, for stepping up to help to deliver safe havens for those fleeing persecution. Those who have come to the country under that scheme have added to the diversity and richness of our communities. The Government have gone quiet on a 2019 commitment to resettle 5,000 further refugees at the conclusion of the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, and they still refuse to make proper commitments on the future of the scheme. Existing safe routes are very limited. The Minister stood up a moment ago to speak about statistics; well, in March 2021 the new UK resettlement scheme began, and in its first month it resettled a grand total of 25 refugees. The lack of safe and legal routes will lead people to continue to attempt dangerous routes to the UK.
Nick Thomas-Symonds
The Home Secretary shakes her head, but in the 2019 report “Responding to irregular migration: A diplomatic route” the Foreign Affairs Committee warned of exactly that:
“A policy that focuses exclusively on closing borders will drive migrants to take more dangerous routes, and push them into the hands of criminal groups.”
The Home Secretary should remember that because she was a member of the Committee at the time and her name is attached to the report.
While we are debating—or at least should be debating—a plan for refugees, we should cast our minds back to last week and the failure to restore the 0.7% commitment to international aid. The Department for International Development was tasked with delivering help to countries to tackle poverty and the drivers of people becoming displaced from their homes in the first place. The abolition of that Department was wrong and short-sighted. The work that was going on around the world to tackle the refugee crisis has been starved of funds, with programmes suddenly cut off. Our reputation around the world as a force for good has been damaged. The Government should restore the Department for International Development and restore spending to 0.7%.
The Bill is as wrong as it is ineffective. It will not tackle people smugglers, and it will not protect victims of human trafficking. It is, in reality, a continuation of this Government’s culture war. It is a culture war that led them to side with those booing the England men’s football team for taking the knee. Instead of supporting that brave stance against racism, the players were dismissed as taking part in “gesture politics” by the Home Secretary, and were told to stay out of politics altogether by other Conservative MPs. Last week, the Government refused to live up to their promises on international aid, and they ran away from their own failure to stand with football players against racism. This week, they promote more division with this Bill. As ever, they talk tough, but deliver nothing.
As it stands, the Bill is a charter for human trafficking. It is a missed opportunity that represents the worst of all worlds, lets evil criminals off the hook, and fails those who have been exploited. The cruel irony of this Government’s approach is that they are weak on taking action against criminal gangs, and brutal when it comes to orphan children from war zones. I ask all Members of the House to reject the Bill in the vote tomorrow.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
To reiterate, I am sorry but we have to start with a time limit of four minutes, simply because so many Members wish to participate in the debate. I call Mrs Theresa May.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will try to get in as many points as I can in those four minutes. I thank the Home Secretary for holding prior discussions with me on the Bill and the Government’s approach. The Government are right to try to find a better way to differentiate between economic migrants and refugees. This is an international challenge: as I said to the United Nations in 2016, we need to revise international conventions on this issue, so that we can more clearly focus our help on those who are refugees. As we saw in 2015 with the significant movement of people into the European continent, many of whom were trying to get through to the UK, they were widely portrayed as all being refugees, but in fact the majority of them were economic migrants. We must find a way to differentiate between them.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the most compassionate thing we can do to help these people, is stop them getting in the boat in the first place?
Mrs May
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the work being done—I shall refer to this later—to increase the economic development of the countries that people are coming from, and to deal with the criminal gangs, is so important.
I have set out three principles, which I am pleased to say underpin the Bill. First, we must help to ensure that refugees claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. The current trend, where refugees reach a safe country and then press on with their journey, can only benefit criminal gangs and expose refugees to grave danger. The refugee convention does not state that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country they come to. We were able to exercise that rule in the Dublin regulation as part of the European Union. Obviously that is not applicable to us now, and indeed the EU has since changed the Dublin regulation.
Secondly, we need to improve how we distinguish between refugees fleeing persecution and economic migrants, which will help to target support on those refugees who need it most, as well as encouraging people to support such a measure if they see that the people who are coming are genuinely refugees. Thirdly, we need a better approach to managing economic migration, which recognises that all countries have the right to control their borders. We must all commit to accepting the return of our own nationals when they have no right to remain elsewhere.
Sadly, as the Home Secretary said, the business of people trafficking has increased in recent years. To the criminal gangs, it does not matter whether they deal in drugs, weapons or desperate people—it is all the same; they want to make money. Breaking their business model is essential. That means stopping the routes available to them, but it also means catching and prosecuting them. That requires international co-operation. We have been very strong on international co-operation, and we must encourage more countries around the world to see this as an issue on which they should be working with us, and others.
I recognise that the Bill focuses on differentiating between those who came here legally and illegally, and I understand why the Government have gone down that route, but that in itself does not address the issue of better differentiating between refugees and economic migrants. I hope that the Government will give some thought to how they can work internationally to try to deal with that.
The concept that Britain could process asylum claims outside the UK came up when I was Home Secretary, and there was a lot of discussion on it in the European Union, but we did not go down that route because of practical concerns. It would not automatically remove the criminal gangs’ business model, because they would get people to the centre and still take those rejected by the centre and move them on across the Mediterranean, so there could be an increase in people being picked up and taken into slavery. There is also the problem of what we do with those people who are rejected for asylum but cannot be returned to their country of origin. The concept of allowing asylum to be granted outside the UK is also a major step, and it would have ramifications for any Royal Navy or Border Force vessel operating humanitarian missions in the Mediterranean, for example.
On seeking protection but entering illegally without a valid entry clearance becoming a new criminal offence, we must not send the message that somebody genuinely fleeing persecution whose only route out of that persecution is to the UK will automatically be seen as a criminal. I also echo the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).
Yvette Cooper
Does the right hon. Lady agree that part of the concern is about ensuring that the modern slavery provisions do not end up being drawn too tightly?
Mrs May
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her intervention, because I am coming on to that point. I am sure that across the House we are sickened to know that some are abusing our world-leading modern slavery legislation in trafficking people into this country. We need to deal with the problem, but I have two concerns with the Bill. The first is about timing and the issue that the Secretary of State can require information to be provided within a specified period. It takes time for many victims of modern slavery to identify as a victim, let alone be able to put forward the evidence to establish that. I would like reassurance about how that power will be exercised.
Secondly, I would like an explanation about the change from needing reasonable grounds that a person may be a victim of modern slavery to reasonable grounds that a person is a victim of modern slavery. I know we need to toughen up to ensure that the law is not being abused, but again this relates to the degree of information that an individual may be able to provide at an early stage in consideration of their case.
I understand the complexity of the issues with which the Government are dealing in this area of policy. There always seems to be a need for a new immigration Bill because people are always trying to find loopholes that they can use to get here, so we must have legislation that not only strengthens the Government’s ability to deal with illegal immigration but continues to show that the UK is a country that welcomes those who are genuinely fleeing from persecution.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I am afraid that I regard this as a dreadful Bill, and the Refugee Council was absolutely right to characterise it as the “anti-refugee” Bill. There are eight welcome clauses on nationality, but thereafter what we see risks trampling international convention after international convention, and vulnerable children, stateless children and victims of trafficking will all pay a penalty. Nowhere is the retreat from international law, international co-operation and basic human decency more apparent than in the absolute trashing of the refugee convention as it approaches its 70th birthday. A convention that has saved and protected countless millions of people is being undermined by one of its first champion countries.
Refugees and asylum seekers—we have skirted over this so far—will be criminalised, stripped of their rights and offshored. That is true whether they are Uyghurs fleeing atrocities in China, Syrians fleeing war crimes or persecuted Christians seeking refuge here. The Bill does absolutely nothing to stop them getting in boats in France; what it does is punish them when they get here. That is morally reprehensible.
It is not just the Bill’s awful ends that justifies the Scottish National party refusing it a Second Reading and stopping it in its tracks but the means by which it seeks to pursue those ends. We are talking about a unilateral rewriting or reinterpretation of our obligations under international law. That is, once more, a hugely dangerous precedent to set. It will make our international partners query whether this country gives two hoots about international law and keeping its word.
Secondly, to put it directly, what we have here is a deliberate policy decision to inflict harm on people seeking sanctuary by criminalising them, splitting them from their family, forcing them into destitution, putting them in legal limbo and offshoring them. That is not just ineffective and dangerous, but morally outrageous.
Not only is the Bill the opposite of the right solution, but it wrongly identifies the problem that needs solving. The problem in the asylum system is simply down to the incompetent management of it by this Home Office and this Government. We live in a world in which 80 million people have been forcibly displaced, and 30 million of them are outside their country of origin and are therefore refugees. Four million of them are asylum seekers pursuing recognition as refugees. Some 86% of them are hosted in developing countries, 73% in neighbouring countries.
What we are asking of wealthy western countries barely scratches the surface of their share of responsibility. In European terms, what has been asked of the UK is very little at all. I applaud and support everything that has been achieved through the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and other resettlement programmes, but none of it justifies what the Government propose today.
The Government regularly trot out that they have resettled more Syrian refugees than other European countries. In absolute terms that is true but, per head of population, neighbours such as Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Finland and Ireland have all resettled more. Yes, although the UK resettled a few thousand more Syrians than Germany and France, those two countries have offered sanctuary to more Syrians through their asylum systems by massive margins.
In 2019, the UK received around five applications for asylum per 10,000 people, compared with the European average of 14, putting the UK 17th in the table of member states, just behind Italy, Finland and Ireland. Similarly, the UK granted roughly two applications per 10,000 people, compared with the European average of 13, putting it 16th in the table. Yes, although by international standards the UK has a decent history of offering protection, let us not pretend that it has been bearing an unbearable burden that entitles it to rip up the refugee convention and start trying to pass refugees back up the chain to those that already do much more.
The real problem, as we have heard, is that the Home Office’s handling of asylum cases is abysmal. We have heard the extraordinary figures on how long it is taking, and it is not just the length of time it takes to make a decision but the number of decisions that it gets wrong. We are at record levels of successful appeals—it is almost 50:50.
It is not just statistics that cause grave concern but the regular stories of life inside the Home Office: impossible targets, a culture of fear, ill-treatment of staff, high staff turnover, a shortage of skilled asylum caseworkers and administrative chaos. Asylum decision making is a matter of life and death, and it seems clear to me that it should no longer be entrusted to the Home Office, a Department that has again shown itself to be unfit for that purpose. Such decisions should be removed from political interference and entrusted to an independent body, as they are in Canada. That would be a sensible approach.
Stuart C. McDonald
Absolutely, as there is in Canada.
Members from all parties in this House, sitting on the Front Benches and the Back Benches, regularly speak up for some of the most oppressed people on the planet. We have seen brave interventions on Uyghurs fleeing atrocities in China. The plight of Syrians fleeing a decade-long conflict has been championed, and Christians around the world, including Christian converts, have numerous ambassadors in this Chamber, but we have hardly come to terms with what this Bill means for them.
This Bill prompts a question: why speak up against persecution abroad only to say, when they come knocking at our door seeking shelter, “You are not our responsibility. Go somewhere else”? France seems to be the popular answer among Conservative Members. What if France and the rest of Europe say the same thing? We would end up with the system of international protection of refugees breaking down, as the UNHCR points out.
If the Bill passes, that is exactly what it means. Prior to the Bill, we would have sheltered people fleeing persecution. The Bill expressly seeks to discourage them from coming here by making life miserable for those who do. Today, if a Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian convert arrives in the UK to seek asylum, life will be far from plain sailing, precisely because of the outrageous waiting times, the dreadful asylum accommodation, the prohibition on work and the dreadful levels of financial support. They get here and, thanks to our amazing non-governmental organisations and charities, they slowly start to rebuild their lives.
But next year, if this Bill passes, for many of those Uyghurs, Syrians or persecuted Christian converts claiming asylum here, things will be infinitely bleaker, and that will be a deliberate policy choice of this Parliament. Arriving next year, the Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian will be much more likely to be criminalised, regardless of arguments about whether they had come here directly or not.
Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 already punishes illegal entry by those without leave to enter. Sensibly, however, those who claim asylum on arrival are granted immigration bail, which does not count officially as entry. Clause 37 of the Bill changes all that. It would essentially criminalise the very act of arriving to claim asylum, because, as the explanatory notes acknowledge, the majority of asylum seekers will not have the ability to secure entry clearance. Despite the Home Secretary’s protestations last week, as the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, this criminal offence will apply to Uyghurs, Syrians, persecuted Christian converts and anybody else, and the penalty is up to four years in prison.
The next problem for the Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian convert is that although they are absolutely obviously in need of international protection, this Government, in their wisdom, are not even going to consider their claim for protection for six months. The Government are trying to pretend that that is some sort of replication of the Dublin regulations that the UK was party to prior to Brexit, but of course it is not, because, as we have heard, there are no returns agreements with any remotely relevant country and little indication at this stage that there will be any time soon. Any such returns agreement would have to be carefully circumscribed so as to be consistent with the convention and to have carefully considered the circumstances of the individual, including any ties to the UK, such as family members here.
By contrast, the powers in the Bill will allow the Home Secretary to remove a Uyghur, persecuted Christian or Syrian to any country at all, even if there is no connection, and with very little by way of restriction. Today, the Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian faces outrageous delays in asylum protection systems, and the Bill simply adds another six months.
Where will the Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian be during that time—during that limbo—while the Home Office goes through the futile motions of seeking to remove them? Just now, for those who seek asylum we have a struggling, privatised, over-concentrated system of dispersed asylum accommodation. Numerous Committees have told the Home Office how it could be improved, only to be ignored. Under this Bill and this plan, that is not where the Home Secretary envisages the Syrian, the Uyghur or the persecuted Christian going. Instead, the grim future for these refugees appears under this Bill and this plan to be the disgraceful, disreputable open prison-like conditions that we have already witnessed at Napier or Penally.
Even worse, as we have heard, they may face being removed to an offshore centre to have their claim resolved. Here is the real asylum shopping: the British Government grubbing around to find a country to palm off their responsibilities on to. Let us think of the outrages and the lack of accountability we have seen in relation to immigration detention and the Napier open prison—the abuses that have been meted out there and the harm done. As we know from the Australian experiment, that will be as nothing compared to the hell that is likely to await at an offshore asylum facility. How on earth have we gone from having a Parliament where there was widespread support for time-limiting and restricting the use of detention, to imposing a form of it that is infinitely worse?
Having endured their limbo period, these three groups of refugees will finally have their case assessed by the Home Office. But instead of working to improve asylum decision making, the Bill seeks to make it harder for them to prove their case. It seeks to alter the long-established test set out in the refugee convention that the standard of proof required is a lower, but far from negligible, standard of real risk. That standard is clearly justified by the possible consequences of getting decisions wrong and the huge challenges of proving circumstances that happened thousands of miles away in a country the person has fled.
The Bill seeks to muddy the waters by applying a higher legal threshold. The claimant now has to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that they do belong to one of the protected convention groups and that they fear persecution based on that characteristic. That not only undermines the cautious approach in the convention, justified by the dangers that exist for asylum seekers, but pays no regard to just how difficult it is to prove events that happened in faraway countries.
In addition, by having two different standards of evidence in the same proceedings, it makes life harder for already struggling caseworkers. The judge or decision maker may be certain that the proselytising Christian convert will face the death penalty or torture on return, but now the “real possibility” that the claimant is such a proselytising Christian convert is not enough. If the judge is only 49% satisfied that the person is a proselytising Christian convert, the claim is going to be rejected, even though the risk of torture or death is absolutely certain if the decision maker has got that assessment wrong. I find that deeply troubling, and it is clearly inconsistent with the refugee convention.
Let us imagine that the persecuted Christian, the Syrian and the Uyghur have survived their limbo period and made it through the asylum system, and the Home Office refusal of their application has been overturned on appeal. Unbelievably, the harms inflicted on them by the Bill have barely started. On the contrary, the repugnant programme of disincentives is ramped up further, even after they navigate that system. Because they have stopped temporarily in a European country, they are to be treated as a second-class refugee. Regardless of what any Minister says, that is absolutely contrary to the refugee convention and, more importantly, it is simply disgraceful. It is not just nasty, but sickening—
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree that on many occasions, particularly for those seeking asylum on the basis of their sexuality, those in the LGBT+ community are the most likely to be adversely impacted by this new legislation? Does he agree that more should be done to protect them and ensure that they can come here as a safe haven?
Stuart C. McDonald
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There are all sorts of problems with provisions in the Bill that penalise late disclosure of information, which can very often be the case in modern slavery or LGBT cases, or even religious conversion cases.
Having established that these people are refugees—and the Government have had to recognise that—the system should allow them to rebuild their lives after the trauma of their persecution, their journeys and their asylum claim, but instead this Government still want to turn the screw. Instead of the stability and permanent residence refugees were once provided with, today they are given five years’ leave, with a review that is fairly light-touch, before settlement. But this Bill and the Government’s plan propose endless 30-month cycles of review and ongoing attempts to remove. Nobody can rebuild their lives in those circumstances—and I do not know how on earth the Home Office is going to cope with having to revisit every single asylum case every 30 months.
These refugees will not be entitled to public funds unless they are destitute. So if, say, the Christian convert finds some part-time, low-paid work—a big ask, given the language and cultural barriers, the enforced years out of work, and the trauma—there will be no universal credit to cover housing or income shortfalls, and if he or she was able to bring a child, there will be no support for that child. Their refugee family reunion rights will be diminished, according to the plan, meaning that they cannot be joined by a spouse or perhaps a child. The detail is not in the Bill, but that is what the plan suggests and the Bill enables.
That inevitably gives the Christian convert a choice: does the family stay apart or do other family members—often the women and children that the Home Secretary professes to be protecting—then have to follow and make their own dangerous journeys? Without the family, without state support and without stability, the Uyghur, the Syrian and the persecuted Christian convert have no hope of rebuilding their lives. That amounts not to a place of sanctuary, but to a place of punishment—and the Home Office has the audacity to claim that it is in their best interests. This is, in short, an outrageous way to treat refugees, and it is why the Bill is rightly being called the anti-refugee Bill.
There is so much that could be said about the undermining of efforts to support trafficking victims, the total absence from the Bill of protection for children, and the undermining of rights of stateless children. We need to know what the placeholder clauses will give rise to. We do not even have the chance to debate them here on Second Reading, and there are six or seven of them. The whole of the dentistry profession is up in arms at the suggestion that the discredited and unethical dental X-rays system could return as an inaccurate method of assessing age.
Stuart C. McDonald
Well, the dentistry profession and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees say that it is not accurate and it is entirely unethical.
The Home Secretary is also making it harder to identify victims of modern slavery and cutting their recovery period to the minimum allowed in international law.
There is so much that should be in the Bill that is not. I mention just one thing: the failure to end the disgracefully painful 10-year route to settlement that many essentially British kids face and the outrageous fees that others are charged for registering their entitlement to British citizenship. When will that finally be done? This is an abysmal and, indeed, shameful Bill. It does not remotely deserve a Second Reading.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con) [V]
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and the support that I have received—a research capacity in my office, relating to my work on asylum seekers, refugees and migrants—from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project.
When discussing immigration, asylum and our borders, there is a real problem with language and tone. I tried for 18 months to get that tone right, not always successfully, I will admit—although, having listened to the shadow Home Secretary, there was apparently much that I did not do successfully. But I always remembered that behind every visa application, every asylum claim and every journey to the shores of the UK there is a personal story—an individual. Meeting people in detention centres—Syrian refugees who came here fleeing war or young people trying to regularise their status in order to complete their education—was both the toughest and the most rewarding part of the job.
I welcome my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s reiterated commitment to a firm but fair immigration system. There can be no question but that the issue of small boats making perilous crossings of the busiest shipping lane in the world is a challenging one. I have many constituents who are concerned about the crossings. In her opening remarks, my right hon. Friend reminded us all that this is a trade in human misery. She is right in her determination to crack down on that evil trade, but we need to find practical and sustainable ways to do so.
My right hon. Friend will know as well as I do that once a craft has taken to the waters of the English channel, it is not only difficult to stop but potentially puts lives at risk, not only of asylum seekers but of our Border Force personnel. Small boat crossings are not a problem that will be solved on the water. She highlighted the use of guns and violence. That of course could be turned on our own Border Force mid-channel. I worry for their safety if attempts are made to turn boats around on the water.
I want to focus on the issue of support for those who seek to use safe and legal routes to claim asylum here. Britain has a proud history of providing a safe haven for those fleeing persecution. In particular, I draw attention to the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, as highlighted earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). She has spoken about it already, but it deliberately selected the most vulnerable, the most in need, and the Home Secretary is right to look at making its successor programme less geographically specific. However, we have an important responsibility to resettle adequate numbers. That will be challenging to meet.
We have to be fair to those seeking asylum and fair to the taxpayer. I was pleased to hear the borders Minister say in a Westminster Hall debate recently that there is to be a dramatic uplift in the number of those employed by the Home Office to process asylum claims. That is good news, in particular given the scale of the current backlog, but it is essential for the system to be relatively rapid, and I worry about building in a six-month delay at the start of the process for those who might have travelled through a safe third country. Currently, there is no mechanism to return them, and it will be extremely challenging to find appropriate accommodation for those individuals.
There is of course discussion of reception centres, but the proposals to establish those are not yet clear. We do not know if that will involve the housing in those communities of women and children. I gently direct the attention of Ministers to their responsibility under the Children Act 1989. It is crucial that when we do this, we get it right, and that we treat people humanely. It is obvious that local authorities such as Kent, Croydon and Glasgow are already under extreme stretch. I am worried that the new plan for immigration might place further burdens on them. These are long-standing problems and, therefore, sustainable solutions are needed. I know that being pragmatic is not necessarily everyone’s cup of tea, but it is essential.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
I am grateful to be able to follow the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who has worked hard on this issue.
There should be widespread agreement that the UK should do its bit to support those fleeing persecution and torture, that the system should be fair and not be undermined, that there should be a crackdown on the criminal gangs who exploit people’s misery and desperation, and that we should prevent the dangerous journeys across the channel in unsafe boats in which lives are put at risk. That includes encouraging asylum much earlier. In this House, we have debated many different ways to tackle those problems in a calm and common-sense way that avoids stoking division or promoting hostility against those who are most vulnerable, because we know where that leads. However, that is one of the things that troubles me about the debate and the approach Ministers are taking.
I also think that the Bill is counterproductive. It is likely to attract more people into the UK asylum system and drive more people into the arms of criminal gangs. The caseload, the backlog, is not a reflection of an increase in applications. In fact, those have stayed at about 30,000 a year—with a drop recently, during the pandemic—but the number of initial decisions made dropped 27% between 2015 and before the pandemic.
The Bill will make that worse, because there is no serious return agreement to replace the Dublin agreement for people who have travelled through a third country. Under the provisions of the Bill, asylum seekers who have travelled through third countries will have to wait in the system for six months. Those whose claims are unfounded will not be assessed or be returned, and those whose claims are justified and who need support will not be able to get on with their lives, to start working and rebuilding their lives here. Moreover, instead they will be waiting, dependent on the support of the Home Office, dependent on making the system more costly for the taxpayer.
Rightly, the Government say that we should prevent dangerous routes, but the Government have cut the alternative safe legal routes. The resettlement scheme has been halted, with no commitment for how many people will be supported.
Yvette Cooper
I will give way to the Minister if he wants to tell me how many places will be included in the resettlement scheme when it restarts.
Chris Philp
It never stopped. When we met the 20,000 commitment in February this year, the UK resettlement scheme continued. Obviously making a precise numerical commitment is difficult, given the coronavirus circumstances, but it has never stopped; it continues to this day.
Yvette Cooper
Everybody understands the pressures of the coronavirus crisis, but what we need is a commitment to the number of places. The UK has been resettling approximately 5,000 a year over the past few years as a result of cross-party consensus to support Syrian refugees, but we have not yet heard a commitment. Will it be 5,000? Will it be 10,000? What will the support be from the Government to ensure that the resettlement scheme continues?
The Dubs scheme has been cancelled, even though we know the need for support for those who are most vulnerable, and the Dublin family reunion system has not been replaced. Safe Passage, which works with young people in need of family reunion, said that last year, under the Dublin scheme, all the young people it worked with on family reunion went through the legal system; they did not try to go with people traffickers or people smugglers through a dangerous route. This year, however, under the new system, a quarter of the children and young people it has worked with had given up in frustration, sought to try illegal routes and ended up in the hands of people smugglers or people traffickers as a result. Those are the dangers that we face: if there are not safe legal routes for family reunion, we end up with more people driven into the hands of dangerous criminal gangs.
Clause 26, on offshore processing, is perhaps most troubling of all. The Government floated a range of impossible proposals: sending asylum seekers to be processed on Ascension Island or disused oil platforms or, most recently, sending them to Rwanda. Of course those proposals are impossible, but it is deeply troubling that the Minister even thinks that it is okay for them to be floated and for him not to deny them. We heard from Australia about how its offshore processing simply did not work in the end. It stopped doing it in 2014 because there were too many humanitarian and practical problems and it was costing approximately 1 billion Australian dollars a year to accommodate just 350 people.
This is not an answer. It is deeply shameful and undermines our international reputation. We need France, Spain, Italy, Greece and countries across the world to work together, but for that we need to show proper international leadership and not undermine our reputation.
Sir Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)
When this country voted to take back control, clearly it had immigration in mind. As we all know—many of us deal with a lot of casework on it—this is an extremely complex and difficult area. Over the years, I have always felt that the Home Office has never got on top of the correspondence; sometimes these things go on for years and years. If, when the Bill is passed, we have a more efficient system for dealing with cases more quickly, I think we will all welcome it.
When we took back control, it seemed to me that it was about us determining our priorities as a country. That may mean turning the tap off in times of high unemployment and turning it on in times of high growth. At the moment, it looks as if we will probably have a labour shortage and may well need people with skills in certain areas to come in and keep a fast-recovering British economy going.
My constituents get very upset, however, when they watch television and see reports of people arriving on boats—something like 8,000. They think, “Can’t the Government do more?” We all know the problems of trying to deal with small boats in the channel. We have tried to co-operate with the French, who I understand are doing their best to stop the trade, but when people are arriving illegally daily and then, when we finally put them on a plane back to the country whence they arrived, human rights lawyers get involved, clearly we have a system that is not functional and is going to drive some of our constituents nuts.
In so far as the Bill gives us a vehicle for starting to deal with that, I think it can be welcomed. Whether the whole balance is right, I do not know, but as it goes through Committee there will be opportunities to improve it. It is vital that the Government try to break up the criminal gangs and stop this trade, which is dangerous and profitable to some.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) is absolutely right that most people who are economic migrants come through two, three or four safe countries; maybe France is such a terrible place that the Government, tax rates and sunshine that we have in the United Kingdom and the English language are a great draw. The reality is that, as a responsible neighbour to some of the EU states, we have to take some of the refugees that the Italians, Greeks and Spanish get because of their proximity to north Africa and the middle east, and it would perhaps be better to do that in a planned and organised way than to allow illegal crossings of the channel. This is a complex area. I welcome the fact that the Government have introduced this Bill. One of the first Bills on which I did an all-night Committee sitting was the Immigration Bill introduced by the Blair Government in 1998. This really is a little bit like putting fingers in the dam to try to stop changes as they occur over a period of time. It is a constant battle that both the Labour party and the Conservative party have always wrestled with, and, as we have signed up to various human rights legislation, it has become even more complex.
I welcome the Bill and I welcome the opportunity to try to deal with this very important issue. My constituents will want to see the end of the rubber boats turning up in Sussex and Kent and perhaps a more streamlined and efficient system for dealing with these very important and complex problems. Nobody in the world has all the answers, but I am sure that this Government are trying their best to get to where they want to be, which is to produce a fair and equitable system.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab) [V]
This Bill on such an important issue to my constituents and to the country is sadly a flawed piece of legislation that will undermine our humanitarian obligations and foster a punitive environment for asylum seekers and refugees, some of the world’s most vulnerable people. Moreover, as we heard from the Home Secretary when she opened the debate, it perpetuates the myth that the UK is overwhelmed by asylum seekers and refugees to fit the Government’s political agenda. It is strong on populist rhetoric and headline-catching gimmicks, but weak on delivery.
The reality and the facts tell a very different story. In total, the UK receives a much lower number of asylum applications than other comparable countries in Europe. In 2020, the UK received 29,456 asylum applications, whereas France received more than 95,000 claims. This Bill is being brought forward because the Government have broken our asylum and refugee system through chronic underfunding and mismanagement over the 11 years that they have been in charge. It is a fact that, in March 2021, there were more than 66,000 people—the highest number in a decade—waiting for an initial decision from the Home Office. It is also a fact that the number of people waiting for over a year has increased tenfold since 2010, from 3,588 to 33,016 in 2020. Unfortunately, the proposals in the Bill will just increase the delays and the backlog.
Clause 37, which proposes to judge an asylum seeker’s claim based on the journey they have made, breaches article 31 of the refugee convention and will make journeys even more dangerous; it will push refugees further into the control of trafficking gangs. As a member of the Home Affairs Committee, I am particularly worried about the lack of safe and legal routes for immigration, particularly in the case of family reunion. For example, let us look at the widely acclaimed Dubs scheme, which has helped just 480 unaccompanied children when the expectation was that it could help up to 3,000. The Government have claimed that local authorities will not take more children, but I doubt that. In Hull, we have always stepped up. We are a city of sanctuary, proud of welcoming some of the world’s most vulnerable people. We have played our part in the Gateway programme since 2006 and the Syrian refugee resettlement programme. However, our pride in this is matched by concern that other local authorities are not doing their fair share. Hull has seen massive cuts to its budget throughout the years of austerity, far more than Tory councils that take no or very few asylum seekers and refugees. The distribution of asylum seekers must be fairer and manageable.
The current system means that this Conservative Government, often at very short notice, with no consultation, can unilaterally increase numbers in a council area with little regard to local resources, the suitability of accommodation or the pressures of the pandemic. While some councils are simply allowed to opt out, other councils that engage in a spirit of civic responsibility get treated shabbily by Ministers, which is both wrong and unfair.
Finally, I turn to the issue of trafficking. I am particularly concerned about criminals who traffic women for prostitution. Evidence obtained by the all-party group on prostitution and the global sex trade revealed that the UK sex trade is dominated by serious organised crime, exploiting predominantly non-UK national women and trafficking them around networks of so-called pop-up brothels and hotel rooms to be raped time and time again. Evidence suggests that Romanian women are heavily represented in brothels across Britain. The suffering inflicted on the minds and bodies of these women can scarcely be imagined. Perpetrators face low risks for high profits and this Bill will not bust the business model, as the Home Secretary claims, nor will it support the women who have been trafficked.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I rise to speak in broad support of the Bill, which offers a comprehensive reform of an asylum system that is broken and dysfunctional in part.
It is clear that a system is needed that is fair to those in genuine need but firmly against those who break the rules and the criminal gangs who seek to exploit some of the world’s most vulnerable and desperate people. Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not the ability to pay for people smugglers. All too often, it is they who gain, not the individuals who are being trafficked.
My constituents have been rightly enraged by the images of abandoned boats on the south coast and they have not been backwards in making their demands for change. They do not want to pull up the drawbridge, but they expect that we should have a system that cares for those in need and which exercises genuine control over who enters the country and in what circumstance. Mine is a community of strong ties, which has welcomed families from afar with open arms, but it also a community that, frankly, has been shocked to find it would appear that we do not have control over who enters and leaves our country, so I applaud my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary’s determination to improve the UK’s position.
Imagine, for a moment, the lived experience of some of the people arriving on the UK’s shores by boat—a boat not fit for purpose and overpacked with families with a bursting need to leave their homes. Such people sold most of what they owned to pay for a journey that is likely to be illegal from beginning to end and have paid what money they have gathered to criminals who care not a jot for their safety or whether they make their end destination. These are people who are drip-fed stories of a land of milk and honey on these shores by gangs who want to extort as much money as possible from them by making the journey longer, by encouraging them to travel through safe countries to the UK. The gangs do not care about their charges; they care about their wallets. This is a system that must be reformed and the most valuable tool to do that is to bear down on those who enable it: the vile criminal gangs at its heart.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s determination on that aspect of the Bill in particular, but I would also welcome the Government giving some consideration to strengthening an area linked to that—that is, joining up the powers that they might employ to gather information from across different silos, such as law enforcement, the private sector and the public sector. We know that these gangs are linked to lots of different types of criminal activity, whether it is money laundering, human slavery or even common scams, so we need to break down those silos to work more effectively and tackle them.
I also welcome that the Government have been clear that we stand by our moral and legal obligations to help innocent people fleeing cruelty around the world. This is rightly the cornerstone of our immigration policy. Continuing the resettlement of genuine refugees, family reunion and improving the reception processing system are welcome measures.
I would also argue that there is another side to this that needs watching: if we choose not to reform the system now, we risk stoking up outrage and fear on our shores. I have already seen in my constituency some of the effects of this. We have had hateful right-wing propaganda distributed on the streets using some of the imagery from the south coast. Our cenotaph in Barrow was recently defaced, and we have had a few—very few, thankfully—isolated incidents of racism on our streets. The people responsible are the exception and the fringe, but we must be in no doubt that by tackling this issue fairly, we remove some of the tinder that could light a dangerous fire at home.
I broadly welcome the measures in the Bill. It is beyond time to reform our broken asylum system and replace it with one that is fair and offers a hand up for those in genuine need and targets those who seek to exploit some of the most vulnerable in the world.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab) [V]
Let me start by saying that I categorically reject this Bill and its proposers. The UK has a long and proud history of welcoming those fleeing war and persecution and providing sanctuary to some of the most vulnerable people in the world. The Bill would end that forever. It would not just turn away people seeking safety in the UK, but would treat them as criminals.
The most damning assessment of the Bill has come from the UN Refugee Agency itself. The UNHCR has warned that the Government’s proposals could cause great suffering, and could undermine the 1951 refugee convention and the international protection system. The Government are fond of talking about the broken asylum system, but they fail to acknowledge that it is they who have broken it with a decade of mismanagement. Delays in the system have reached disgraceful levels. The Refugee Council recently reported that the number of asylum seekers who had waited more than a year for an initial decision had increased tenfold since the Conservatives had come to power. Even when the decisions are made, the number overturned on appeal has consistently risen over the past decade. The Bill does not tackle that. It will increase delays, it will add to the backlog of asylum claims, and it does nothing to address the culture of disbelief in the Home Office.
The Government are keen to emphasise their commitment to safe and legal routes for vulnerable children and adults to reach sanctuary in the UK, but there are no such commitments in the Bill. We urgently need a renewed effort on refugee resettlement and family reunion. Detention Action recently summarised the position, saying that
“while the Bill fails to deal with the real problems that exist in the system, it pretends that the problems lie elsewhere and proposes a host of regressive, authoritarian & discriminatory policies that will cause deep harm to our society.”
While abdicating their responsibility to provide sanctuary for the world’s most vulnerable, the Government are simultaneously cutting international aid, which will inevitably drive up the number of refugees. The combination of those two actions will have a devastating impact on vulnerable people and refugees around the world.
Let me end my speech by reminding the Government that this legislation was an opportunity to overhaul our asylum system, and to embed fairness and compassion in the Home Office. Instead, the Government have chosen to pursue a deeply hostile and unpleasant attack on those who flee conflict and persecution and have sought a safe home in our country. I for one will never be able to support that, and I hope that my colleagues on both sides of the House will stand up against this dangerous and malicious legislation.
Ruth Edwards (Rushcliffe) (Con)
The United Kingdom has always been a generous, open and welcoming country. We help some of the most vulnerable people in the world to settle and make their lives here. We welcome migrants, refugees and asylum seekers from around the world, and we will continue to do so: nothing in the Bill will change that.
People who enter the country legally will continue to be able to claim asylum here. We will continue to prioritise helping the most vulnerable: the elderly, children, and the poorest—those who are unable to travel hundreds of miles or to pay people smugglers, like the 25,000 people who have come here through our resettlement programme in the last six years. We have resettled more people through that programme than any other country in Europe.
People in genuine need deserve an asylum system that functions properly, supports them through the process, and makes a decision quickly. Perpetuating the current system is not fair to them. Nor do we want to continue with the system that is being exploited by people smugglers who callously treat human beings as if they were cargo, and sometimes not even as well as that. The Bill will introduce life sentences for those found guilty of people smuggling. It will give Border Force additional powers to search, seize and divert vessels carrying people illegally, and it will provide an incentive for people to use safe and legal routes to claim asylum in the UK. This combination of measures will disrupt and undermine the business model of people smugglers.
It is important that we are able to keep all our citizens, our constituents, safe. There are currently 10,000 foreign national offenders outside prison in this country whom we need to deport. Some are guilty of the most hideous crimes. They have no right to be here, but time after time Labour Members have come here to Parliament to plead for their rights. I am more interested in the rights of their victims. That is why I support the measures in the Bill that will end repeated, last-minute and vexatious legal challenges to deportation, expand the early removal scheme for removing foreign offenders from the UK as early as possible, and increase the sentence for breaching a deportation order from six months to five years.
This Bill will deliver an asylum system that continues to prioritise the most vulnerable, immediate indefinite leave to remain for refugees who are resettled through safe and legal routes, tougher sentences for people smugglers, and tougher sentences for foreign national offenders who try to come back to our country when they have no right to do so. That is what I am voting for. My question to Opposition Members is: will they?
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind) [V]
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate.
History is going to judge our Parliament and our Government harshly for introducing this piece of legislation at a time when there are unprecedented numbers of refugees around the world—the total figure globally is about 80 million. They are fleeing from war, poverty, injustice, human rights abuses and environmental disasters, and they are living in refugee camps in enormous numbers —in Bangladesh, where there are 1 million Rohingya people, and in Jordan, Lebanon and other countries across the middle east, including Libya. Those conditions are created by unfair trade and the arms that we sell, which bring about the wars that bring about the refugee flows. The number of refugees is likely to rise.
At a time when country after country is closing its borders to refugees, who are stuck for decades in refugee camps, our Government are joining the throng who stand against refugees, rather than for them. Instead of patting ourselves on the back for our historical good work in supporting refugees from some countries, we should recognise what is happening at the present time.
I took the opportunity to visit the refugee camp in Calais in 2015, for which the then Prime Minister, David Cameron, described me as preferring to spend a weekend hanging round with a “bunch of migrants”. I found poor and desperate people who had walked all across Europe to try to get to a place of safety. They were frightened of gangs in the camps, the police and fascist gangs, and they wanted to get to this country, where they hoped they would be better treated.
Under this piece of legislation, the Government will make the task of anyone trying to into Britain much more difficult. The Bill will also create two tiers of asylum seekers: those who come through a moderately legitimate route by arriving in a port of entry and applying, and those who come out of desperation on leaking dinghies.
So what are we doing? Are we looking after the refugees or accusing them of wrongdoing for trying to get to a place of safety, and then condemning those who try to save them so that seafarers around the world who pluck refugees from the sea will be accused of illegally abetting migration to this country? It is a terrible situation. Ten days ago, a Royal National Lifeboat Institution lifeboat took a group of people on a dinghy into a north Kent harbour to give them a place of safety. Are the Government going to prosecute the RNLI for saving life at sea? That would be contrary to the law of the sea, which requires it to save such lives.
I also ask the Government to look at the conditions in which refugees have to survive in this country, such as the disgusting conditions at Napier barracks, and at the number of refugees sleeping on our streets and begging to try to survive. Just think for a moment of what it is like to be a refugee trying to make a contribution to our world, and being criminalised in the process. We rely on refugees in hospitals, as doctors, as engineers, as teachers, as technicians and in so many other jobs in our society. Instead of criminalising people who try to get to a place of safety, can we not have a more humane approach and use the opportunity of this legislation to send a message of decency, humanity and responsibility towards the world as a whole?
Scott Benton (Blackpool South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), although, ironically, his views on issues such as those included within the scope of this Bill are the main reason I find myself in this House today.
Since 1994, every single year the UK has seen positive net migration. From 2004, when several new states became members of the EU, net migration dropped below 200,000 only once. The trend is continually up and the most recent figures show that 700,000 migrants arrived in the UK in the year ending March 2020. To put that into perspective, that number is five times the size of Blackpool. This is simply unsustainable.
For the past 50 years, the Conservative manifesto has always referenced controlling immigration. Immigration puts pressure on our schools, the NHS and housing, while also challenging our identity and values when it is not properly controlled and when new arrivals do not integrate within their new communities. The British people can see this and understand this, and they have demanded action for at least the past two decades.
The vote to leave the EU was, among other things, a vote to take back control of our borders and to control immigration. Of course, that is not to say that immigration does not bring benefits to the UK, but the over-supply of low-skilled labour has had severe consequences, suppressing wages and reducing the number of entry-level jobs available. I am so pleased we have a Home Secretary who is willing to discuss these issues and face up to the problems that large-scale immigration is causing. Successive Governments have been far too reluctant to do so, perhaps through fear of facing the cancel culture of the woke brigade.
The element that is most emotive and that angers my constituents more than any other is illegal immigration—specifically, the thousands of small boats arriving on the south coast. It is high time this Bill was brought forward to tackle the scourge of illegal immigration, and I strongly welcome the measures outlined within it. Giving our Border Force additional powers to turn around boats crossing the channel, making it a criminal offence to knowingly arrive in the UK without permission and introducing life sentences for people smugglers will all reduce the number of migrants making the unnecessary and illegal crossing in small boats.
However, some will still make the perilous journey. The task of processing asylum claims must be made quicker and, for those who are rejected, we must be far more robust in deporting them from the UK. Over the past 15 years, around three quarters of applicants who were refused asylum have lodged an appeal. Their vexatious and often last-minute appeals—submitted and encouraged by left-wing human rights lawyers—are done at tremendous cost to the UK taxpayer, and it is encouraging that this Bill will overhaul the legal system for asylum claims, finally putting an end to this utter nonsense. If people have no right to be here, they should be swiftly deported—it is as simple as that.
Those on the Opposition Benches, including the Leader of the Opposition, have previously stood on election promises to reintroduce the free movement of people, showing just how out of touch they are with traditional Labour voters. On this side of the House, however, we are building a system that is fair for the British people and reforms our broken asylum system, and this Bill is one I wholeheartedly support.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before I call the hon. Member for Cardiff North, I should tell the House that after the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), the time limit will reduce to three minutes. With four minutes, I call Anna McMorrin.
Anna McMorrin (Cardiff North) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Bill is not about improving legislation, but about hate. It is little more than political gesturing of the worst kind. Worse, it panders to far-right politics, stirring up resentment, fear and division because the system is not working for them. It is the nastiest, most vicious politics.
We live in an increasingly hostile world, where conflict, climate change and covid are making life impossible for many. Innocent families with children flee for their lives, driven from their homes and communities and joining the 30 million refugees worldwide with little more than the clothes on their backs and their hopes and dreams. They flee to protect themselves and their loved ones, but tragically that hope is usually never fulfilled. I recently spoke to a mother who fled drought in South Sudan. She lost her children to thirst and starvation. I have felt the pain of victims of conflict—the many who have fled Syria, who suffered immeasurable brutality and war crimes at the hands of the Assad regime and are heartbroken that they cannot return. I have spoken to women and girls forced into arranged marriages as young children who have fled a life of violence and abuse. They faced sexual assaults, gang rapes, exploitation on the road between camps and homelessness before finding refuge. To those who make that perilous journey, the Government are saying, “We don’t care,” and attempt to build a wall around our shores.
Taking a deliberately and unnecessarily hostile attitude does not tackle the drivers of displacement, which will continue to force the vulnerable to flee and aggravate the very threats that make our lives here at home less secure. It will make the United Kingdom even more isolated, not just from our partners but from the values that made us a welcoming nation.
So many look towards us with hope. As the pandemic has shown, our planet is shared and so are our successes and failures. We must not forget that the United Kingdom was a co-signatory and the first to ratify, with the support of the whole House, the 1951 refugee convention. Rather than be open and inclusive, the Government seek to remove us from those shared challenges, wash our hands of the crises and injustices fuelled by many decisions made at home, and weaken communities’ resilience overseas.
The Bill seeks to criminalise refugees. They are not criminals and seeking safe haven is not a crime. The true crimes are the provisions and the intention at the heart of this heartless Bill. It puts the UK at odds with decades of consensus on the need to offer safety to the persecuted and stateless, and it would breach international law. It picks on the poor and the desperate and the children put in boats by their parents who are desperate because they see that the sea is safer than the land.
When we strip away the means to safe passage, cut international aid, which helps people remain in place, and penalise anyone for facilitating arrivals, how does the Home Secretary intend desperate people to arrive? In stark terms, what would the Bill have meant for the Kindertransport? Would it mean turning our backs on the children fleeing the brutality of Tigray and Yemen today?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
My focus today in the short time available—I cannot wait for call lists to end—is a very specific element in the Bill: part 4. I co-sponsored the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill with Lord McColl and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for meeting me and Lord McColl on a number of occasions to look for a way to improve it before it was published. I spoke on 19 October last year about the need for an immigration provision that provides confirmed victims—I stress “confirmed”—with certainty of recovery and the ability to focus on working with the criminal justice system to ensure that we increase the very low number of prosecutions for offences related to modern slavery. I want the House to hold that thought because it is critical. Our self-interest means being better on that element of the Bill.
Part 4 sets out several reforms on modern slavery. I am aware that the Home Secretary is seeking to meet varying objectives through the Bill and that she wants to reduce abuse of the system. I want to deal with clause 52, which will provide identified potential victims in England and Wales with assistance and support for a period when the person is in the national referral mechanism. Although I welcome the support for adult victims in England and Wales during that period being put on a statutory basis, as is already the case in Northern Ireland and Scotland, the support that clause 52 places on a statutory basis is actually less than is currently provided as a matter of practice in England and Wales, which is a problem. Essentially, whereas the current guidance in England and Wales affords 45 days’ support, as does the statute in Scotland and Northern Ireland, clause 52 proposes a reduction in England and Wales to just 30 days’ support for confirmed victims of modern-day slavery. I draw that to the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister, because it needs to be dealt with.
Sir John Hayes
My right hon. Friend has many faults, and I am aware of a handful of them, but one of them is not naivety. He has far more qualities, and his quality will tell him that the system is being gamed by all kinds of unscrupulous people. The risk is that modern-day slavery is one way of gaming the system.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I simply ask my right hon. Friend to notice what I said: I referred to those who already have confirmed status as a victim of modern-day slavery. This is important, because it means they have already gone through the NRM. It is a question of how we deal with them at that point. This will give time to arrive at the right conclusions.
Statutory support is provided during the national referral mechanism, so having no such support afterwards makes no sense. They go out of the NRM and are suddenly in the cold world, unable to navigate their way and fearful of retribution by those who treated them so badly in the first place. The provision of support to help these people is also in our self-interest, because it is in our national interest to ensure victims get sufficient support to allow them to help police and prosecutors with criminal investigations. In a way, by reducing such support, we are making things worse.
Clause 53, on leave to remain for victims of slavery or human trafficking, is at the heart of the Bill. I co-sponsored a Bill with Lord McColl to provide leave to remain for 12 months, along with assistance and support, for adult victims who want to remain in the UK. I gave evidence on this to the Home Office, and I am therefore disappointed that, instead of addressing the problems with discretionary leave that I highlighted last October, the Government have simply placed current practice, which is clearly not working, into a statutory framework.
Under clause 53, leave to remain will remain discretionary and the same justifications for its provision will apply: being necessary to assist the police with investigations, being necessary because of personal circumstance or being necessary to make a compensation claim.
The ability of a victim to remain in the UK is unchanged by the Bill, and one would therefore expect that the proportion of confirmed victims in receipt of leave to remain would remain low. In other words, this Bill would perpetuate rather than address the current arrangements in which the vast majority of confirmed victims are denied leave to remain in the UK to help their recovery. The police have made it very clear that they want victims to be settled in accommodation so that they know where they are and they can give evidence.
I support much of what the Bill is trying to do, and I understand the motives behind it, but part 4 deals with those from the most terrible backgrounds and facing the worst persecution, trafficked as they are. We need to give them time, and that time will help us prosecute the very people we wish to go after. Being good and decent is a payback to us at the same time.
I support this Bill, but I look for changes to part 4 during its passage.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
As we have heard today, this Bill is deeply flawed, cruel and inhumane. If passed, it would punish those entering our country to seek refuge from violence and persecution. The Bill would see us abandon our international duties and, ultimately, turn our back on the world’s most vulnerable. Under international law there is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker, yet, if passed, the Bill would seek to ignore that reality and establish a dangerous new precedent.
I wish to briefly outline two of the most concerning aspects of this legislation. First, I am deeply concerned about the powers that the Bill would allow the Government to create offshore camps in which to detain refugees. There is no justification for such an inhumane practice. Wherever that has been tried, it has failed and put those who are subjected to it at risk of re-traumatisation. The Australian Government’s own report into their offshoring facility in Nauru revealed horrifying conditions, including the sexual abuse of women and children. Meanwhile, detention centres such as Napier barracks demonstrate clearly that this Government are very comfortable with housing asylum seekers in the most squalid conditions. Those conditions would only get worse if the Government were allowed to move asylum centres offshore, out of reach of oversight and accountability.
Secondly, as chair of the all-party group on no recourse to public funds, I am particularly concerned that the Bill would greatly expand the number of people who are subjected to that awful condition. The Bill removes the automatic right to settle for those who secure refugee status having travelled to the UK through another country. By introducing that condition, the Government will substantially increase the number of people who have no recourse to public funds—people who will no longer have the right to work or to access homelessness assistance. In short, if the Bill passes, a huge number of people will be forced into destitution.
In conclusion, if the Government were truly interested in fixing our asylum system, the Bill would have contained new commitments to provide safe routes to this country and to ensure that all those who claim asylum here are able to live a dignified life while they await a decision. Instead, the Bill abandons our obligations under international law, criminalises refugees and expands the cruel and inhumane “no recourse to public funds” regime. For those reasons, I shall be voting against this Bill and I urge all Members to do the same.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
Children separated forcibly from their parents at gunpoint, pregnant women held at knifepoint, babies and toddlers stripped of lifejackets and dangled over the side of dinghies. Young women and girls disappearing, unaccounted for; their last known movements in the hands of criminal gangs involved in modern slavery. This is not happening in some far-away conflict zone. This is not happening in a war-ridden country. This is happening here in our land and across the English channel—death, violence, sex trafficking, exploitation, bribery, guns, drugs, modern slavery, and illegal migration. Let us make no mistake: this is the reality of the small boats crisis. Where is the compassion in walking on by, in leaving families, young children and babies in the hands of people traffickers and violent criminal gangs when people are already safe in France and in many other countries before they even get to France?
Let me turn now to the risk to our national security. Persons with criminal intent have been identified coming into Dover in boats picked up in the channel. Any local person knows about the very many boats that do make it onto the land, onto the beaches and onto our shores in the coastal villages of Kingsdown, St Margaret’s and Walmer and further afield. It happens so often—even today, even this very morning. We must be compassionate to people in greatest need—I believe that that unites all parts of this House—but it would also be naïve given the very real risks that exist, with some people actively wishing to do us harm and they do harm others. That is why, for our national security, we must have strong borders and bring an end to the small boats crossing route.
Today’s measures are not about a lack of compassion. They are about recognising that there is no compassion in allowing this illegal activity to continue. Today’s Bill, alongside its sister immigration reform Bill, provides more powers to strengthen our borders and more options to work with other countries to make sure that people are encouraged to use legal and safe routes and discouraged from using these dangerous and illegal ones.
The bottom line is this: it is only when migrants and traffickers alike know that they cannot break into Britain in this way that the small boats crossing route will come to an end.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Member’s Financial Interests because I have help from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy—RAMP—project for my work in this area. RAMP is brilliant, in direct contrast to this Bill, which is the worst I have ever seen. This dog’s dinner would have been avoidable, however, if Ministers had listened to the evidence of experts, or even to the consultation responses, which they have promised, and failed, to publish. I hope that they will publish them as they finalise the Bill. It was strange after 11 years of a Conservative Administration to hear the Home Secretary admit, on the Second Reading of her own Bill, that it was not yet complete, in response to the question from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith).
At a time of rising global crises, this Government could help to stop asylum seekers being created by intervening, perhaps under “global Britain”, but that has sadly proved to be an empty slogan, often mouthed by emptier heads. That given, we have a Government who have twice betrayed their own manifesto—and, of course, the people who voted for them—by cutting our aid and by cutting our armed forces personnel, which will mean shrinking our global reach and influence. This Government are also shrinking our international standing by seeking exclusivism in the form of a new special status for the UK outside international law, to the direct detriment of and cost to other countries, including our immediate neighbours. It is bonkers, but Ministers present this fiction to us. They have a real battle with reality ahead.
It is a fiction to pretend that we have deals with other countries to return anyone to them, except for Albania, a country that we accept asylum claims from. It is a fiction to claim that it is fair to criminalise someone fleeing communist torture and slave labour in Xinjiang, or that it is fair to criminalise RNLI volunteers or anyone on any boat who rescues asylum seekers from drowning. It is a fiction to claim that this Bill is fair on councils, who already pay for Home Office failures and delays, because they will face additional costs through the rough sleeping that these plans will create and the estimated additional £55 million of the new costs of these proposals, which will create 3,000 more people experiencing the pernicious Home Office “no recourse to public funds” restrictions. It is a fiction to pretend that this is fair to the taxpayers who will pick up the bill, whether it is through the Home Office, through councils’ emergency social services or through the new criminal justice and imprisonment costs, which are estimated to be more than £400 million a year.
The only truth I heard from the Home Secretary today is that the system is broken, with the number of people waiting over a year for a decision rising tenfold since 2010, with 33,000 in that position in 2010, including almost 7,000 children. What is maddening is that the number of people working for the Home Office has risen but productivity has collapsed, with around 2,500 people now having waited three years or more for a decision. It is a decade of Tory rule that has broken the Home Office. The party who used to claim to represent law and order has run the Department for law and order into the ground, with nine in 10 crimes now going unpunished in this country. But now, Ministers are asking the Home Office to act unlawfully in pursuing an aim that breaks international law. Sadly, the idea that the people who broke the Home Office now have ideas about how to fix it is also a fiction. I would ask Ministers to think again about these plans, but there is little evidence that they put much thought into the Bill in the first place.
Paula Barker (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab) [V]
I start by paying tribute to some of the fantastic organisations that support people seeking asylum in my constituency, such as Asylum Link Merseyside, the Merseyside Refugee Support Network and the British Red Cross. Every day, I see the difference they make in supporting some of the most vulnerable people in society who have come to our country seeking refuge, only too often to find that their trauma and suffering are made worse by the hostile environment that this Government have created for them.
I agree with the Home Secretary on one thing: our asylum system is broken. However, that is where our consensus ends. Many aspects of this Bill are objectionable—probably too many to mention in the time available. It is a disgraceful attempt to make people seeking asylum pay the price of the gross mismanagement of the asylum system by the Home Secretary and her predecessors. According to figures from the House of Commons Library, the Home Office’s asylum case load has doubled since 2014. I have constituents who have now been waiting over two years for a decision, and many who have been waiting nearly two years for a substantive interview.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees put proposals to the Government on fixing the asylum system based on its experience and best practice around the world. Instead of implementing those proposals, the Government have chosen to put forward a Bill that undermines our international obligations and our standing in the world. I am sure I am not alone in this House in being proud that the UK was a founding signatory to the 1951 refugee convention. It was then, and is now, an important legacy from the horrors of world war two and the many people who were displaced as a result.
The UNHCR serves as a guardian of the refugee convention. In its detailed observations about the measures in the Bill, UNHCR has been clear that it disagrees with the Home Secretary’s statement that her proposals comply with our obligations under the convention. It has stated that many aspects of the plan do not respect fundamental principles of refugee law and will undermine the 1951 convention and international protection system, not just in the UK but globally.
Let nobody in this House be under any illusion: supporting the measures in the Bill will signal to the world that we are withdrawing from our international obligations. In that context, why would any other country be willing to reach agreement with us on what the Government describe as safe and legal routes? I appeal to hon. Members on the Government Benches who value Britain’s standing and reputation as a global leader not to let the Government get away with undermining the sacrifices and achievements of the generation before us with this Bill. I also call on the Government to share with the House their legal advice to support the Home Secretary’s statement that the measures in the Bill are compatible with our obligations under the 1951 refugee convention.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
I believe everyone wants to tackle people smuggling, human trafficking and dangerous trips across the channel. The only way to do that is the one thing that the Bill does not do: to provide safe legal routes to sanctuary in the UK. Instead, the Bill treats asylum seekers more harshly, despite no evidence that such an approach will stop them trying to come here.
The Home Office has been treating asylum seekers abysmally for years, keeping them in unsafe accommodation, making them wait months for a decision on their claim, banning them from working and forcing them to rely on little more than £5 a day. If cruelty were the answer, the problem would have been solved long ago.
What about the legal routes to asylum that the Government promised? The number of people granted asylum in the UK fell by 46% last year. The number of children granted asylum fell by 55%. The Government’s new scheme, which opened in March, resettled 25 refugees in its first month—just 25. That compares with 477 per month on average under the previous schemes. The proposals under the Bill are not just cruel; they undermine the UK’s commitments under the refugee convention. We cannot simply rewrite them to suit ourselves.
The Liberal Democrats are calling for a fully funded commitment to resettle 10,000 vulnerable refugees each year. We should resettle a further 10,000 unaccompanied child refugees from elsewhere in Europe over the next 10 years, and we must guarantee the rights of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Europe to be reunited with family members in the UK.
Another historic injustice that the Bill fails to address is comprehensive sickness insurance. A few years ago, many EU citizens had their application for a permanent residence document refused. Those refusals were down to an obscure need for CSI, which they had never previously needed to live in the UK or to use the NHS. At the time, the Government insisted that they were powerless to change the requirement as it stemmed from EU free movement laws. The requirement was removed from the EU settlement scheme, but CSI is still hidden deep within our rules. Many thousands of children have been cut off from their rights to be citizens of this country, all because of some obscure insurance requirement that no one was told they needed to have. The Government must come clean and use the exit from the EU for some good, as they so often claim they do. There is no more excuse to hold on to the CSI requirement for those seeking to become UK citizens.
Rather than fixing the problem, the Bill will make the problems worse and fail those most in need. I will vote against it.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is crucial that we restore trust in our immigration system. Our asylum system is in desperate need of reform and our constituents rightly expect it to be fixed.
In only the past year, 16,000 people have entered the country illegally, and those are just the ones we know about. Some of those people are genuinely fleeing persecution and need our support, but others are not, and they may abuse the legal system by making repeated vexatious and often last-minute claims, challenging the Home Office’s ability to remove individuals lawfully in those cases and costing taxpayers a lot of money. That also creates a severe backlog, which delays the processing of genuine asylum cases and slows down our judicial processes.
Most worryingly, there are now 10,000 foreign national offenders in circulation outside prisons in the UK whom the Home Office are intent on deporting but cannot because of legal barriers. I welcome the fact that the Government’s new plan for immigration will speed up the removal of these dangerous foreign criminals. Any foreign national who comes to this country and abuses our hospitality by breaking the law should be in no doubt of the UK Government’s determination to deport them.
When assessing the needs of individual asylum claimants, knowing the age of applicants is really important for ensuring that children get protected and properly looked after. The UK is currently one of the very few countries in Europe that does not commission or employ scientific methods of age assessment when determining how old these young people are. As a consultant paediatrician, the welfare of children is of the utmost importance to me. As a doctor, I have participated in the past in the assessment of asylum-seeking children, and the current system in place is nowhere near accurate enough for making such crucial and important decisions. I welcome the fact that the Bill will enable the use of scientific age assessment techniques, and that there will be increased research into their accuracy, so that we can best direct our efforts to support the youngest and most vulnerable people.
Finally, the Bill addresses a number of anomalies in the system of British nationality law. Behind each of these anomalies is a person and a family, and I am pleased to see a change in the law that I have lobbied for since 2019: nationality for children whose fathers are not the husband of their mother at the time of their birth. One of my constituents, who has served this country on military operations, was shocked to discover that he was unable to get British citizenship for his son, despite the fact that he is British and the son was born in Britain. This is because his European mother was still legally married to a foreign national at the time of their son’s birth, and under the current legislation a child’s father is legally deemed to be the husband at the time the woman gives birth. However, in this particular case my constituent is the father in all biological, emotional and practical terms.
New measures in the Bill will provide an entitlement to British citizenship for people who were previously unable to acquire it because their mother was married to someone other than their biological father at the time of birth. This will fix an outdated rule and ensure that my constituent and many others can rightfully pass on their nationality to their children. I am pleased to support this Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
For the sake of clarity, I ought to reiterate what Mr Speaker said to the House earlier today. As the right hon. Member for Doncaster Central (Dame Rosie Winterton) has been required to self-isolate and therefore cannot take her usual place in the Chair, the hon. Member for Bradford South (Judith Cummins) will shortly be taking the Chair having been appointed a temporary Deputy Speaker, and I hope that the House will be gentle with her.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford and Eccles) (Lab) [V]
The Government state that this Bill is necessary to deter irregular journeys and increase the fairness of the system in order to support those in need of asylum. I think that most of us in this House agree that the system needs to be fairer. Lengthy waits for asylum applications to be processed are the norm, immigration detention is often indefinite, and modern slavery and trafficking survivors are routinely detained. As the Red Cross states, removing support and raising the penalties for those who arrive irregularly does not address the underlying reasons why people seek safety in the UK.
This Bill is brutal. It in effect punishes those desperate souls who often genuinely flee persecution, famine and war in the hope of safety. The Refugee Council has stated that
“the actual effects of the bill in its current form will be to punish refugees who have been recognised as such under international law, and actually reduce safe and regular routes to the UK as refugee family reunion rights become more limited.”
One of the most dangerous parts of the proposals is that someone’s means of arrival will determine how worthy they are of protection in the UK. Asylum seekers arriving through anything other than resettlement will receive a lesser form of protection, including temporary status, no access to financial support and limited rights to family reunion. In fact, the new proposals plan to criminalise anyone arriving irregularly, not through official channels. But as we all know, people fleeing atrocities are rarely afforded the luxury of arriving through official channels. As the UN Refugee Agency has confirmed, this principle is in breach of the refugee convention.
These are cruel and unworkable plans. I agree with Amnesty International:
“Instead of introducing this piece of utter legislative vandalism, what the Home Office should be doing is establishing safe routes for the relatively few people escaping persecution who wish to seek asylum here…This reckless and deeply-unjust bill is set to bring shame on Britain’s international reputation.”
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC) [V]
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Madam Ddirprwy Lefarydd.
The Bill is an assault on the human rights of men and women who happen to be asylum seekers and on our common humanity. Across Wales, thousands of decent people are united. This legislation shames us, and it is not in our name. It expands the hostile environment by criminalising asylum seekers and their families. The Bill’s proposed tier system for claiming asylum rips up the basic tenets of the 1951 refugee convention: that people’s mode of arrival should have no influence on whether they are legitimate refugees or on their right to make an asylum claim.
The potential criminalisation of the life-saving work of organisations such as the RNLI is incomprehensible. I commend the determination of our lifeboat crews to continue to come to the aid of anyone in peril on the sea. The Bill threatens to penalise seafarers if they do not leave people to perish, and thus it scorns the UN convention for the safety of life at sea, as well as the refugee convention.
Expanding the use of detention-style asylum accommodation will result in more people being sent to sites such as Penally camp in Pembrokeshire, which was described by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration as
“impoverished, run-down and unsuitable for long-term accommodation.”
Let us not forget that the Home Office was shamed into closing Penally only four months ago.
The human cost of these proposed changes would be immense. They would criminalise people such as Joseff Gnagbo and prevent them from seeking sanctuary in the UK. After fleeing the Ivory Coast following threats to his life, Joseff sought refuge in Wales. He now works as a carer, a translator and a teacher, and he volunteers for Cymdeithas yr Iaith, the Welsh Language Society. These are his words, and they are worth hearing:
“We are already treated as an inconvenience under the current asylum system. Under these reforms, we will be treated as criminals... The welcome I have received by the people of Wales in that time is in stark contrast with the Home Office’s cruel policies. I want refugees and asylum seekers to have more help in integrating into Welsh society. Sadly, this legislation seeks to make that almost impossible.”
Wales is a far richer place because of people such as Joseff, but the Home Secretary would make criminals of them. We must stand up to this heartless borders Bill, which prevents Wales from fulfilling the humane, honourable ambition of our own Parliament: to become
“a nation of sanctuary for refugees.”
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con) [V]
I rise to speak in support of this Nationality and Borders Bill, because the current system is not working for the interests either of nationality or of UK borders.
It cannot be right that over the past year an estimated 16,000 people have entered this country illegally—and that has been during a period when international travel has been severely restricted because of the covid-19 pandemic. It is right that the system be changed and updated so that people who come to the United Kingdom should do so on a legal basis, not circumvent the system that exists. The suggestion that those coming to this country from continental Europe are fleeing persecution in those countries is ridiculous. There is no analogy with the situation that existed in Europe in the 1930s and 1940s.
I wish to mention an aspect of nationality that has not been properly addressed: the position of the descendants of the Chagos islanders who were forcibly removed from the British Indian ocean territory by Harold Wilson’s Administration in the late 1960s and typically resettled in Mauritius, the Seychelles and some other locations. Many of those descendants are the grandchildren of people who were British subjects in the British Indian ocean territory and now find themselves with, in effect, no rights to British citizenship, despite the fact that it was no fault of their own that their grandparents and relatives were forcibly exiled from their home territory.
I would therefore be grateful if the Government considered including in the Bill a clause to rectify that anomaly, which affects a relatively small number of people. This injustice has existed for more than half a century. I plan to introduce an amendment on Report, but I hope that the Government can work with me to remedy this historical injustice once and for all.
Jane Stevenson (Wolverhampton North East) (Con) [V]
I am pleased to have the chance to speak in this debate, although I regret the fact that the time limit means my comments will be brief.
This important Bill aims to provide a fair and safe asylum system and give greater rights and protections to those who have legally sought asylum in the UK. It seeks properly to control our borders and thereby strengthen our national security, and it will clamp down on some of the most despicable criminals: the gangs who make money from people smuggling and modern slavery. For me, that is the most important provision in the Bill.
Everyone in this place should back any measures that will stop the trade in human misery. We all remember the tragic deaths of migrants who have paid smugglers to cram them into lorries without sufficient ventilation. We have seen people with no sailing experience who have paid to be piled into unseaworthy vessels—often nothing more than a dinghy—and then pushed offshore to make a dangerous and, tragically, often deadly sea crossing. It is the duty of our Home Secretary to take any measures she can to stop these perilous attempts to enter UK, and I thank her for her clear commitment to reform the system and stop the organised criminals. Let us be clear: while such journeys are deemed to be viable, others will attempt the same journeys. We must act to stop them.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) said, many who seek to come to the UK by illegal routes are economic migrants. If I had more time, I would speak about the work that the UK is doing in trade and education, and the work that we should do to help developing countries to really develop, so that people all over the world can have prosperous, fulfilling lives for themselves and their families.
I was deeply disappointed by the shadow Home Secretary’s remarks about the Bill creating a more discriminatory asylum system, because by not supporting measures in the Bill he would allow the current system to continue. He must surely look at the current system and see the clear discrimination against older people, disabled people, women and children—against anyone unable or less able to make long, arduous, dangerous journeys.
As I have only a few more seconds, I conclude by saying that we should all want a fair and just asylum system, and such a system does not say that if people are young enough, fit enough or brave enough, they can get ahead and jump the queue. A fair and just asylum system does not reward organised gangs of criminals for putting vulnerable people’s lives at risk. A fair and just asylum system is not this perverse and deadly real-life “Hunger Games”. That is why we must act and why I support the Home Secretary’s measures. I commend her determination to stop these vile, inhumane practices.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I hope you are enjoying the view—congratulations.
I sometimes wonder whether the Home Secretary or her cheerleaders on the Government Benches have ever actually met an asylum seeker. If the asylum seekers who come to my surgeries in Glasgow North find it stressful, embarrassing or upsetting to have to carry a biometric ID card that states that they have no right to work when, being a human being, they are born with that right, or that they have no recourse to public funds, it is no less humiliating to have to explain from the other side of the surgery table why the Government are so unremittingly hostile to their presence in this country.
It is easy to stand at the Dispatch Box or on the Back Benches and say that these people should leave the UK; try looking them in the eyes—eyes that have seen horrors that some of us cannot even imagine—and saying that. I defy any Minister or any Tory Back Bencher to come to the next meeting of the Maryhill Integration Network Voices group, listen to the testimonies of the men and women who take part and then come back to this House and justify the policies that they are promoting today.
For 20 years the Maryhill Integration Network has supported asylum seekers and refugees in the north of Glasgow, welcoming them into the community, and helping to share experiences, culture, food and joy across the entire city. For 17 of those years, it has been led by the remarkable Rema Sherifi, until her recent retirement. Rema was a refugee—she was a journalist in Kosovo—who fled to a refugee camp in Macedonia with her family, before being evacuated to Glasgow for health reasons. Since that time she has worked tirelessly to support thousands of others who have been through similar experiences, helping people to overcome traumas, and learn how to make new lives as part of Glasgow’s wonderfully diverse community.
My friend and constituent Abdul Bostani has a similar story. He fled the Taliban in Afghanistan at the age of 18, and on arrival in the UK he was put on a bus to Glasgow, a city he had never heard of. Twenty years later he is a proud father who works in translation and runs Glasgow Afghan United, which brings people together for sport, language, culture and other activities. How many more Remas and Abduls are out there who could help to transform our country and make it a better place for everyone, but who instead will find themselves shut out, turned away, and criminalised by the Bill? How many will be put up in barracks before being deported, and criminalised on the moment of arrival, because of course they had to struggle to get here—their oppressive regime did not give them a passport and a ticket to the airport?
Hostility is the hallmark of this Government: hostility to devolution, hostility to the aid budget, and now a supercharging of the hostile environment for refugees and asylum seekers. A hostile environment pervades the Home Office. The visa system is in at least as much of a mess as the asylum system, and it amounts to one message: global Britain is closed. Do not come here unless you are going to spend lots of money and then leave again very quickly.
I agree with the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) on his point about the Chagossians. Well Scotland wants no part of it. In time, Scotland will have its own immigration system, and just as Scots have been welcomed and made their homes in countries around the world, we will welcome travellers, migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, respecting their human rights and our humanitarian responsibilities. I say this to refugee and asylum-seeking constituents in Glasgow North: no matter what you hear from the Tory Dispatch Box today, you are welcome in Glasgow, you are welcome in Scotland, we want you to be safe, and we want you to stay.
Sara Britcliffe (Hyndburn) (Con)
I was elected in 2019 on a manifesto that promised to reform our immigration system. For too long, excessive and uncontrolled immigration, and abuses of our asylum system, have allowed people to get around the rules without much prospect of ever being removed once they are here. The Bill is an important turning point. It provides the powers we need to remove people who should not be here, and to discourage anyone who would try to cross into the country illegally. The message is simple: if you come here illegally by irregular means, you will not be staying.
The Bill has three main objectives: first, to increase the fairness of the system better to protect and support those in need of asylum; secondly, to deter illegal entry into the United Kingdom, thereby breaking people smuggling networks and protecting the lives of those they endanger; and thirdly, to remove more easily those with no right to be in the UK. Those aims are sensible, proportionate and just. They are also what the public want us to do.
Whenever I am out and about in Hyndburn and Haslingden, I hear concerns from residents about controlling our borders and cracking down on illegal immigration. There is a proper asylum route into this country, and it is important that people realise they will be punished if they do not follow it. The Bill will not only deter those people who get in boats to make illegal crossings, but it will smash the networks that bring them here. There are no words strong enough to express my contempt for the traffickers, who give people false hope and then risk their lives by unscrupulously smuggling them into the country for a huge fee. We need an asylum system that is compassionate towards people who apply to come here, processes claims efficiently and effectively, and quickly removes anyone who is not successful in their application. The Bill delivers on all that.
The Bill will broaden criminal sanctions for offences related to illegal entry or bringing people here illegally, and it will increase the maximum penalties for both. It will also give border and immigration staff additional powers to stop and redirect vessels out of UK territorial waters. The Bill is an important step in creating a new immigration system, based on merit, which controls who, when, and how people can come here, and cuts immigration overall. It gives my constituents confidence that the Government have heard their concerns on immigration, and are working to tackle them.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Judged while seeking justice. Criminalised while fleeing criminals. Expelled while being exploited. Scapegoated while escaping some of the worst violations against human dignity or human rights. In breach of global agreements. The words in the Bill should never enter the minds of anyone, let alone those entrusted to protect us. They should never be echoed in the Chamber, let alone be brought forward in legislation. In our country—the place that founded human rights—the Government have reached the depths of stigmatising people fleeing war, terror, trafficking, climate catastrophe and, yes, destitution, judging them on how they arrived, not what they have left. As the Government play on the global stage by cutting aid to the world’s poorest and removing their last hope of being able to stay home and support family and community, play with our climate, which is burning our planet and every grain that could feed the most destitute, play war by selling arms while walking away from building peace, fail to use their voice, power and influence on the global stage to stem some of the worst violations against humanity, and preside over a broken asylum system and do not fix it, they must recognise their contribution to the decimation of the global order before pointing the blame at its victims.
From centuries of imperial abuse to withdrawing from reparation today, the Government are now prepared to suppress a small number of the 80 million people forced from their homes and land without shelter or hope. They are prepared to criminalise people who, for the want of safety and survival, and some just to be reunited with their families, have been subject to criminal gangs. Worse, the Bill will stop people even fleeing danger as the Government force them to apply to enter the UK from a place of peril or some offshore hidden place, creating more risk, more trauma and more harm.
I appeal to all Government Members not to tread those dark paths. I appeal to all who say they live by a moral code and are here to further justice and advance human rights not to support their Government tonight but to uphold our British values, which welcome the repressed and offer people somewhere to live safely. I am so proud to represent York, the UK’s only human rights city and a city of sanctuary, where we put the needs of others before our own, tear down walls and create bridges, and take care of those whose stories break us as they recount the trauma they have endured in their lives. We listen and we act. We quicken our resolve to speak up and stand up for human rights and against violations and abuses. That is why I speak out to oppose this oppressive legislation and say: not in my name.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Welcome to the Chair. Edmund Burke said:
“Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society; and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all.”
Restoring justice and order to the chaotic and confusing asylum system broadcasts that a line in the sand has been drawn that will not fade away with every new boat that arrives on the beach. The Bill is a testament to the principle that laws must be just and be seen to be; otherwise, we can hardly call them law at all.
According to poll after poll, the vast majority of the public see illegal immigration as a serious problem. Is it any wonder when there were 16,000 illegal entrants into Britain last year, with 8,500 on boats? Those are the ones we know about. This year alone, 7,000 have arrived on those boats.
Richard Fuller
Does my right hon. Friend not think that somehow turning the debate simply into, “Everyone who claims asylum must have a legitimate claim and everyone who is against it must be racist” does not help in trying to get to the just law that he is talking about?
Sir John Hayes
Absolutely, it does not, nor is it just to pillory the public and those who speak for them when they argue that we should enforce the law and that migration should be controlled. As a number of hon. Members have said, legal migration has been out of control for some time, and illegal migration, by its very nature, is both unjust and unfair because it breaks the law. It breaches that principle that people who arrive here and pursue legal routes are doing the right thing and that those who do not are simply doing the wrong thing and should be deported. That is what the public think, and that is what we should say very clearly.
Stuart C. McDonald
Is no one on the Conservative Benches remotely concerned that the Bill would see a Uyghur fleeing persecution in China, a Syrian fleeing disastrous war crimes in that country or a persecuted Christian seeking sanctuary on this shore criminalised with an offence that could see them in prison for up to four years, stripped of their family reunion rights, offshored and whatever else? Does nobody on those Benches have any qualms about that whatsoever?
Sir John Hayes
Surely the hon. Gentleman must realise that while the principle of granting asylum—of giving sanctuary to people in desperate need—is a noble one, it is being gamed, day after day and month after month, with people travelling through many safe countries before claiming asylum, repeated claims on a whole range of different grounds, and even modern slavery, which we all deplore, being used as a justification to stay here when it is invented. That is to insult—to besmirch—those who are really suffering persecution and who come here in genuine need. It is being gamed, frankly, by a combination of unscrupulous civil rights and human rights activists, and people-traffickers. Although they do not work together in an organised fashion, the combination of the two is damaging public faith in our ability to control our borders. If “take back control” means anything, surely it means taking back control of our sovereign borders.
When the average Briton sees the asylum system being played, it leaves them bewildered, frustrated and angry that we should be taken for such fools. British people do not want to pull up the drawbridge to the world’s needy. What they want is a consistent system that helps the right people in the right way: one that will remove those with no right to stay in Britain just as it protects those we ought to be protecting, not one that grants favour to those who manage to successfully break our laws when they first arrive here.
Sara Britcliffe
Does my right hon. Friend agree that, contrary to what the Opposition are saying, the Government are not changing their approach to maritime law and those organisations and individuals will still be able to rescue anybody who is in distress at sea?
Sir John Hayes
As my hon. Friend may know, I am a former maritime Minister, and it absolutely right to say that the agreement that we have with the International Maritime Organisation to rescue people at sea is also being exploited by unscrupulous people, and we need to be mindful of that fact.
This Bill goes some way to addressing the huge gulf that exists between public perceptions and those of the liberal establishment that has too much say about too many things in this country. Criminal gangs and desperate economic migrants know that every time bleeding-heart liberals oppose tougher penalties and tougher measures—and so blur the distinction between those in genuine need and those who break the rules—they do immense harm to the cause of genuine asylum seekers.
Finally, let me say a word about foreign criminals, who have been mentioned. In 2010, there were 4,000 foreign criminals here; now, there are 10,000. Surely every one should be deported. We do not want to import crime into our country. We must take back control and we must pass this Bill to do so.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I welcome you to your role. I am grateful to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate and to follow several hon. Members who have spoken so eloquently on this Bill—sadly, for the most part, on the Opposition Benches.
My colleagues and I will oppose this abhorrent legislation that rides roughshod over the refugee convention. As we approach the 30th anniversary of the convention, this Bill places some of the most vulnerable people in the world at risk of destitution, exploitation and family separation. The Government’s rhetoric and virtue signalling has failed to comprehend the valuable contributions that those people make to our society, regardless of how they got there. If the Bill is passed, it will, as we have heard, cast the UK adrift from international law, making it more insulated from other countries and staining what is still left of our international reputation on the world stage. It is insensitive, rushed and deeply problematic given its intention to effectively end the right to seek asylum in the UK. By doing so, it contravenes the refugee convention itself and also the European convention on human rights. The Bill proposes a two-tier system and a two-tier approach to asylum, despite there being no legal requirement in international law for an applicant to seek asylum in the first country they reach.
By bringing this Bill forward, the Home Secretary is ignoring both international and UK law with her approach, as well as being blind to the fact that how an applicant arrives in the UK is unrelated to the level of protection that they require. The Home Secretary encourages asylum seekers to use official schemes to make their application, fully aware that in many cases the abhorrent regimes that an asylum seeker is seeking refuge from will place them and their families at greater risk. The risk that many asylum seekers face is not a choice they make freely; it is a choice they make simply because it is the only choice they have left—to turn to criminal gangs for help, leaving them open to exploitation.
The UK simply cannot depart from international law on an issue that requires co-operation with other countries and by doing so refuse to play its part in supporting some of the world’s most vulnerable citizens. The Bill is shoddy, it vandalises the UK’s international reputation and it undermines the devolution settlement itself.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Stoke-on-Trent, which I am proud to represent, has the fifth-highest rate of asylum seekers per 10,000 of population, Glasgow being the first. Does the hon. Lady agree that the SNP-led councils outside Glasgow should step up and do their bit, and start being part of the asylum dispersal scheme?
Angela Crawley
I thank the hon. Member for that comment. Feel free to fund Glasgow City Council to deal with the situation that, frankly, the Government have caused.
Most importantly, the Bill ignores the reality of why people flee in the first place and seek safety. That wilful ignorance lies within the Bill’s severest risk of harm to refugees seeking protection in the UK. [Interruption.] The Bill would put the continued use of military-style barracks at the heart of the Home Office strategy, flying in the face of court rulings and expert opinion, including the NHS and Public Health England. [Interruption.] Their use has been ruled unlawful and the court has banned it by a decision of the High Court. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) wishes to make a further intervention I will take it, otherwise I will carry on. It is simply astonishing that the Home Office is casually disregarding that ruling and the views of public health experts, and placing this practice at the heart of the Bill.
The Bill is one of the many reasons that Scotland needs her independence and to break away from this insular little Britain that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister are working to create. These are real people. These are real lives. That someone should arrive here, illegally by this Government’s definition, by exploitation or worse and be penalised for the very notion that they make it successfully here at all is absolutely abhorrent. This place should be regarded as a safe haven. The UK is that opportunity for many, many people. This Government turn their back on so many lives.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
Now then, Janis Bite was 13 years old and living in Latvia at the start of world war two. Two years later, the Nazis came. Their request was simple: one male member from each family to go and fight the Russians. It was either Janis, his dad or his younger brother, so Janis went to the Russian front and witnessed the horrors of war in temperatures of minus 40.
When the war ended in 1945, Janis was classed as a displaced person—a refugee. Imagine that. He could not go back to Latvia, because he had been sent straight to Siberia and that is where they sent his dad, so Janis was given two more choices: the US or the UK. So he came to the UK to a small village in Derbyshire, where he and other refugees were housed in Nissen huts in army barracks. He did not complain or whinge or moan about the barracks or set fire to the barracks or make TikTok videos. In fact, they were so grateful to the UK that they all volunteered to work in the fields at local farms picking potatoes and other seasonal vegetables for no pay. Janis met a girl in the village, he fell in love and he later married. He worked hard all his life and had three sons, one of them being Alan in Ashfield. Janis loved his football. He became a British citizen and loved this country. He even went on to meet our Queen. Janis is no longer with us, but his story makes me feel incredibly proud of our great country and its willingness to help people from all over the world.
Sir John Hayes
The story my hon. Friend is telling is a story of someone who sought our aid and got it, but would he contrast that with what is happening now? Would Janis not take the view, which has been articulated in this Chamber tonight, that the system that he held in such high regard is now being gamed and exploited, besmirching the good name of our country and people like him?
Lee Anderson
I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. That is absolutely right. I spoke to Janis’s family last week in Ashfield, and they made exactly that point. I will feed that back to them when I get back to Ashfield this weekend.
We have always been a welcoming and tolerant country that has reached out to genuine refugees from all over the world, but just like Janis’s family in Ashfield, most people in the UK do not accept that people travelling here from France in dinghies are genuine asylum seekers—[Interruption.] They are not genuine asylum seekers. We know that many of them have been trafficked with a clear instruction on how to claim asylum once they get here. That is because our asylum system is not fit for purpose, and this Bill stops that.
The Labour party and the Opposition want to bring back free movement. They dislike our points-based immigration system, and now they are going to vote against a Bill that protects our borders and helps us deport foreign murderers and rapists. They will always vote against the British people. This new Bill will ensure that people in genuine need, like Janis all those years ago, get the help they need, and the greedy lawyers and the human traffickers will be told, “No more.” We owe it to people such as Janis who are suffering today to ensure that we have a fairer system that offers genuine refugees a safe haven. This Bill does that.
We have nothing to be ashamed of in this country. We are a kind, tolerant and welcoming country. That is proven by the number of people who risk their lives every single day to get here. If Janis’s family can see that the current situation is unacceptable, surely the Opposition should see that too.
I give a massive thanks to the Home Secretary, who has stuck to her guns. She has listened to the British people and delivered. Opposition MPs want to travel into reality. I will offer this opportunity to all of you now sitting there now with those glazed expressions on your face: come down to Ashfield, come speak to some real people in my towns and villages, and the message you will get will be completely different from the message you are feeding into this House. I am here because of you lot and the attitudes you had in 2019. We are getting tough on crime, we are getting tough on immigration and we are getting tough on law and order.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations on taking the Chair. I am delighted to see you there.
Every year or two, we hear from a Conservative Home Secretary that they are going to fix the broken system. The Home Secretary has told us again tonight that the system is broken, and of course she is right: it is broken. All the previous attempts—we have heard about exactly the same things in the past—have not fixed it, and this one will not either. I cannot agree with the thinking in this Bill that making life more miserable for people whose circumstances are already utterly miserable will fix these problems and deter people from their desperate efforts to reach the UK.
Most people think that distinguishing between asylum seekers on the basis of their route to the UK is contrary to the 1951 refugee convention. No doubt that will end up in the courts. I am particularly dismayed by plans to process asylum applications overseas. We have no idea where this will happen. We certainly should know before we agree to this Bill.
Australia has offshore facilities in Papua New Guinea and Nauru, although nobody has been sent there since 2013. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees urged that they should be evacuated because of poor health standards, highlighting in particular the number of suicides there. Those facilities shame Australia, and if we go down the same road, it will shame us too.
The long wait for asylum decisions is a massive problem. I asked the Home Secretary about this earlier. There are 50% more asylum caseworkers now than there were in 2014-15, but the number of decisions they make has gone down every single year in that time. Why has productivity fallen so far? I asked the Home Secretary that and she did not give me an answer. Without fixing the problem, things will just carry on getting worse.
The number waiting more than a year for initial decisions, as we have been reminded repeatedly in this debate, has risen tenfold since 2010. I have seen that in constituency surgeries. People wait four years, and they have no idea when they will hear anything. Sometimes a reply to me is the only way they know they actually are in the Home Office system. They have no other evidence that they are.
I strongly support the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) for legally binding targets to process asylum cases more quickly. If people cannot stay, they should be told soon, not, as happens so often at the moment, after years, so that leaving is impractical and in practice hardly ever happens. The current gross inefficiency helps nobody. I hope the House will reject this Bill.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Our United Kingdom has always stood up for those in need, whether by helping the thousands escaping fascism in Europe in the 20th century or by offering a home to the people of Hong Kong who face persecution at the hands of the Chinese communist party.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, an adopted Stokie, is right to say that our asylum system is broken. People in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke will see images of people crossing the channel illegally in small boats and are rightly infuriated, because they know the impact that illegal immigration has. In Stoke-on-Trent, we have done more than almost any other area in giving asylum seekers a home. At the end of 2020, we had the fifth highest rate of asylum seekers per 10,000 of population in the whole UK, housing more than 1,000 asylum seekers. That means that one in every 250 people living in Stoke is now an asylum seeker, and with the certainty of even more illegal entries into the UK on boats, in lorries or through those arriving without visas, places such as Stoke-on-Trent will be pushed to their limit. In 14 council wards, the one in 200 cluster limit has already been breached in Stoke-in-Trent, with Etruria and Hanley, a ward I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon), having a ratio of one in 44. The stark truth is that our city has reached its limits. Services such as our local NHS and schools are under strain and being stretched even further, and I fully support the decision by Stoke-on-Trent City Council’s leader, Councillor Abi Brown, to pause our involvement with the asylum dispersal scheme.
Patrick Grady
Perhaps some of the asylum seekers in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency could be given the right to work and could then work in the schools and hospitals, and the whole community could benefit from the economic, cultural and social growth they would bring, rather than demonising, othering and making people afraid of them.
Jonathan Gullis
I see the hon. Gentleman getting very animated. I just hope he can convince his Scottish National party colleagues—or the nats—to get involved in the asylum dispersal scheme. I know that the Minister will be very keen for meetings tomorrow to start the paperwork and let us have lots more councils in Scotland taking part in the scheme.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking my intervention. He keeps saying this, as do many of his colleagues. However, I and my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities last week and it said, as it has so many times before, that every one of the other 31 local authorities in Scotland would be happy to get involved in the asylum dispersal scheme if it were funded—why shouldn’t it be funded? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it should be properly funded.
Jonathan Gullis
Stoke-on-Trent, sadly, has the second lowest council tax revenue income of any local authority in England, yet all I am hearing from those opposite is excuses, excuses, excuses. The SNP has money for all these vanity projects, but it does not have any money to look after asylum seekers—I find it baffling. By creating new accommodation centres, removing asylum seekers to a safe third country while an asylum claim is pending, in the same ways as is being done in Denmark, increasing maximum penalties for entering the UK illegally, enabling the quicker and easier removal of foreign criminals convicted of horrific crimes such as rape and murder, creating new safe and legal routes that will be looked on favourably when people apply for asylum, and backing our Border Force to stop and redirect boats out of British waters, returning them to safe countries from which they came, such as France, this Bill is delivering the reforms that we need and that are wanted by the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke.
Angela Crawley
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the picture he paints is not the same as the one we experience in Scotland. In Glasgow, in Kenmure Street, people wrapped themselves around those who were being deported by the Home Office and said, “Refugees are welcome.” The picture he paints is not representative of the whole of the UK—it is inaccurate and false.
Jonathan Gullis
I have the greatest respect for the people of Glasgow, their council and their MPs, because they have got involved in the asylum dispersal scheme, and they deserve full recognition and credit for that. That is just like how Stoke-on-Trent has wrapped its arms around the people who have come to this country in need and looked after them. But we have simply said that our NHS, local schools and local council services cannot do this any more and it simply has to come to a point where fairness is applied equally. I say to the hon. Lady again that if all the SNP councils that are not in Glasgow want to, they can meet the Minister and get the asylum dispersal scheme signed up to and we can share the load across our country.
But let us talk about the Labour party, who will listen to the woke mob on Twitter rather than listening to the people in former red wall seats. The Labour party wants to sign back up to free movement, which its leader spent years arguing for when trying to block Brexit. He also believes that immigration controls are racist. I suggest that the Labour party champagne socialists of north Islington, whose Labour-run council had not given accommodation to a single asylum seeker by the end of 2020, and their leftie sponging lawyer friends who soak up taxpayers’ money by preventing foreign criminals from being deported should get out and talk to some real people rather than worrying about their likes on Twitter. The truth is that the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke want to take back control and this Bill delivers that.
Allan Dorans (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (SNP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Good evening and welcome to the Chair.
“It is a sad fact that in our broken world forced migration is a reality…UK Government Ministers might wish for people to stop trying to cross the English Channel but when there is still conflict and injustice in the world then there will always be those wanting to seek sanctuary from war and suffering.”
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman talks about conflict and suffering and, of course, we deplore that on both sides of the House, but I am not aware that that conflict and suffering are in France. Much as I deplore many aspects of French civilisation, including its attitude to the monarchy, France is in the G7, the G20 and a founder member of the United Nations, so I do not understand why he feels that we need to give a safe home to those who are already in a fellow G7 member state.
Allan Dorans
They are fleeing conflict and war. That may be not be in France, but they are fleeing from it in their own countries where they are in severe danger of losing their lives.
Andrew Griffith
Will he just clarify whether, in his view, France is a safe country?
Allan Dorans
It is a safe country, but these asylum seekers are travelling from war-torn countries where their lives are in danger.
“We cannot close the door and instead we need to call out this policy for what it is—xenophobic populism which exploits people’s fears of the outsider.”
Those are not my words, but the words of Susan Brown, a leading member of the Church of Scotland and honorary chaplain to the Queen in Scotland, after seeing the consultation paper on the Bill. Susan clearly does not believe in myths, such as that immigrants are a drain on the NHS and the benefits system or that they bring increases in violent crime with them. For her, this is about being the kind of people we would want to be, treating others as we would hope they would treat us and our families were the roles reversed.
Some may argue that strict immigration policies are necessary to protect our borders and our country from the effects of immigration. However, on our NHS staffing, migration is good for the NHS. Migrants are an essential part of the healthcare workforce. They are the consultants, doctors, nurses, porters, cleaners, canteen staff and other people who look after the nation. 13.3% of NHS staff in hospitals and community services in England reported a non-British nationality. Among doctors, that proportion is 20.4%. Many doctors trained abroad and, in March 2019, 20% of GPs in England qualified outside the UK. Immigration is a necessary part of the British way of life.
On healthcare, the demand among migrants to the UK is lower than among the UK-born population, except among in-patients for childbirth. In Scotland, migrants from outside the UK are in general young and have low healthcare needs. Consequently, there is little evidence of increased demand for health services. On benefits, foreign-born people are less likely to receive key Department for Work and Pensions out-of-work benefits than UK-born people. On crime, in Scotland, statistics for individual crime participation tend to show that migrants are less likely to commit crime than observably similar people who were born in the United Kingdom.
I return to Susan Brown of the Church of Scotland, who said:
“What we need is political leadership which acknowledges and allays people’s concerns and promotes the importance of human life and dignity…This means giving asylum seekers the right to work…Establishing safe passage routes or humanitarian corridors to the UK for those that need sanctuary…and…support for individuals to alleviate destitution and poverty.”
In conclusion, I urge the Government to seriously reconsider many aspects of the Bill and to adopt a more appropriate economic and humanitarian approach to nationality and immigration.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome you to your elevated position.
Many of my constituents in Stoke-on-Trent South are shocked and angered by the illegal crossings of the English channel. The integrity of our borders is broken, and my constituents are fed up of seeing people continue to enter the UK illegally. We must act to put an end to the profiteering of criminal people traffickers, for whom illegal routes have become an industry, and we must deter those who seek to make these perilous journeys across the busiest shipping lane in the world in no more than a rubber dinghy.
Clearly, there must be safe routes for those in desperate need. The UK and Stoke-on-Trent have a proud record of helping those in the greatest need, but what my constituents cannot understand is why there should be any need to make illegal journeys to do so: European countries are safe, and those attempting to claim asylum should do so in those countries.
We have seen repeated attempts to game the system, using any legal loophole to do so. There were 16,000 illegal immigrants last year yet, because the system is overwhelmed and repeatedly abused, deportations are declining. The increased pressures we have seen on the entire immigration system put enormous weight on the few asylum dispersal areas. Stoke-on-Trent has seen one of the highest proportions of refugees in the entire country.
Angela Crawley
Does the hon. Member accept the criticism from his former colleague Anna Soubry, who said the Conservative party is now a “Trumpian”, far-right, “populist” party?
Jack Brereton
I do not agree with that. We have absolutely supported those in the most desperate need. It is about making sure we support the genuine ones in those countries and regions. We have supported around 25,000 over the past six years in this country, which is the most in the whole of Europe. We will not take any lectures from the SNP, which talks so much about support for immigrants but does not do a single thing. Glasgow is the only city in Scotland to be a dispersal area. The rest of Scotland does not lift a single finger to help asylum seekers.
Jack Brereton
I agree with my hon. Friend. Cities such as Stoke-on-Trent are actually putting in the effort.
Angela Crawley
The hon. Member’s statement that Glasgow is the only place in Scotland that accepts refugees is untrue. South Lanarkshire, my local authority, has accepted a number of refugees, particularly after 2014. [Hon. Members: “How many?”] I do not have the numbers, but the fact stated by the hon. Member is untrue.
Jack Brereton
Glasgow is the only official asylum dispersal area in Scotland. Other authorities have the opportunity to come forward as dispersal areas, but SNP-controlled authorities in Scotland have failed to do so. All the pressure has fallen on the minority of authorities that are dispersal areas, while numerous authorities have failed to resettle a single asylum seeker.
The west midlands is currently accommodating 12.26%, an increase on 2019, but all of this is falling on only half of the authorities in the region. In Stoke-on-Trent it is having a significant impact on our overstretched local services.
Stuart C. McDonald
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can join our delegation tomorrow, because what we seek and what the cross-party Home Affairs Committee has advised is that the Home Office properly fund the dispersal system. Every single local authority in Scotland got involved in the refugee resettlement scheme because it was properly funded. I am more than happy to join him in seeking more money for dispersal areas, and we will all then happily sign up to do the job properly.
Jack Brereton
What the hon. Gentleman is actually saying is, “We are happy for authorities like Stoke-on-Trent to continue to pull their weight, and we in Scotland will just sit here, not pull our weight and continue not to support asylum seekers in this country.”
Patrick Grady
The Scottish Government have published the “New Scots” plan to welcome asylum seekers and refugees across the entire country. If the UK Government do not want to give us the money, why do they not give us the power? Then we can have our own immigration system in Scotland.
Jack Brereton
I will make some progress, as I have very little time.
There are currently around 10,000 national foreign offenders in this country. Again, the Labour party will not do anything about it, and it tried to accept murderers and rapists into this country. We in Stoke-on-Trent will not allow that. As I said, the pressure faced by those few who have done the most is totally unsustainable. It saw all resettlement area authorities in the region withdraw from the scheme recently. Since then, we have continued to see attempts to place people, and the latest letter from the Minister—I do thank him for the support he has given—says that there will continue to be procurement in these areas, against our wishes. I totally recognise the urgent need for these areas to house people, but it cannot continue to fall on a few areas of the country. It is time that other areas of the country step up and do what they should in taking a fair share and contributing, as Stoke-on-Trent has and continues to do.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab) [V]
There is only one thing on which the Home Secretary and I would agree today, and that is that we have a failed and broken immigration system that costs far too much money. But that is because of successive Conservative Governments, who have failed it and broken it, and an incompetent and chaotic Home Office that continues to preside over it. When they constantly have to pay out claims for wrongful decisions and they outsource immigration detention and asylum accommodation, it costs money and causes misery. When more than 50% of those in immigration detention actually end up staying in this country, what an absolute waste. Extending the immigration detention estate will only enrich companies such as Serco and G4S, which is why the plan makes no sense to me. The pandemic has proven that it can be managed in another way. If the Government want to save money, they should simply end immigration detention.
This horrendous piece of legislation, hailed as a solution, does nothing to resolve these issues. It does nothing to create safe routes for refugees, nothing to end the hostile environment, nothing to end the danger of unsafe asylum accommodation and nothing to address the bureaucratic hurdles that leave people without documentation through no fault of their own.
We are living through an age of mass displacement driven by war, poverty and climate breakdown. Under the refugee convention, anyone seeking asylum should be able to claim in their intended destination or another safe country. Asylum seekers are under no obligation to seek refuge in the first country they arrive in, and there are a number of reasons why they may not do so.
At times like this, the Government should not be dodging their moral and legal obligations to accept their fair share of refugees. Instead of creating a fair and humane system, this Bill, coupled with the Government’s new plan, discriminates by distinguishing that whether people are fleeing from persecution is irrelevant compared with how they arrived. Does the Home Secretary realise that a trafficked woman cannot stop and ask her handler to ensure that she arrives under the correct documentation? LGBTQ people and those fleeing political and religious persecution cannot do a Google search to find out what mode might be considered the most favourable. An unaccompanied minor stripped of everything and everyone they know does not have the luxury of ticking the correct box. These people are fleeing conditions some of us could never imagine. These plans will limit the options of those most in need and create a two-tier system that will ruin lives.
It is 100% a misrepresentation to say that the legislation meets our obligations under international law. Do not take my word for it; the House has heard time and again today about the view of the United Nations, and the opinions of those lawyers who the Home Secretary seeks to demonise. I want all those campaigners and lawyers who continue to support migrants’ rights to know that, no matter what is said about them on the Conservative Benches, they are absolute heroes. Long after the Government are done away with, they will be on the right side of history.
This Bill is yet more of this Government’s authoritarian agenda, turning away the most vulnerable. As the late, great Tony Benn once said:
“The way a Government treats refugees is very instructive because it shows you how they would treat the rest of us if they thought they could get away with it.”
Only safe and legal routes will—
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and congratulations.
Before I come to the substantive points I wish to raise in relation to the Bill, it is worth reminding ourselves that what we are debating tonight touches on the experiences of some of the most vulnerable people in global society. Facing an ever-hardening legal system, asylum seekers find themselves in what can only be described as a paradox of precarity. The legal system offers asylum seekers little to no support, despite their already fragile and precarious position. That cannot be a satisfactory state of affairs.
I contend that this Bill only serves to entrench that paradox of precarity. While an account of the traumas faced by those who have fled their homeland for fear of persecution is best left to those who have first-hand experience, we cannot overstate the pain, suffering and disorientation faced by many of those who arrive on our shores. Let us reflect on the plight of the Uyghurs, the Rohingya and the Tigrayan people, for it is those groups the Bill will fall hardest on—those fleeing war and genocide.
For a nation whose proud reputation was part-founded on welcoming the persecuted over many centuries, this Government are doing much to trash that. Compare Germany, which accepted 1 million from Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan in 2015, with the UK promising to take just 20,000—a mere 2%. Our reputation is the reason why our legal system ought to be a bastion of firm, steady protection for those most in need, rather than—as will be the case in the event of the Bill’s passage—a contributory force in the erosion of the rights of asylum seekers. Our reputation is the reason why our legal system ought to be a bastion of firm, steady protection for those most in need, rather than—as will be the case in the event of the Bill’s passage—a contributory force in the erosion of the rights of asylum seekers.
Jack Brereton (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Matt Western
I am afraid that I want to let everyone speak this evening.
Let me give three clear examples of how the Bill will contribute to weakened protection for asylum seekers. First, clauses 16 to 20, requiring them to provide evidence supporting their claim by a specific date, appears to be almost entirely arbitrary. Indeed, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association has said that those clauses ignore the practical difficulties faced by many asylum seekers. Secondly, clause 24, which allows the Home Secretary to accelerate appeals when she thinks they would be disposed of expeditiously, grates against both article 34 of the UN refugee convention and the principles of natural justice—the very principles on which our legal system is founded, signed into force by the Attlee Government. It is more than regrettable that the convention appears now to be held in such little regard by this Government. Thirdly, not only will the Home Secretary have a much wider arsenal of powers at her disposal, but the Bill authorises decision makers to decide on the balance of probabilities, rather than on the basis of reasonable likelihood, whether a person claiming asylum has a well-founded fear of persecution.
Let us be clear: this amounts to an unnecessary raising of the legal bar for asylum seekers to succeed in cases. I struggle to see a valid policy reason for such a move, in the light of the Home Secretary’s commitment to upholding the apparently long, proud tradition of providing a home for people fleeing persecution and oppression. The answer lies not in raising the bar disproportionately high for asylum seekers to overcome, but in a more holistic approach to the support offered. It is not just our footballers who see this divisive Government for what it is; the public are more compassionate than the Government, and they seek a fair, compassionate system to provide for those in need.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
What a great pleasure it is to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
For many of my constituents, rightly or wrongly, the success of the Bill depends on whether it stops or clearly limits three persistent and frustrating problems with our immigration and border controls. First, it depends on whether the Bill stops or clearly limits the use of the channel crossing by boat or truck to make a claim for asylum; secondly, it depends on whether the Bill stops or clearly limits the filing, over many years, of speculative further asylum claims—frequently on specious grounds—that clog up our system, crowd out legitimate claims, and generally make a mockery of our legal processes; and thirdly, it depends on whether the Bill stops or clearly limits the opportunity for cherry-picking that leads people to make an asylum claim in the UK rather than in the one or many other safe countries through which they travel.
It is for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Minister to bear in mind that it is on those bases that my constituents will judge the success or failure of this measure, not the rhetoric that accompanies it. To me, however—and, I would say, to some other Conservative Members—there are further aspects that are important. Let me pick up the challenge from the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), on the views of those on this side of the House, because there are aspects of nuance and detail that I think it important to bring out.
First, if the assessment system is to be quicker, it is important for the Government to ensure that claimants have much better access to legal advice. Secondly, if the system is to work effectively, there needs to be greater availability of counselling, psychiatric and other medical assessments. Thirdly, we should once and for all have a culture of getting to the truth, rather than the culture of disbelief that has for too many years permeated the Home Office asylum system.
Sir John Hayes
I am intervening for a specific reason. What is actually happening is that the truth is being obscured by repeated claims which many of the people whom my hon. Friend is describing are encouraged to lodge by the unscrupulous lawyers who were given such a plaudit by the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy).
Richard Fuller
My right hon. Friend speaks very wise words.
Let me just say to Opposition Members that there is no monopoly on compassion, and that it does not mean saying that the system must apply to everyone in a particular process. Compassion applies to an individual claim. The importance of our system is that we get to that individual and do not lose sight of him or her. In a previous life as a Member of Parliament, I spoke in a debate on another immigration Bill and bemoaned the lack of compassion in our immigration system. It was encouraging to hear the Home Secretary use the word “compassion” so often, and to hear stories of compassion from other Conservative Members, whether they were about how a council looks after the people who are claiming asylum or about people’s feelings about the system. So there is no monopoly on compassion here, and I look forward to working with Opposition Members in finding ways in which we can make it work more deeply in the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
I have a lot of respect for the hon. Member, particularly for his stance on immigration detention and his campaigning for time limits on it. The Home Secretary talks about compassion, but at the end of the day—I have said this a few times, but people do not seem even to acknowledge it—the Bill would criminalise people it recognises as refugees, strip them of their family reunion rights, strip them of recourse to public funds, limit the amount of leave that they are allowed here and never let them even apply for settlement. That is not remotely compassionate. We are talking about refugees.
Richard Fuller
I look forward to the hon. Gentleman talking about specifics, because again there was a bit of broad generalisation there. However, one thing that I will say for SNP Members is that at least they have some ideas, whereas 10 minutes into the shadow Home Secretary’s speech he said, “Let me tell you what the Labour party will do”—and in the rest of his speech he came up with one idea, which was to set a legal target for how quickly asylum claims get processed. Is that it? Is that all the Labour party has to offer? I see that it is, so let us work with the SNP.
Let me tell the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East where I think we can work together. Let us have some compassion for victims of slavery; there is plenty of support on the Conservative Benches for that. Let us have some compassion in how we treat children in the Bill; there is lots of support on both sides of the House for that. Let us have some compassion for how the particular issues of women will be affected by the separation of regular from irregular routes. And let us have some compassion, Minister, by ending indefinite detention once and for all.
Geraint Davies (Swansea West) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Last week, Swansea celebrated 10 years as a city of sanctuary. We offer a hand of friendship, not a fist of resistance; we are a community of communities, moving forward together in an uncertain world. But the Bill is not a helping hand for those fleeing war and persecution, nor is it a worthy successor to the 1951 refugee convention that Britain helped to produce. Instead, it is a mean-spirited act of national populism to provide more hostile environment for those in genuine need when we have savagely cut overseas aid by £4.4 billion, which will increase refugee demand.
Last year, we had 27,000 asylum seekers in Britain—the 17th highest number in Europe per head of population and the fifth highest overall—so there is not a massive problem of refugees and asylum seekers. That debate has been whipped up as a cynical political exaggeration. Millions of people have been displaced from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq, where we have been engaged in war, and we need to take our responsibility in due accord.
The 1951 refugee convention recognised that in fleeing from war and persecution, people arrive irregularly, obviously—they are escaping. The Bill reduces the rights of people who arrive irregularly by boat or lorry, which is a natural way to escape. The plan is to put them into temporary isolated camps so that they do not settle, which will be a magnet for protesters, fascists and the like. They need rehabilitation and settling, not isolation and persecution. People who are not travelling directly or who are delaying will get second-class treatment as so-called group 2 refugees, so they will have to wait 30 months at a time. They will have to wait 10 years before they have any sort of permanency.
What is more, the Bill criminalises people. People could face up to four years in prison if they do not arrive in a regular way, as no one would who was escaping war or persecution. What we should be doing, like the United States—at last—and like Canada and Norway is increasing the number of refugees settled. Ours went down from 5,000 to 3,000, but it should be nearer to 10,000.
The cut in overseas aid will hit people in Yemen, Afghanistan and Syria the hardest and will produce even more problems, but all we can do is create a hostile environment. We are better than this.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Crewe and Nantwich) (Con) [V]
Listening to this debate, not for the first time, there has been a real effort to talk down our record and to talk down the generosity of the British taxpayer. Our Syrian refugee resettlement scheme, for example, has protected 25,000 people in the past six years, more than any other European country. That is worth restating. Conservative Governments have done that. Conservative Governments have resettled 25,000 people ahead of the rest of Europe.
I want to take head-on the shallow arguments being made against reform. We need to face reality: right now, it is estimated that 426 million children are living in conflict zones. There is absolutely no way that any country can provide a home and refuge to even a substantial proportion of those children. Millions more live in conditions all over the world that would qualify them for humanitarian relief, and there are tens of millions of refugees. Importantly, there are many, many more people who live in similar circumstances to those already seeking to come here as economic migrants. We cannot help everyone. Labour Members want to pretend that there are no choices to make, and whatever choices we make, it will find some way of saying that those in the Labour party are heroes and that we are the villains because they would have helped just a few more people. It is the same old Labour.
There are millions of people who, if they could get here, would make a contribution and become positive members of our society. A policy is not a failure because an example of that can be found. If Labour got its way entirely, there would still be refugees in camps who would be better off in the UK. It is a vacuous way to attack Government policy on this issue. The question is: are we playing our part? I want to see that we get the most out of the money we spend. For every person who gets here because criminal gangs took their money to get them across the channel, there is someone among the hundreds, thousands, or millions of people who have not done that whom we could offer asylum to instead. For every penny that we spend on housing someone here, we could help many more people in conflict zones.
Who is it that we want to help? We always have to make a choice. Instead of helping the primarily fit, young men of working age who make the channel crossing, we should help the children, the elderly, and the destitute who cannot. I welcome that we will make it absolutely clear that coming here in a boat across the channel is not acceptable. There is only one way to do that, and that is to create a system that takes that into account.
We need to sort this issue out to secure long-term public support for taking in refugees. That is not populism; that is democracy. The public are not stupid. They know that there is a difference between economic migrants and refugees, and they know that boat crossings is a route that favours economic migrants. The public need confidence that the people we help are genuine refugees.
It is important that we do not let our record turn into one of which we cannot be proud. We should keep our decent record, but by using the new system to tip the balance towards those who are the most vulnerable. This shift is a good one. I am someone who cares about vulnerable people and who is proud of our record, and I support these changes.
Florence Eshalomi (Vauxhall) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
Our asylum system has saved countless lives from persecution, discrimination and conflict. It plays a key role in enabling us to honour our international, legal and humanitarian responsibilities and I am proud that our country, my home, is a place that people in crisis come to for safety.
There can be no doubt that our asylum system is in disarray. This Bill was a chance to fix that. Instead, it will enable the Government to turn their back on some of the most vulnerable people in the world. Over 33,000 people waited more than 12 months for an initial decision last year. That is 10 times the number in 2010. The Bill does nothing to address that shocking backlog, or the discrimination and destitution faced by asylum seekers today. Instead, it will make their lives harder when they seek the safety that they desperately need. This includes one of my constituents here in Vauxhall, an Eritrean national. Since he arrived in the UK, more than 18 months ago, he has been moved to four different hotels while waiting for an initial decision from the Home Office. During that time, he and a friend were subject to a shocking, violent crime. An acid attack led to his friend losing his vision at just 18 years old. How much longer does my constituent have to wait to know whether he is finally free to start to rebuild his life here in the UK?
Unfortunately, this Bill does not answer his question.
This Bill creates no commitment to reopen safe routes or resettlement for family reunion. As hon. and right hon. Members have rightly highlighted, after the UK’s new resettlement scheme, we settled just 25 refugees in March. The Bill proposes to build on the Government’s hostile environment agenda by criminalising some of the most vulnerable migrants, locking them up in an overseas accommodation centre. That is immoral and should shame us. Our asylum system should not be a soulless, bureaucratic administrative process, or a tick-box exercise. It is about people’s lives, and it should therefore involve compassion and understanding. The Bill will make it harder for vulnerable refugees to build their lives. That is why I will support the reasoned amendment tabled by the Leader of the Opposition.
Marco Longhi (Dudley North) (Con) [V]
Immigration is one of the biggest issues of concern to my constituents. I will spend a few moments talking about how we got to where we are now. The Labour Government of ’97 changed everything. Labour’s overhaul of Britain’s immigration policies took average net entry into the country from between 10,000 and 20,000 a year, to between 200,000 and 300,000 a year. From then on, the mere claim of asylum was sufficient to be allowed to stay in the country.
That was when Labour and the media created a toxic atmosphere in which merely mentioning “immigration” branded a person racist, so any expression of fact about immigration was made impossible. From ’97, Labour legally wove into the very fabric of society something akin to a culture war against the British people and their mainstream values—the same people who value fairness, generosity and compassion for true asylum seekers, and who want a fair immigration system. Those same people have been bullied and abused by the toxic atmosphere created by Labour and much of the media. Since then, tragically, all politicians have failed them—until now. And yes, equally, true asylum seekers have been failed.
Labour’s legacy is clear, if just from the numbers. Immigration estimates have consistently shown no resemblance to the actual numbers. The recent resettlement applications have shown some 3 million additional applicants on the numbers forecast, almost two thirds more than the forecasts made by the same quangos that estimate housing need and advise Government. This has been a failure of Labour policy and the civil service of gargantuan proportions. My voters in Dudley have made that very clear to me.
People smugglers have benefited from the UK magnet, and the system has helped migrants become prey to them, putting their lives in danger. Our councils have not got enough houses, but we are asking them to develop green belt. We do not have enough doctors, dentists or school places, but we need more interpreters for them. This colossal failure is what Labour designed and delivered when in power, thinking that it would change society to keep it in power. In some places, that has worked, but in 2019 the British people said enough. They will hold every Labour MP in contempt for wanting to rejoin the EU and bring back freedom of movement.
The Government are making solid progress. We want to be able to protect our poorest, weakest and most vulnerable. The Bill will deliver on our people’s priorities.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind) [V]
The Nationality and Borders Bill is anti-refugee to its core. I will fight it every step of the way. It lacks basic humanity and represents an acceleration of the Government’s deeply damaging demonisation of migrants and asylum seekers.
The Bill will enable the UK Government to block visas for overseas visitors if the Home Secretary believes that their country of origin is refusing to co-operate in taking back those the Government want to deport. Asylum seekers will be able to be removed from the UK while their asylum claim or appeal is pending, which opens the door to offshore asylum processing.
Those who have fled war, famine, persecution or violence will be blocked at the border, based on the false premise that a refugee who has sought to escape persecution and danger through what the Government call an irregular route to the UK ought not to seek protection, creating a two-tier system regardless of need and criminalising those seeking protection, while failing to end indefinite detention. That is cruel, deeply unjust and unworkable, all from a Government comprised mostly of individuals who have led lives of extraordinary privilege.
The Bill is illegal, breaching commitments under the refugee convention of 1951. Like many places in the UK, my home city of Leicester is forged from a proud history of welcoming refugees and asylum seekers. We are better for our diversity.
The Bill shows that, far from learning from the appalling treatment of the Windrush generation, the Government are intent on expanding the damaging hostile environment. Asylum seekers who arrive in Britain are often from countries where the UK has contributed to their disruption, either by arming current conflicts or through the enduring legacy of colonialism.
The UK Government have persistently been warned that if they do not open safe and legal routes for people to practise their legal right to claim asylum, deaths at sea are unavoidable. Yet they have proceeded to close the few legal avenues that exist, such as the right to family reunion. Time and again, the Government have chosen to turn their back on those seeking protection from war, climate disaster, torture or other awful acts. The Bill will compound the misery of people fleeing intolerable conditions.
The Government must end the destructive demonisation of refugees and asylum seekers and abandon this deeply damaging Bill.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab) [V]
I start by thanking Liverpool City Council, health projects and all community and voluntary organisations in Liverpool, Riverside for their tireless and invaluable work for the most vulnerable people who have fled unimaginable circumstances. As a scouser, I am proud that Liverpool has a long history as a city of sanctuary and will continue to welcome refugees, even though the Tories have stolen 63% of our central funding in the last 11 years.
The Bill is fundamentally flawed and will result in the Government turning their back on some of the most vulnerable people. According to the UN Refugee Agency, the Bill risks breaching international law. Rather than offering genuine proposals to fix the broken asylum system, it will make the situation even worse. Many asylum seekers are already desperately vulnerable when they reach the UK. They are the victims of war, persecution, humanitarian crisis, modern slavery, torture and sexual abuse. Their mental health deteriorates drastically through years of uncertainty and powerlessness. There is the separation of families who have been torn apart, with no family reunion rights for the years they are stuck in the asylum system.
Countless constituents have contacted my office, including one who has waited more than three years for a decision. Another, an engineering doctor, who cannot work in his speciality and submitted his citizenship claim in July last year after 15 years in the UK, still has not had a response. Another is a Berti tribe member who faces persecution in Sudan for his ethnicity and still has not had an interview after a year of application. My office has noticed that the delays for asylum decisions get longer and longer.
The Bill not only fails to protect those people in need of safety, but treats them as criminals. All people who seek protection should be allowed to make an asylum claim, no matter how they have arrived. Creating a two-tier system that grants lesser rights to those who arrive in the UK outside so-called official routes undermines the refugee convention.
The Bill does not address the Government’s failure since 2010 to competently process asylum applications. It contains no plan to reduce the backlog. Instead, its provisions are likely to worsen wait times for applicants, leaving more people vulnerable, living in limbo and suffering uncertainty and anxiety. Instead of treating people who are fleeing war, persecution and trauma as criminals and forcing them into destitution with no prospect of escape for years, I implore the Government and appeal to their humanity—what little they have—to stop punishing people for seeking protection.
Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)
It is a genuine pleasure to contribute to the debate with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome you to the Chair and hope you enjoy your time there.
In the little time I have, I want to speak in support of the clauses that create more penalties for those who facilitate illegal immigration and more enforcement penalties. I speak from the perspective of representing ports in my constituency. It is not for nothing that Thurrock’s motto is:
“By Thames to all peoples of the world.”
In particular, the port of Tilbury has been very much at the heart of our island story of migration for many years, from the Windrush and people arriving in this country from what was then the empire right through to today, when arrivals tend to be of a more clandestine nature.
But there is one thing that unites all those people: hope. People want to come to this country because—let us be frank—it is the best country in the world. Why would people not want to come here? The fact is that it is organised criminal gangs who exploit that hope. People get seduced by the fantasy that if they get here, the streets will be paved with gold, and that all they need to do is to get here and they will be fine. They are the victims of crime and wilful criminal activity around our border.
For me, it is all about going after those organised criminal groups that exploit people who only want a better life for themselves. Hon. Members will remember that in October 2019 I was standing in this very spot talking about the fact that Essex police had found a container with 39 poor souls who had died on arrival in this country en route from Vietnam. I issued the challenge then that we had to go after those people and bring them to justice, and that that was the way to really tackle our illegal immigration. I can advise the House that Essex police have been truly fantastic in prosecuting that investigation. There have already been 10 convictions and there are more coming down the track. I have to commend the energy with which officers throughout Essex police have sought to prosecute that investigation around the world.
Let us not say that this is too difficult. We know that these networks operate across many different jurisdictions, but with determination we should go and get them, because once we start to shut down these criminal gangs, they will move away from trafficking people into our country. Right now they think that this is an opportunity for crime. Let us ensure that, instead of demonising people whose only ambition is to come here, we go after the serious criminals who are exploiting their wish to do so.
Neale Hanvey (Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath) (Alba)
I make no apology for addressing this Bill through a Scottish prism. Perhaps with the absence of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), the voices that I have heard from the Conservative Benches have been really quite dispiriting.
There is a toast from the bard in Scotland that contains the phrase “Wha’s like us?” but that toast will never be proposed to the British nationalism riven through the heart of this tawdry Government, no more evidenced than by the tenor, tone and impact of this inhumane anti-refugee Bill. This Government never seek or seem to learn: Windrush; the PM’s betrayal of his own Brexit promises to our EU friends, neighbours and family; and a Bill that is hostile to the world from a Government hostile to Scotland but with the temerity to claim that they speak for us and that we are one nation.
If this Bill achieves anything, it will be to demonstrate how very different we are. What does it say to us in Scotland? It says, “We care not for your identity as a nation.” It says, “You will fall in line; you will fail to meet the refugee convention; you will criminalise asylum seekers for exercising their legal right to seek asylum; you will process traumatised asylum seekers offshore; you will pile pressure on to the judicial system while reducing access to justice; you will retraumatise victims; you will remove hope; and you will decrease protection and enhance exploitation.” It says, “You will do all this not because you want to, but because we say so; your international welcome is not valued by this Government and your international friends are no friends of ours.” Nothing makes the case for independence more strongly than such a murky piece of legislation.
The people of Scotland will reject the UK Government’s divisive, jingoistic nationalism and are revolted by the casual xenophobia it embodies. Successive UK Governments have had no qualms about hostility, invading nations, instigating conflict and supplying weapons to oppressive regimes the world over in the pursuit of wealth. Despite that profit, there is not a blush when they complain that those they have helped to displace seek refuge on these shores. Those are people in desperate need. They are victims recast as “us” and “them.” The response of providing needed help is not just a matter of basic humanity; it is a fundamental ethical concern. There is no “us” in humanity, and no “them” in humanity. There is no humanity in this Bill and no humility in this Government.
It is time for Scotland to face facts. We were dragged out of the EU against our will and Scotland is being dragged through the gutter by the Tory party yet again. The people of Scotland: wha’s like us? They certainly do not think that it is this shoddy Westminster Government.
Mr Speaker
Excellent—perfect timing.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Maria Caulfield.)
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. For those who were on the list and were not called—there were a few people left—can I just ask for your direction and help? Will those who were not successful today be called tomorrow?
Mr Speaker
First, I do not think that was quite a point of order. I think you want some clarification for tomorrow and, Jim, I presume you must be acting for others and not yourself when you ask that question. I would say that I think those Members who did not get in today will automatically be put on the list for tomorrow, and I hope those who do not want to be on the list will withdraw.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Tuesday 20th July 2021
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
19:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 265 / Noes: 359 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:10 - The House divided: - Ayes: 366 / Noes: 265 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Alberto Costa (South Leicestershire) (Con) [V]
I am delighted to warmly welcome many of the measures outlined in this Bill, specifically those to make some well-reasoned amendments to nationality law and consequently our policy towards those wishing to become British citizens.
As the House will no doubt be aware, citizenship is often the smaller, quieter sibling of immigration policy. Successive Governments have often, and quite understandably, prioritised their focus and thoughts on immigration—how to control it, who to let in, why and when. The Government have done very well in reforming our country’s immigration policy in the midst of our exit from the European Union. We have reshaped our immigration system toward our country’s needs, which is the correct approach for a country navigating different waters in a brave new world as we move towards a global Britain on the world stage.
Previous Governments, however, have seldom thought about the part after immigration, and it is to this Government’s credit that they are now doing just that. Last year I had the pleasure of chairing an independent inquiry into UK citizenship policy with the highly regarded think-tank British Future; it included a number of colleagues from this House and experts from relevant stakeholders such as the Law Society of Scotland. The inquiry’s report, which is entitled “Barriers to Britishness”, sought to explore the means and capacity for possible reform in this often-forgotten area of policy to see how the UK Government could take a more welcoming and positive approach to those who have come here, built their lives here and made a significant contribution here.
It is often said that the journey to become a British citizen is too expensive or too complicated. However, I am pleased that the Government have taken on board a number of my inquiry’s recommendations. As a result, the Bill goes some way towards simplifying the process of becoming a British citizen. For those applying for citizenship, the introduction of the requirement for applications to show a sustained connection to the UK was one of my inquiry’s key recommendations. That is reflected in clause 8. It comes at the expense of the previous requirement for applicants to prove that they were physically present in the UK five years before their application. That helps to remove a barrier towards Britishness while reducing the need for applicants to rely on costly legal advice for their application. The clause may also benefit non-British members of the armed forces, who might serve abroad for protracted periods.
Clauses 1 to 4 remove some of the remaining anomalies associated with British overseas territories citizenship, allowing mothers and unmarried fathers to pass on BOTC status, which could previously be passed on only by a married father. That introduces a most welcome route to full citizenship for those who hold BOTC passports in 14 qualifying territories, including the Falkland Islands, whose residents, as we all know, have as much a sense of being British as those living here in the UK.
Another welcome change is outlined in clause 7, which creates a new process for the discretionary registration of adults as British citizens in circumstances when they would otherwise have become British had it not been for historical unfairness in the law, an act or omission of a public authority, or other exceptional circumstance. As the House will be aware, the Home Secretary already possesses the power to grant citizenship on a discretionary basis to children. However, by extending that right to adults, the Bill will benefit those such as the Windrush victims who have been stranded abroad or young adults who have grown up in care and whom the local authorities neglected to register as British as a child, or registered them under the EU settlement scheme.
The Bill, in making those amendments to nationality law, goes a long way towards simplifying the citizenship process for those who wish to be British. There are, however, further areas of citizenship policy to which I and the inquiry have recommended changes, not least the cost of a citizenship application. The cost of becoming a British citizen is £1,330. Let us compare that to the cost in Australia, which is £155; in Canada, which is £373; in New Zealand, which is £243; and in the United States, which is £590. I would be most grateful if the Minister explained why the cost of an application is extremely high, compared to the cost in those countries. I urge the Government to consider a much more reasonable application fee and reduce that further barrier to becoming a British citizen.
Overall, I welcome the Government’s proposals to make the offer of citizenship more open and accessible. I hope we can go further in ensuring that those who have chosen the UK in which to work and build their lives, and who have made enormous contributions, have that matched by the offer of citizenship. I will support the Government’s Bill this evening.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
We begin with a time limit for Back-Bench speeches of six minutes.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
First, I thank the hundreds of constituents who have written to me asking me to oppose the Bill, which I will this evening. I am proud to be here as a Member of Parliament for Glasgow. I praise Glasgow’s role as a dispersal city, and the great work of organisations such as the Govan Community Project and the Govan Home and Education Link Project, which help asylum seekers on a daily basis.
Glasgow is well aware of the reality of asylum seekers’ experiences, which we cannot really contemplate. Victims of torture, sexual violence and persecution—that is the reality of asylum seekers’ experience. As restrictions ease, the Government had an opportunity to introduce some substantial legislation to address the inequalities that the covid pandemic has exposed, such as an unemployment Bill to deal with precarious work or, indeed, to reform the broken social security system. I am afraid that this Bill exposes the Conservative party in all its guises, because it is the politics of the dog whistle—the politics where every person seeking sanctuary is viewed with suspicion.
I read Hansard today and the phrase “economic migrants” was used liberally by Conservative Back Benchers yesterday. Perhaps they could benefit from Show Racism the Red Card coming in here, as they do in classrooms in Glasgow, and explaining the difference between an asylum seeker, a refugee and an economic migrant, because I suspect that some Conservative Back Benchers would fail that simple test. It is the politics where the legal profession is collectively dismissed as Marxist, despite some incredible court rulings. For example, Serco obtained an extraordinary High Court ruling that private sector companies, which the Government use across public services, do not have to comply with basic human rights legislation when providing accommodation to asylum seekers.
It is surprising to hear Government Members say that the legal routes issue is different from those in the Bill. It is not. If the Government close legal routes to seek sanctuary in this country, it cannot be a surprise that people would be so desperate that they choose to try other routes into the UK. There has been a lack of real engagement in the consultation process for the Bill. The Bill was, of course, published before any formal response to the consultation—a consultation in which many organisations that deal and work with asylum seekers on a daily basis raised real concerns that have not been addressed.
Depriving asylum seekers of the chance to obtain competent legal representation and to challenge poor decisions increases the risk of returning people to extremely serious danger. That approach also ignores the numerous reasons why refugees may be unable to provide all the evidence and information regarding their case at an early stage in the procedure. Such reasons include a lack of knowledge of the system. Asylum seekers do not have expertise in the UK’s immigration system when they get here fleeing oppression. They do not know what evidence they have, so it should not be a surprise that people who are survivors of trauma do not immediately disclose information, especially women and survivors of sexual violence.
There are a number of concerns. I mentioned accommodation. It is astonishing that Home Office providers of asylum accommodation do not need to use registered social landlords to provide that accommodation. Even worse, the Government now want to legislate to increase the use of military barracks. That is utterly unacceptable and will do serious harm, I fear, to the mental health of many of those seeking sanctuary in the United Kingdom. By vowing to continue that practice, the Government are ignoring the views of public health experts. It really is astonishing.
The independent chief inspector of borders and immigration described the Home Office’s use of that sort of accommodation as a “serious error of judgment”, while the immigration court ruled earlier that the Home Secretary failed to ensure that deaths in immigration detention centres were properly investigated. A Home Affairs Committee report published in December 2018 described the conditions in which vulnerable people are being housed as “degrading” and called on the Home Office to show “greater urgency”.
My last concern is that we want to follow the Australian model. Centres in Australia saw cases of sexual abuse and the rape of refugees leading to some falling pregnant, and there were instances of staff using unreasonable force, while the remoteness of offshore facilities also caused deaths due to the lack of healthcare facilities.
Glasgow has risen up to the Home Office time and again, as we did in Kenmure Street, and I was very proud to be there exercising my right to freedom of peaceful assembly. The people of Glasgow in opposing the Bill say this: “Say it loud, say it clear: refugees are welcome here”.
Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con) [V]
The Nationality and Borders Bill is important and necessary legislation to address the growing problem of illegal entry into the UK by migrants crossing the Dover straits. Last year, in 2020, more than 8,500 people made such a journey in small vessels: 87% of them were men and 74% were aged 18 to 39. This year, over 8,000 have already completed the trip, including a record number of 430 in a single day—and that was yesterday. For residents on the Kent coast, including in my constituency, it has become a fact of life that, when the weather is good and the sea is calm, hundreds of undocumented asylum seekers will attempt to cross the channel in small boats.
We need to be clear that illegal crossings of the channel are dangerous and cost lives. In recent years, migrants have died while being smuggled in lorries. There have been deaths from people trying to walk through the channel tunnel, and there have been drownings at sea from people trying to make it across the channel in small boats. We cannot allow this to continue. No country would allow this to continue, or should.
The Government have made substantial investments, along with the French authorities, to improve security at the port of Calais and the channel tunnel, making it much harder for people to gain illegal entry there. Improved patrolling along the French coast has led to the successful detection of many people as they attempt to make their crossing, but before their vessel enters the water. Some people have called for vessels to be intercepted at sea, and suggested—I think wrongly—that vessels are just being escorted across the channel by the French authorities or by our own. I do not think that is the case. Vessels need to be intercepted before they get into the water, as interception at sea is dangerous if the migrants on the vessels are not co-operating with the authorities.
We cannot, of course, patrol in French waters, and we are reliant on the French authorities to do that. Of course, it would be much better if they could do that just as those vessels leave French waters, when returning to France would be easier, but we have no means to patrol in its waters. I would say, though, that excellent work has been done at sea when it has been needed by Border Force and most importantly—I would like to thank this group of people—by the volunteer lifeboat men working for the Royal National Lifeboat Institution at the lifeboat stations from Dungeness in my constituency round to Dover, who are now regularly called out to assist people in distress at sea.
Pascale Moreau, the European director of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, said a couple of years ago of this problem:
“Our collective response should be comprehensive and complementary—from saving lives to combating smuggling rings, expanding legal options, and ensuring that all those who are in need of protection can effectively access it”.
That is why the approach set out in this Bill is so important.
We need to make it clear that illegal entry to the UK is not a shortcut to residency in this country. We need to make it clear to the people traffickers who prey on vulnerable people for profit that they will face tough sentences for bringing people illegally into this country. We need to make people think again before attempting these life-threatening crossings. That is why it is right that the Bill addresses that. It will make it illegal for people to arrive in UK waters without permission, which it already is; increase the maximum sentences for people who are arriving in the country illegally from six months to four years; make it a criminal offence to knowingly arrive in the UK without permission; and introduce tough new sentences for people traffickers, so they know they will face lengthy prison sentences—up to life prison sentences—if they are involved in operating people trafficking rings. These are the reforms we need.
Alongside these reforms must also go the work for safe routes to make sure that migrants and asylum seekers are aware of safe legal routes to enter this country. The safe routes scheme this country invested in saw more than 25,000 refugees settled in this country from 2015 to 2020. In addition, more than 29,000 close relatives joined people in this country. Under the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, working with UNHCR, we were able to identify the most vulnerable people in the most dangerous places and give them a safe route to enter this country.
We want people to take that route, not to put their lives in the hands of people-trafficking gangs to make a journey across Europe and a life-threatening journey across the channel, but instead to work with the authorities in war zones and danger zones, where we know people are displaced and need help, to give them a safe legal route to this country and to know that at the end of that safe legal route will be a successful asylum claim and with it indefinite leave to remain in the UK. That is the route we need to establish. We need to close down the illegal crossing points, which are incredibly dangerous, that are profiting criminal gangs and are rightly concerning to people who live on the Kent coast, too. We need to close this route down and give people safe routes to this country and safe ways to claim asylum.
Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op) [V]
In 1933, Einstein lived in Norfolk, guarded by local residents and a Conservative MP to prevent attempts to assassinate him by the Nazis. At the time, he said:
“I shall become a naturalised Englishman as soon as is possible for my papers to go through.”
He never did get those papers, though.
Throughout this debate, I have heard Members laud our history of accepting refugees as if it somehow explains and justifies the Bill before us; as if our capacity as a nation to retrospectively see that we did the right thing means that we are doing so now. Yet even when it came to geniuses like Einstein, the term “asylum seeker” has always meant second-class citizen. There are no photographs of the parents of the Kindertransport children, the ones denied entry by Whitehall, only to be murdered by the Nazis. When it came to east African Asians, we introduced the Commonwealth Immigration Act 1968 to make it harder for them to seek sanctuary. Now we have orphaned children sleeping rough on our border with France and in Greece in overcrowded covid-ridden camps, and we say that they must be safe so they are not our problem.
Let us stop re-writing the UK’s history to provide cover for legislation like this, which makes plain the Government’s disdain for those who find themselves with little alternative but to run for their lives. They want to penalise people for how they run, creating a third class of citizens who are at perpetual risk of being deported: because they did not queue properly and fill in the appropriate form, they did not travel directly to an island nation or present themselves immediately for a claim, they must be suspect, regardless of their story or why they fled, breaching the refugee convention. I hear this a lot: “Well, they came through France, Germany, Belgium. Why should we help them?” The convention is clear that there is no requirement to claim asylum in the first safe country. It was intended to get nations to work together to help make managing those at risk possible.
It is true that it was easier to quietly ignore those in danger when there were not that many of them, before the mass refugee camps in Sudan or the Syrian civil war, but just because the challenge is harder does not mean that our response should be, too; that we should be a nation that does not keep its promises to the 3,000 children we said we would take under the Dubs scheme; we have only taken 480. Turkey is taking 4 million refugees and we are quibbling about 26,000 applications. The vast majority of refugees end up staying in the areas they have run from, displaced and living in developing countries when wealthy ones like ours want to look the other way.
Persecution does not happen in an orderly fashion. Wars are not run to a timetable to be able to make people make applications. You run, you grab your children, you flee with what you can, you try to save their lives—yes, many of them boys and young men—from certain death. What parent cannot understand that ambition? We all want to stop the traffickers, but the gangs will use these changes as a selling point to those desperate people. If we want to stop the gangs then take away the market, but there is no safe and legal route being proposed here, no new commitments made. The vulnerable persons resettlement scheme has stopped. If we think that the only place that people are running from is Syria, we do not understand what is going on in Ethiopia, Iran, Afghanistan, to the Uyghurs, to LGBTQ people in Myanmar, or to Christians and religious minorities around the world.
Ministers claim the legislation will protect women from trafficking when it will do the reverse, because it is not based on any evidence. Their own statistics show that the majority in detention referred to the national referral mechanism are then recognised as potential victims of trafficking and that 81% of reasonable grounds rejections that are challenged are granted a positive ruling, yet many of those women would fall into that group, too. Women repeatedly abused on their journeys here, who cannot find the words to speak about the hell they have been through, will be criminalised because they did not have all their paperwork neatly folded about their person for presentation during this time. Locking them up in detention centres reinforces, not removes, the abuse they face. Yarl’s Wood is a stain on our national identity, a place where victims of sexual abuse and rape in war are jailed. Not only does it cost more than community schemes to run, but it retraumatises those women over and over again.
Home Office costs are spiralling, 40% of appeals are successful and more and more people are forced to live in misery and destitution as a result of the scheme we have. The Government’s solution is to try to house them offshore in a move that makes Yarl’s Wood look compassionate. Those who have lauded the Australians and their offshoring facility at Nauru would do well to read the horrifying accounts of the sexual abuse of women and children over the years, in addition to the hundreds of incidents of threatened and actual self-harm, and ask whether this is really the path we want to go down.
Einstein said:
“A bundle of belongings isn’t the only thing a refugee brings to his new country.”
Out there, the British public know that. They know that we need a system that can process people fairly and quickly. They know that but for the grace of God there they go. If the worst were to happen to them and they had to flee their homes, they would want a new home that saw them not as a burden, but as a benefit. Our past does not mean we cannot build a future in which we make that ambition a reality. This Bill will not stop the boats; it will encourage them. So let us not give the criminal gangs their latest recruiting tactic. I urge colleagues to vote this Bill down and stand up to those who want to demonise refugees. Let us come together to come back with something that can make Britain proud of how we treat the persecuted, not an international pariah.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
This Bill is incredibly wide-ranging, and I associate myself with the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) about the nationality changes. However, I will confine my remarks to illegal immigration and allow other Members to get in.
This debate is particularly poignant today, when we hit a new record high for small boat crossings, with 430 people crossing in a single day. While Redcar and Cleveland is more than 300 miles from Dover, I am contacted about illegal immigration almost daily. The Labour party likes to pretend it is not happening, as we have heard from some of the contributions so far today and yesterday, but it is happening, and the refusal of some to acknowledge it is part of the reason why Labour no longer represents seats such as mine. I am here to share the views of those I represent, and I believe that we owe it to the public to finally address the problem.
There are a few in my constituency who want Britain to completely close its borders to asylum seekers and refugees—I believe they are wrong. Equally, there are some who want us to be borderless and do nothing to prevent illegal immigration into this country, and they are wrong, too. The vast majority of people in Redcar and Cleveland, including me, want us to help those most in need and offer protection to those facing persecution while preventing illegal entry into this country.
That is why this Bill is so important. We can have a firm but fair approach to illegal immigration. “Firm” means stopping people from jumping the queue by crossing the channel. “Fair” means new, safe legal routes to asylum in the UK. “Firm” means a new one-stop process for claims and an end to repeated meritless appeals. “Fair” means improving support for genuine refugees to help them to build their lives here.
We have to be honest with our constituents about what is happening in the small boats on the channel and in lorries through the tunnel. People are being smuggled into this country, and those who evade detection are vulnerable to modern-day slavery and further trafficking within the UK. It is simply not a case of people fleeing war-torn areas or escaping persecution; they are travelling from France. The vast majority of those who arrive are male, and almost exclusively they are over the age of 18. Many lie about their age. As the Home Secretary said yesterday, in 2020, 8,500 people arrived by boat. Some 87% of them were men, and of that 87%, 74% were aged between 18 and 39.
These people are loaded into floats that we could barely call dinghies, which are overfilled, leaving them at risk of capsizing, or they are pushed into the back of lorries, where the driver is often unaware of the live cargo being carried. Many have paid hundreds of pounds for the journey, and in some cases thousands, although it has dropped in recent months, to jump the asylum queue and deny a legitimate asylum seeker a space.
I use the word “legitimate” because these people are crossing the channel. They could have claimed asylum in France, Italy, Spain or Germany, or any other safe country they have travelled through. It makes their reason for attempting to settle in the UK solely economic. Without intervention, they risk death in the back of the lorry, like the tragic case of October 2019, where 39 people were found deceased in the back of a trailer in Essex. Many would drown in the channel, like the estimated 300 people over the last 20 years, which is why our emergency workers and Navy must intervene, putting their own lives at risk, too. Who could argue for this to continue? Who could say that we should not do all we can to make this route unviable? What is the compassionate response? We should be proud of our record on overseas aid contributions and to have resettled more refugees than any other European nation. This is a matter not of us turning our back on the world but of making sure that our immigration system is firm but fair in the way that the British people would demand.
I come back to the point that I have made over and over again in this place: the most compassionate thing we can do to help these people is to make the route unviable and prevent the crossings altogether.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Disturbing, dysfunctional and destructive—three of the most commonly used words by my constituents in their correspondence to me when discussing this anti-refugee Bill. To my mind, the Bill is nothing more than a ploy by this consistently callous Tory Government to take a sledgehammer to a 60-year-old treaty, the only global legal instrument that there is to deal with the protection and rights of refugees. This UK Government are torching their international human rights obligations under the 1951 UN refugee convention. We as representatives in this place are in very real danger of assisting in the committing of crimes against humanity by turning our backs on those in need of safety and on how this Bill will criminalise these people. History will shame us all in every essence. That is why I oppose the Bill in the name of the people of Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill.
This legislation will be nothing short of a punishment to those fleeing war, persecution and human rights atrocities. It will create an asylum system that undermines international law and will cost the already failing Home Office vast amounts of time and money. This legislation, despite the Government’s promises to increase safe and legal routes for people urgently requiring refuge around the world, will contain no such commitments whatsoever. The Tories have actually boasted that this Bill will create a “global Britain”, able to act as a force for good; instead, this is a cruel, callous piece of legislation that fails in both practical and moral terms and reneges on our international responsibilities.
The Bill will cause misery to thousands of people, leaving behind what is already a toxic legacy for this Home Secretary, and will introduce a further embedding of a racist, hostile, xenophobic environment for us all to contend with in our daily lives as it leaks from this place into our society. This anti-refugee Bill will not solve any of its real problems, which have been caused not by the comparatively small number of people who do seek asylum but by decades of Governments in this place and their complete mismanagement. Successive UK Governments of any hue have failed time and again to operate an effective and efficient asylum system, fundamentally failing to deliver timely and high-quality decision making. Nothing in the Bill will make the necessary improvements. Instead, taken together, the Bill’s provisions will slow the process down, increase delays, increase destitution and mental illness, and cost the purse and, more importantly, the people of these countries much, much more while it destroys lives and relationships with our global partners.
Many asylum seekers have lived through dreadful experiences and faced devastating loss. The Home Office’s plans will only add to that trauma. Asylum claims in the UK are falling and are at historically low levels, with a 24% drop in the last year alone, yet the Home Office is pandering to scare stories and myths from the far right with the introduction of this Bill. As a result, this legislation will not only seek to criminalise asylum seekers, but create more bureaucracy and a bigger work load for officials, lengthening an already delayed process and trapping people further in limbo for years to come. There has been no real attempt to engage with experts on this approach. Almost 200 organisations have criticised the consultation associated with this Bill, framing it as a “sham” with a premeditated outcome. I could not agree in any stronger terms.
A message from his eminence Pope Francis that we all received for the forthcoming World Day of Migrants and Refugees stated:
“We are all in the same boat and called to work together so that there will be no more walls that separate us, no longer others, but only a single ‘we’, encompassing all of humanity”—
a vision that could not be further from this Tory Government’s agenda.
The UK once had a long history, they say, of welcoming people escaping conflict, poverty, oppression and natural disaster. That tradition should have been protected under any new legislation, recognising the interconnectedness of our global family, and cognisant of the colonial past of this place’s empires. The Home Secretary’s plans to send asylum seekers thousands of miles away, to be processed in third-world countries, are both insane and inhumane. The idea that asylum seekers can simply be shipped off somewhere else while those claims are assessed, is frankly a fantasy. Asylum seekers are people. They are human beings, not packages to be disposed of.
The UK needs only to look at Australia’s experience to learn that overseas processing centres for asylum seekers cause incredible psychological damage. They are eye-wateringly expensive, and they do nothing to deter asylum seekers. It could not be clearer: the Home Secretary is deliberately misinterpreting international law to pander to her own political base. That cannot be denied. The idea that the system is broken for some unknown structural reason is complete and utter nonsense. After 11 years in power, the responsibility for that lies firmly with this Conservative Government. The Bill will do nothing to fix things. It will only make a rotten system worse.
Jo Gideon (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Con)
I welcome the opportunity to take part in this important debate. Many contributions during yesterday’s debate, and this afternoon, have been about specific legal and technical aspects of the Bill. In the short time available, I want to restrict my comments to the impact of the current system on areas such as Stoke-on-Trent, and say why I support the principles laid out in the Bill. I will outline why doing nothing is not an option.
Stoke-on-Trent has stepped up to take more than its fair share of asylum seekers under the asylum dispersal system. Because we are a compassionate city, we care about the most vulnerable, and we do so by deeds, not empty words. Many who have taken part in this debate represent areas that do not currently participate in the scheme, and I would respectfully suggest that their calls for fairness, and the unwillingness to condemn or curb illegal and dangerous routes into this country, should be matched by a clear commitment to take their fair share of the ever-increasing numbers of asylum seekers who land on our shores.
According to recent figures, the Home Office had voluntary arrangements with 95 local authorities throughout the UK on accepting the dispersal of asylum seekers. To put that in context, there are 398 principal councils in the UK. As part of the regional dispersal policy established in 2000, an advisory cluster limit was set by the Home Office of one asylum seeker for every 200 of the settled population. In Stoke-on-Trent, we have already reached 79% of capacity on that basis, second only to Coventry within the west midlands. Crucially, there are neighbourhoods where the concentration of asylum seekers raises the risk of increased social tension, as well as challenging the capacity of local health, education and other support services. It has placed a heavy burden on our council services, as well as on our brilliant local voluntary and community organisations, especially during the pandemic.
Stoke-on-Trent is a city with a big heart, and no one wants to see this country refusing to help young, unaccompanied minors, or genuine victims of modern slavery. I welcome the Government’s commitment to that principle. It is right that we put into domestic law international obligations for a recovery period, during which victims of modern slavery receive support, and establish a law, on the basis of which confirmed victims are eligible for temporary leave to remain.
I do, however, receive significant correspondence from local residents, calling for a crackdown on illegal immigration. The call comes from ordinary, decent people who believe in fairness and who want our Government to stand up for those in genuine need, while removing those who have no right to be in the UK. They want us to crack down on the criminal trafficking networks that exploit the desperation of the most vulnerable. They want us to ensure that the UK is not a safe haven for foreign criminals. Over the past six years, the UK has directly resettled 25,000 people—more than any other country in Europe—from places of danger, and refugee family reunion has seen 29,000 people come to the UK over the same period, so we will take no lectures on our credentials as a compassionate Government.
Stoke-on-Trent City Council has worked closely with the Home Office, and we welcome the Department’s commitment to bring 560 jobs to our city. It has demonstrated a commitment to levelling up and a recognition that Stoke-on-Trent is the ideal location for the new immigration caseworking innovation centre.
The Bill is important legislation with the principle of fairness at its heart. I am delighted to support it.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP) [V]
I appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this debate. One benefit of having it over two days has been that those of us who are speaking today have had the opportunity to reflect fully on the contributions made yesterday.
I am grateful for the Minister’s engagement with me on Friday about the principles of the Bill, the thought process behind it and what the Government hope to achieve. From reading yesterday’s Hansard, it is clear that there were hon. Members who made thoughtful and considered contributions to the debate, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) did just now, while others took the opportunity to stoke the very worst fears associated with the Bill and there were clearly some who used the basest arguments to debase the process. I do not believe that that serves Parliament well as we consider the Bill’s Second Reading.
I was encouraged by the continued work of the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I pay tribute to him for his contributions yesterday highlighting his concerns about part 4. It was encouraging to hear not only about his and Lord McColl’s continued commitment to provisions of previous legislation, but about his engagement with the Home Secretary and her commitment to leave open the opportunity to thoughtfully and productively consider changes to the Bill.
In considering part 4, I think not only of the reduction of the practical support to confirmed victims of modern slavery and human trafficking from 45 days—it will remain at 45 days in Northern Ireland and Scotland—but of the disparity between what is available in those 45 days and what will be available in the 30 days that clause 52 proposes. I think of the conflict that will arise with the legislation that we passed in Northern Ireland, which was sponsored by my noble Friend Lord Morrow: the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015. There is much work to do on the issues, and I trust that we will get the opportunity to do it in the forthcoming stages.
I raise again the issue of indefinite detention, which has not featured much in our debates on the Bill. I hope that the Bill will provide another opportunity to build on the cross-party support that has been garnered for ending indefinite detention. It is wrong, it is cruel and it serves no place that somebody can be detained on immigration grounds with no indication of how long they will be detained or how they will be released from detention. I hope that the Bill will give us a fresh opportunity to consider that fully and bring some finality.
On refugees, I think it fair to say that we have a proud record as a country, although we should not rest on our laurels. The figures have been cited throughout our debate: 25,000 refugees have come to the United Kingdom since 2015, and a further 29,000 family members have been resettled in this country. That is good, but it is by no means the totality of the story. Concerns have been raised about conflict with the 1951 convention and about the introduction of a two-tier process. If we are—as I believe we are—a truly welcoming and truly compassionate country, there are issues in the Bill that will need to be resolved in Committee.
I took the opportunity in my engagement with the Minister to highlight a report—HC 158—that issued from the Select Committee on Northern Ireland Affairs at the start of this month. It raises the anomaly that, by virtue of the Belfast agreement and the Irish Government’s approach to these issues, someone born in Northern Ireland can attain Irish citizenship by simply filling in the form and paying a fee of £70, whereas someone born in the Republic of Ireland who had spent the entirety of their life living in the United Kingdom, in Northern Ireland, cannot do the same; they have to go through exactly the same citizenship process, pay £1,330 and prove their proficiency in English. Let me give one example. That applies not only to hundreds of people who live in the north-west and around the border areas of Northern Ireland, but to a former Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly and a Member of our House of Lords. He is entitled to vote upon and contribute in the parliamentary affairs of our country, but he is not entitled to citizenship unless he pays £1,330 and proves his proficiency in English—that is nonsense. The hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) referred to clauses 7 and 8, and I ask that the Minister meets us to consider how best we resolve this issue and pick up on the recommendations made by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee during the passage of this Bill. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), the spokesman for the Scottish National party, made some fair criticisms yesterday and highlighted some fair concerns about the Bill. The Bill will receive its Second Reading, so I hope we continue to engage with and construct the right outcome in forthcoming stages so that it is truly fit for purpose.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
I rise to support this Bill, which contains some sensible measures, particularly on regularising the citizenship of certain mothers, fathers and members of the military, and prioritising the rapid removal of foreign criminals, who really should not be in this country. I also appreciate that it is a controversial Bill and it will need close scrutiny in Committee. But something desperately needs to be done, because our asylum and immigration system is broken. It is broken, first, because it is hugely bureaucratic. As the Windrush scandal showed, there are so many different criteria for being able to claim citizenship or right to residency in the UK. It is a hugely complicated and burdensome system. Secondly, it is very expensive, as we have heard. It is becoming a cash cow for the Home Office. For example, a leave to remain application typically costs £1,033, of which the cost to the Home Office is just £142—that represents a profit to the Home Office. Thirdly, for genuine refugees, especially children in potentially dangerous situations, the process takes far too long. There is a lack of urgency from immigration officials on the ground in the country of application or from the Home Office here. As constituency MPs, we know of countless cases of constituents who have waited months and years in limbo simply because their application is still being processed. Whether they are successful or they fail in their application, they deserve to be dealt with speedily and with respect so that they can get on with their lives in whatever form that will take after the application is assessed—that is just not happening. The queue is far too long and is taking too long to shift.
Fourthly, despite its shortcomings, the process is now being routinely bypassed by those who come across the channel illegally, usually because they can afford to pay people traffickers. For those of us representing south coast constituencies, that is causing a huge amount of chaos and great resentment. Without the proper dispersal system that the country desperately needs, Kent County Council bears the brunt of the children who must be taken into care. We also have all the fears about the beta variant coming in through the back door. This is not the way for people to come to the UK. Effectively, these people are queue jumping, taking up spaces that we are quite rightly prepared to offer to vulnerable families in refugee camps coming from those places of danger who have gone through the right procedures—genuinely vulnerable families whose lives are in peril.
Frankly, this is happening because the French Government have consistently failed to close off this route. They could prevent more of those boats getting into the water in the first place; goodness knows we have given them enough resources and security co-operation. They could intercept them and take them back to French shores. They could allow Border Force to take those who have been intercepted in British waters back to French shores. The Home Affairs Committee has been reviewing this issue, and we have taken advice from international maritime lawyers who confirm that the French would be in their rights to do that. They refuse to do so.
That is why there are people coming to Calais, causing chaos on the French coast—because they think there is a chance to get across the channel to come to the UK, whether or not they have any claim to be here. If the French were to cut off that route so that the chances were that anyone trying to get into the water would be returned safely to French territory, having paid a lot of money to people traffickers, people might just think again and the French coast, particularly Calais, would no longer be a magnet for them.
It would be in the interests of the French to do that. Why on earth are they not doing it? There would be a mutual benefit. I understand fully the Home Secretary’s frustration and why further measures need to be taken unilaterally. The French have failed to play ball and are trying to make their problem our problem.
I have a few specific queries. First, I have had a query from the Shoreham lifeboat crew about potential liabilities on lifeboats rescuing some of these migrants trying to get into the UK illegally, and whether they are at risk under the terms of the Bill. Some reassurance would be good.
Many times, I have called for and supported amendments to introduce a proper replacement for the Dublin family reunion scheme—one that is not less generous than what we had pre-Brexit—and for an equivalent of the Dubs scheme, which did a great deal in rescuing genuinely vulnerable children.
I pay tribute to the We Belong charity, led by the excellent Tashi Tahir, which has been standing up for some 330,000 children and young people in a precarious state, having come legally with their families to this country. They are mostly Commonwealth citizens who are bright and want to contribute, but they have to wait 10 years to regularise their status, at a cost of some £12,771, through applications for leave to remain every 30 months. If they fail to pay, their status becomes illegal, and if they then want to start again, they have to start all over again. That is not fair. There should be at least a five-year route to permanent status. I welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), has been having discussions with the charity. I hope that he will be sympathetic and we will get some changes to the Bill.
There are many other things that I would mention, but in six minutes I have not had time. Above all, the Bill must get the balance right. We need to be tough on those people who come through the wrong routes but ensure that there are safe and legal routes for those to whom we genuinely owe a debt of safety, to give them proper refuge in this country.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab) [V]
I am proud to represent Sheffield, Hallam. Sheffield was the first place to call itself a city of sanctuary, and I pay tribute to all the great organisations, such as City of Sanctuary Sheffield, the South Yorkshire Migration and Asylum Action Group, ASSIST Sheffield and many more, that do such good work in my city—my home—to make it as welcoming a place as possible to people fleeing war, persecution and violence.
It is in that spirit of humanity, compassion and genuine internationalism that I completely reject the divisiveness written into nearly every clause and line of this Bill. The Bill is divisive—in the way it pits so-called group 1, or “good” asylum seekers against so-called group 2, or “bad” asylum seekers; in the way that it stacks our legal system against some of the most vulnerable people coming to the UK; and in the way that it criminalises altruism and basic acts of compassion.
Every line of the Bill strains to break the human bonds that hold us all together. It is an affront to the spirit of the 1951 refugee convention. The convention clearly states that refugees
“shall enjoy fundamental rights and freedoms without discrimination,”
yet discrimination seems to be at the heart of the Bill.
The Government know that there are no visa or pre-entry clearances for someone wishing to claim asylum—there is no such thing as an “illegal asylum seeker”—but the most vulnerable asylum seekers are those who rely on illegal methods to get into the country. The distinction between group 1 and group 2 asylum seekers is a completely bogus differentiation which will introduce more legal hurdles for some of the most traumatised and brutalised people on our planet. It is also chilling that there are no restrictions to prevent the Home Secretary from treating group 2 asylum seekers differently. Those people are already under huge amounts of pressure to provide evidence of their cases, often when they have had to leave their homes behind very quickly. There are massive barriers to their submitting coherent evidence on arrival in the UK. The proposal for decision makers to doubt applications on the basis of late evidence is a wilful misunderstanding of the challenges, the horrors and the deep trauma that asylum applicants have faced to be here, as well as the lack of legal advice.
One of the most appalling aspects of the Bill is the criminalisation of anyone who helps someone seeking asylum to enter the country. What does that mean in practice? For example, how is it compatible with the duty of a ship to attempt to rescue people who are in danger at sea?
This Bill is discriminatory, a violation of our international treaty obligations, inhumane, spiteful, and badly thought through. I suspect that it is more about appealing to a subset of ugly populist opinion than about addressing the real problems in the system, such as the lack of safe and legal routes into the UK to claim asylum. Today I will be upholding the best traditions of my constituency, and voting firmly against it.
Joy Morrissey (Beaconsfield) (Con)
I will support the Bill. I welcome the aim to establish a plan that will resolve some of the historic abnormalities in British nationality law, particularly in clauses 1 to 4, and I am pleased that the Home Secretary has undertaken this task to ensure that those in genuine need will be protected. This pandemic has shown us that the Government must respond quickly and correctly to emerging crises, and that our border controls must be in place to prevent the flow of covid and to ensure that our citizens are protected both here and abroad.
I also welcome clauses 5 and 6, which strengthen the pathways to citizenship. As one who went through the immigration system, I can attest to how expensive it is and how convoluted it was previously. I welcome the Home Secretary’s work to create a level of expediency and transparency for those who have rightly come here to work, and to enter into legal citizenship because they want to contribute and be part of British society. I have known many people, not only constituents but friends of mine, who had to return to New Zealand, Australia or South Africa because, although they had a right to be here because they were ethnically British and were merely attempting, for instance, some kind of reunion, the Home Office’s administrative hurdles on the path to citizenship were so challenging and difficult that many gave up and went back to their homes. I just hope that these welcome reforms will allow those who genuinely want to be British and have every right to be here to access that citizenship, as I did.
I pay tribute to the UK’s history of refugee resettlement, and to our scheme which will continue to ensure the safety of incoming refugees. I am proud that between 2016 and 2019 the UK resettled more refugees from outside Europe than any European Union member state—and that includes the vital resettlement of vulnerable children and the issuing of family reunion visas to bring families back together.
One of the key provisions in the Bill is the introduction of new and tougher definitions of criminal offences to deter people from attempting to enter the UK illegally. It raises the penalty for illegal entry from six months to four years in prison, and introduces life sentences for people smugglers. I also welcome the additional power given to Border Force, including the ability to search unaccompanied containers in our ports and to seize and dispose any vessels that have been intercepted.
The Government must curb the number of groups who are trying to take advantage of vulnerable people and exploit them for financial gain. Not only is that illegal and inhumane, but it keeps dangerous pathways open, which can lead to the abuse and loss of life of refugees trying to reach the UK. In order to provide targeted support to those who are in genuine need, the Government must regulate who is entering the UK so that they can provide that support as quickly and as effectively as possible. For the safety and sustainability of our country, and the safety and wellbeing of refugees seeking to enter the UK, it is vital that the UK has a clear and effective plan to deter and prevent illegal entry into our country. I welcome the fact that, through this Bill, we seek to crack down on illegal immigration so that we can prioritise those in genuine need.
Anum Qaisar-Javed (Airdrie and Shotts) (SNP)
May I begin by wishing the Muslim community in my constituency of Airdrie and Shotts and across the globe a very blessed Eid al-Adha? During this pandemic, Muslims have been at the heart of community outreach, with many mosques in various constituencies becoming vaccination centres. Many who follow the Muslim faith will be spending time today with their families and eating. I will miss out on my mum’s famous biryani, but speaking in today’s debate is much more important.
By naming this piece of legislation the Nationality and Borders Bill, this Tory Government are attempting to legitimise a frankly abhorrent way in which to treat those who are escaping extreme violence, so let us just call this Bill what it is: the anti-refugee Bill. This Government want to treat vulnerable people who are fleeing persecution, many of whom are women and children, as criminals. The proposals in the Bill are a brutal, cruel and cold-hearted response by this Government.
I am astounded by the language that has been used by those on the Government Benches; it is of great concern. Refugees need compassion and not to be accused of being economic migrants. They are humans like all of us. To be perfectly frank, one of the main differences between them and us is that most of us were born here.
Members have already referred to the two-tier system that the Tories are creating. This is a horrific way to treat some of the most vulnerable people in the world. We cannot and must not send out a message that anyone fleeing persecution whose route out of that persecution is to travel to the UK via other countries will automatically be viewed as a criminal. By focusing on the method of arrival, the Government are ignoring the fact that people do not have the luxury of phoning up and telling the Home Office that they will be arriving here to ensure that their arrival is approved. They are literally fleeing conflict, running for their lives. They are in danger.
I have been elected to this House for fewer than 70 days. The Tories continually run away from any form of international responsibility and co-operation. From the cuts to aid budgets to this two-tiered refugee system, this Tory Government are pushing their “us versus them” narrative. They are pitching communities against one another. Of course, we should not be surprised by that. I have spoken previously in this very Chamber about the manner in which this Tory Government view immigration and foreigners coming into this country. Just because someone was not born here or does not have a British passport does not mean that they will not make a valuable contribution, whether socially, economically or politically.
Dr Waheed Arain is just one example. Waheed fled forced conscription into the Taliban in Afghanistan as a child and made an irregular journey to the UK. Under the proposed rules, Waheed would not have been granted refuge by this country, which, historically, has offered protection and opportunity. Waheed Arain is now working as an NHS doctor. He released an open letter, in which he said:
“I spent my childhood hiding from rockets in refugee camps in Afghanistan. Fleeing the civil war, I arrived in London, separated from my family, as a traumatised 15-year-old. I dreamed of becoming a doctor.”
He went on to say:
“Under this Government’s proposed plans, I would not have been given the chance to become an NHS doctor, let alone learn English or studied medicine at Cambridge University. I would have been classed as an ‘illegal arrival’, denied access to the asylum system, prosecuted for breaking the law, and…removed from the country.”
My message to Waheed today is: sorry. I am sorry that the country that you sought refuge in is treating people in this manner. I am sorry to those who are seeking refuge that this Tory Government are moving towards a dangerous, far-right trajectory. I am sorry that this country is meant to be a global power but is turning into little, insular Britain. My message to you is that the Scottish National party will stand by you and we will stand by your side against this Bill.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed). It will come as no surprise that I do not agree with a great number of things that she said, but she may get some comfort from one of the proposals that I will make later to improve the Bill.
I welcome any Bill that aims to address historical anomalies and areas of unfairness in British nationality law, and to make the current system of applying for asylum fairer and more efficient. This Bill will ensure that those who are in genuine need can be supported, and, at the same time, deter illegal entry into the UK. This is a timely and important topic and an area of law that we have needed to address for some time.
In recent years, we have sadly been haunted by terrible scenes and tragic reports of migrants losing their lives while attempting to enter the UK. That is why I welcome the changes proposed in this Bill. The Bill aims to save and protect lives by ensuring that only safe and legal routes into the UK remain, and proposes harsher punishments for human smugglers and traffickers, who are responsible for so much suffering. The introduction of life sentences for human smuggling, by way of which so many lives have been endangered, will attempt to combat and condemn the exploitation of migrants. Tougher criminal sentences for those attempting to enter the UK illegally will also steer those seeking asylum towards safe and legal routes, and ultimately protect their lives.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
What the hon. Member is advocating and what the Government have in this Bill is a criminal offence punishable by up to four years in prison that would apply to a Uyghur fleeing ethnic cleansing in China, to a Syrian fleeing war crimes there, or to a persecuted Christian fleeing for their life. How can any Government or any party justify locking up these people for four years?
Rob Roberts
I recall serving with the hon. Gentleman on the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill Committee, so I am very much aware of the experience and expertise that he brings to this debate. The short answer is that this Bill does an awful lot to end human trafficking and the nasty, awful environment that is being fostered by the criminal gangs who are putting lives at risk. I appreciate everything that the hon. Gentleman says and the expertise that he brings to the debate, but I do not necessarily see it in the same way as he does.
The UK has a proud history of supporting the most vulnerable people worldwide, having resettled more refugees than any other country in Europe. The Bill ensures that the Government stand by their moral and legal obligations to help people fleeing cruelty around the world, while condemning those who break the law.
Let me turn briefly to another element of the Bill. Attention needs to be given to the costly and arduous routes to citizenship that are bureaucratic and expensive for those who are already settled and working in the UK. I declare an interest, as my partner is an overseas NHS worker. This is a perfect example of what I mean: many of our NHS workers who have worked day in, day out to provide the best possible care to patients throughout the pandemic have come from other countries. Often these individuals have travelled great distances and put their own lives at risk to help and save our lives, regardless of their or our citizenship; their duty to care and contribute to the wellbeing of their patients is what comes first and I commend their hard work.
However, with fees for indefinite leave to remain at almost £2,400 and citizenship applications another £1,330, the process of becoming a citizen for many of our NHS workers is a costly and challenging one. As the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) said last week during an intervention in the Health and Care Bill debate, if we offered indefinite leave to remain to all of our NHS workers who are here on renewable visas, I feel confident that the gap in the NHS workforce would almost certainly close and, simultaneously, we would be recognising their hard work and sacrifices. The over 160,000 NHS staff from over 200 different countries who stated that they were of non-British nationality account for nearly 15% of all NHS staff for whom a nationality is known. It is undeniable that we would be in dire straits without them. Should we not therefore consider changing our current citizenship process to one that does not deter NHS workers through high costs and time-consuming processes, one that does not leave them in debt and in poverty but instead rewards their commitment to their communities?
I welcome the many steps that the Bill takes to improve the UK’s asylum and immigration system to make it one that is based on needs, and I welcome the new NHS visa that has been announced by the Home Office. Given that the Government themselves have already recognised the importance of creating a bespoke route for incoming NHS workers, I feel it is also our duty to focus on those who have already given so much to our country, by creating a new route to citizenship for existing NHS workers.
One of the objections to this could be that once indefinite leave to remain or citizenship had been conferred, the NHS worker would be free to go to the private sector or to a different role altogether, having benefited from the fee abolition. That could be easily resolved. Companies do this all the time, paying fees for qualifications for individuals that would become repayable if that individual then left the company’s service. There does not seem to be any reasonable reason why a similar scheme could not be put in place to make this workable.
As I have said before, in this place and in Westminster Hall, it is time to abolish the fees for indefinite leave to remain and for citizenship for those who work in our NHS, so that those who spend time helping and treating us can finally feel like they belong and are welcomed in our country with open arms.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I would like to start by echoing what the hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Anum Qaisar-Javed) said and to offer my best wishes to the Muslim community in Bristol as they celebrate Eid.
I am proud that Bristol has declared itself a city of sanctuary for people fleeing violence and persecution, an initiative that was welcomed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. Our Mayor, Marvin Rees, has spoken about how providing this safe haven with the right support structures in place has become an asset for Bristol, enriching our culture, driving local innovation and improving international connectivity.
The success of the English football team in the Euros shows the strength that can come from embracing diversity in Britain, whether from first, second or third generation families. Today we heard the good news that Kenneth Macharia, a mechanical engineer who plays for the Bristol Bisons rugby team, has won his asylum appeal after a five-year battle with the Home Office, and I want to pay tribute to his solicitors at South West Law. In my 16 years as an MP, South West Law has been one of the very few firms in the area that I can be confident of referring people to. It has always been there to give reliable legal advice and has helped many people.
Sport is brilliant at bringing people together and bridging cultural divides, and so is food. In Bristol we have a social enterprise called 91 Ways, after the number of languages spoken in the city, that uses food and culinary traditions not only to celebrate diversity but to break down some of the barriers between different communities. The largest such community in Bristol is the Somali community, with maybe 20,000 people of Somali heritage in the city. Some have long-standing connections with this country, particularly those from the former British colony of Somaliland who have served in the British Army and worked in the docks, but many others arrived here as refugees, fleeing one of the most dangerous places on earth in search of a safe place to live.
In my years as an MP, I have met so many people, including children, who have been through horrendous experiences, leaving them with not just physical but deep mental scars. Yes, I have met others whose cases were not so clear cut, but no matter what the stories are behind their journeys to the UK, I believe that people who arrive here seeking refuge should be treated fairly and with dignity, not demonised. They should be given a fair chance to tell those stories with proper legal representation.
Of course we want the people who come here to claim asylum through a safe and legal route, and we need a firm but fair legal process so that we can best support those who need it most, but the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants has told us how the few legal routes that do exist are inadequate and highly restrictive. It is clear that this is what needs fixing in the system, not the issues that this Bill is purportedly trying to address. This is especially true for children. It is shocking that the Government have—wilfully, I believe—done so little so far to implement the Dubs amendment.
A refusal to provide ways for people to legally claim asylum will mean that more people attempt to reach the UK illegally, no matter what the penalties are—and dangerously too. It will do nothing to deter the people smugglers or the human traffickers. The Anti-Slavery Commissioner has warned that measures taken to address a potentially small number of people seeking to abuse the immigration system will have a considerable impact on victims of modern slavery. There is a grave danger of viewing victims of modern slavery through an immigration lens and ignoring the trauma and exploitation they have suffered as victims.
This attitude towards people seeking sanctuary in the UK, and to immigration more broadly, is not just morally reprehensible but economically ignorant too. Right now, we are facing acute labour crises in key economic sectors due to this Government’s ideological and narrow-minded approach to immigration: in hospitality; in agriculture, with fresh food left to rot in our fields; and in transport, with firms warning of a 70,000 to 90,000 shortfall of HGV drivers. We are already starting to see empty supermarket shelves as a result, and the crisis will only get worse as we get towards Christmas. Haulage firms have called for drivers to be added to the shortage occupation list, and/or for temporary visas to be issued to overseas drivers as a temporary solution while we try to train up more HGV drivers and deal with the backlog of HGV tests. The Government’s response to these common-sense calls from the Road Haulage Association, Unite and others is a flat no, because they cannot be seen to concede the argument. They do not want to accept that, as with my own relatives from Ireland, immigrants can and do make a huge contribution to this country.
The Home Secretary should stop posturing, stop playing politics with people’s lives, and instead bring forward proposals that would genuinely ensure that we have a firm yes, but also a fair asylum system in this country.
Antony Higginbotham (Burnley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy).
During the 2019 general election, I said on many occasions that I supported a firm but fair immigration system—one that prioritises the needs of our economy and provides robust border security to keep us safe, but also, yes, welcomes those who need the shelter of the United Kingdom. We should always be proud of the refuge that we provide to those who need it. In conflict after conflict and crisis after crisis, we have stood up and promised protection to those whose lives are at risk. That shows our compassion as a country.
But we cannot ignore what is obvious: that our current asylum system is broken. We have all watched the frustrating scenes in the English channel—small boats dangerously full of people who have been sold a false promise by criminal gangs. Every time those criminal gangs fill up those boats, they put at risk the lives of innocent and vulnerable people. They also put at risk the lives of the men and women of our Border Force and of the RNLI who go out to avoid casualties at sea.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
If the hon. Gentleman describes the people who seek the refuge of those boats—who seek that terrible means to cross—as innocent and vulnerable, why is he supporting a Bill that is going to criminalise them and put them in prison for up to four years?
Antony Higginbotham
Because this Bill tells people that there are safe and legal ways to get to the United Kingdom, and if they follow those safe and legal ways, then we will provide refuge, but we should not be encouraging people, indirectly, to take those illegal routes that we know cost lives.
We have tried for years to work with France on this issue. We have tried, tried and tried again, and it has not worked. Anyone who says that our asylum system is not broken and does not need fixing must not be seeing the same scenes. They must be oblivious to the thousands of people who have crossed the English channel in dangerous boats this year alone. They certainly are not listening to residents in constituencies like mine, because my residents support a system that works. They support tougher penalties for those who enter the country illegally. The measures in the Bill are tough but rightly so, and they are also simple. The Bill sends a clear message to those in genuine need that we have a safe and legal route into the UK—that people do not need to risk their lives in dangerous small boats. If people need help we are here, but for those who try to game the system and those who think our immigration rules are there to be got around because, somehow, the rules do not apply to them, the penalties are tough. A different approach for those who follow the rules and those who do not—I cannot see how anyone can disagree with that, but somehow, they do.
Some Opposition Members do not seem to have a problem with the last-minute claims lodged to avoid deportation, sometimes in the case of serious criminals. Well, I do have a problem with them, and the new appeals process proposed in the Bill will make a big difference to dealing with those claims. It will allow us to throw out the spurious and deal only with those that are genuine.
It is right, fair and proper that the Home Office plan ahead and consider whether there is a way to look at claims in a safe third country. That would allow us to protect our borders proactively, moving us to a model under which we gave people safe haven while considering their application, then brought them to the shelter of the UK. However, there are two sides to the coin. If illegal entry is one side, the facilitators are the other. Through the Bill, we will empower our Border Force officers directly to intervene in those people-smuggling gangs—gangs that try to find new ways to circumvent the measures that we design here in the House to protect our country and protect our citizens.
Firm but fair rules; secure but compassionate borders; a system that ensures that the people of this country are safe; a system under which we know who is coming to the UK and how they are getting here; and our offer of help and support for those who need them—that is what my constituents want, and that is what the Bill delivers.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
Eid Mubarak to my constituents and all who are celebrating.
There are lots of things I could say about the UK Government’s Nationality and Borders Bill and their plans for immigration. I have been overwhelmed by the number of constituents who have been in touch to ask me to oppose the Bill, and I can assure them that I share their horror of the legislation. Criminalising those who seek sanctuary and who have survived experiences so disturbing and so distressing that they struggle to describe them is absolutely abhorrent.
I agree with Members who have said that the asylum system is broken, but the Bill is certainly not how I would go about fixing it. The Home Secretary’s plans to offshore reception centres, echoing Australia’s failed and expensive experiment, are dehumanising and brutal—such places are not for people who have suffered trauma. I commend to colleagues Behrouz Boochani’s auto- biographical account of the Manus Island detention centre, “No Friend but the Mountains”. If the Home Secretary has read the book, it is certainly not meant to be taken as a “how to” guide.
Seeking asylum is not a crime, but this Tory Government are attempting to make it so. The all-party parliamentary group on immigration detention, which I chair, has been taking evidence from medical and legal experts, as well as from people who have stayed in the Home Office’s quasi-detention facilities at Napier barracks and Penally camp. What we have heard so far is incredibly worrying. People moved to facilities were taken from their accommodation without notice or explanation to a place surrounded by gates, fences and barbed wire. They were not told how long they would be there. They described to the APPG how right-wing protesters came to demonstrate outside, and how people came to stare through the fences at them as if they were animals in a zoo. Even though they could move around the local area, they were made to feel completely unsafe in doing so.
Ministers may claim that they are screening for vulnerability, but the evidence is clear and the tools that the Home Office is using to identify both physical and mental vulnerabilities during initial screening are woefully inadequate. Health experts have described the impact of Penally and Napier on those who were forced to live there. This is already, remember, a very fragile population—people who have been exploited, trafficked, tortured, seen their families killed or raped, or been subject to sexual violence themselves.
A third of residents at Napier said they felt suicidal—a much higher ideation rate than would be expected among asylum seekers living in the community. People suffered from lack of sleep and shared dorms with people experiencing night terrors and physical pain caused by the torture they had been through. There was even the mundane, everyday pain caused by lack of basic health and dental care. In addition, there was an outbreak of scabies owing to the lack of laundry facilities to wash clothes and bedding, and residents suffered the indignity of having to share the cream to treat it among themselves.
Legal experts have described the difficulties that those accommodated in such camps experience in gaining access to legal advice, or even knowing their right to access a lawyer in the first place. There are issues with the capacity of local immigration lawyers to take on cases and being able to work with a lawyer when there are no private spaces in which to discuss the case, which is a breach of people’s article 8 rights. Some have described being woken in the morning to be told that their substantive interview would happen imminently, with no time to prepare.
Then, of course, we have covid. Public Health England, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration and Her Majesty’s chief inspector of prisons all raised concerns about the impact of communal living on the spread of covid-19. The Home Office chose to ignore that. A former resident of Napier barracks, describing the covid outbreak, said that
“all you could hear was people coughing…it was like an apocalypse”.
Communal living in the camp made it impossible to prevent the outbreak of a highly infectious airborne virus, with shared sleeping, washing and eating space and a lack of soap and sanitiser. At Penally, it was reported that the isolation room had no toilet and washing facility of its own.
I note with interest that the ICIBI report will be out on Thursday. Will there be a statement in the House on the findings of the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration? If not, I would expect some kind of answer on that in the Minister’s summing up. Such facilities are highly inappropriate and they must all be closed, not just expanded, as the Home Secretary suggested. If they are offshore and people are unable to access them, we can bet that there will be even less scrutiny of the conditions.
None of this cruelty is happening by accident. Criminalise those who escape war and brutal regimes—people who can hardly go to the Government who killed their family to make a polite request for travel documents. Make the experience as awful as possible for those who make it here, despite all the odds. Deny adequate medical and legal support, so that it is harder for asylum seekers to make their case. Put people in camps to keep them from making friends, building support networks and putting down roots. Give them a pittance to live on, so that they cannot survive. My constituents and I do not support this anti-refugee Bill. We want none of this brutal hostile environment. All refugees are human beings, who deserve safety and dignity like any one of us, and no one is illegal.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance) [V]
Overall, this is a horrible and unnecessary Bill. The UK does not have a problem with asylum seekers, nor indeed immigration. Asylum seekers have been unjustly and cruelly demonised. Some specific examples regarding asylum seekers are being magnified and generalised in order to rationalise bad law. Conflict, gross human rights abuses and persecution will result in more and more movements of people over the course of the century. Indeed, climate change will likely be a major driver of that conflict. The UK must acknowledge both its capacity to assist and indeed the requirements of basic humanity, and therefore ensure that its laws are consistent with those realities.
On a per capita basis, the UK accepts fewer asylum seekers than most other European jurisdictions, and faces less pressure due to its geographically peripheral position in relation to some of the migrant routes. The UK is not being invaded or overrun. Asylum seekers and, indeed, immigrants are not overwhelming public services or stealing jobs. Where pressures exist on services, that reflects both poor planning and under-investment. Where pockets of unemployment or under-employment exist, that reflects poor investment in skills and job creation initiatives.
The current high bar to acceptance of asylum claims is expected to be even higher as a result of the Bill, and those who try to assist run the risk of being criminalised. The notion of offshoring asylum seekers is particularly repugnant. We need a system based on humanitarian values and objective consideration of cases. Crucial to that are safe and legal routes to sanctuary in the UK.
I will flag some other concerns on the Bill. The first relates to the clause on electronic travel authorisation. The EU settlement scheme covers those European economic area citizens who are normally resident in the UK, but it does not apply to EU citizens who live in the Republic of Ireland, and they are also not covered by the common travel area. There is a danger that that could have an impact on thousands of people who live on the island of Ireland and cross the border, sometimes daily.
Although the Government have said that there will be no immigration controls at the border on the island of Ireland, there could still be a bureaucratic complication for those EU nationals to comply with any requirements around an ETA, and legal uncertainty for those entering Northern Ireland without one. I would be grateful for clarification on how these particular circumstances will be taken into account.
The nationality parts of the Bill have received much less attention, and I want to focus on the Government’s failure properly to reflect in domestic law the citizenship and identity aspects of the Good Friday agreement, namely that it is the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they choose, and accordingly confirm that their right to hold both British and Irish citizenship is accepted by both Governments and would not be affected by any future change in the status of Northern Ireland.
Like many people, I am comfortable with both a British and an Irish identity. However, there is a core of people born in Northern Ireland, as a full part of the United Kingdom, who wish only to identify as Irish and be accepted as Irish. The Good Friday agreement clearly provides for this situation. However, this reality is not yet reflected in UK domestic law, where people are legally treated as British by default at birth.
That problem was crystallised in the Emma DeSouza case. The Committee on the Administration of Justice reported:
“The Home Office response to the DeSouza case included taking the position that it did not have to comply with the GFA as it is not domestically enforceable; arguing a reduction of the scope of the birthright provisions to one of ‘national identity’ in the abstract (overlooking the ‘accept as’ duty)”.
At the very least, the UK and Irish Governments need to meet to discuss these differences and what acceptance of choice should mean in practice. Indeed, that was a recommendation of the recent report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee. Renunciation is cited as one possible solution, and it may well be for some, but at present the process requires someone to declare that they start as British, which is at odds with the wording of the Good Friday agreement.
At present, this may well be framed as a problem solely for those who identify as Irish, but at some stage in the future there may well be a united Ireland. In those circumstances, there will also be an expectation that those who wish solely to identify as British from birth should also be accommodated, so this issue works both ways.
There is potentially a legislative way forward in the 2020 report completed by the barrister Alison Harvey on behalf of the joint committee of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission. I urge the Government to give strong consideration to those recommendations.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab) [V]
The 1951 UN refugee convention, which was signed by a Labour Government, was born out of the aftermath of the horrors of the second world war, when countries came together to ensure that there would be international protection for those who suffer persecution. That is an incredibly important principle, and one which the Government threaten to undermine with this Bill.
By treating refugees differently, depending on how they arrive in the UK and the point at which they present themselves to authorities, the Bill creates a two-tier system. As the Immigration Law Practitioners Association has pointed out,
“the introduction of differential treatment of refugees depending on how they came to the UK or made their claim cuts against the principles motivating the 1951 UN refugee convention.”
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has pointed out that
“the right to seek asylum is universal and does not depend on the mode of arrival; asylum-seekers are often forced to arrive unauthorised.”
And the Refugee Council has called this Bill
“a cruel, unjust bill unfairly punishing people who’ve fled war, persecution and terror for the way they reach the UK.”
If this Bill passes into law, the Government will be turning their back on some of the most vulnerable people on Earth. This is a source of national shame. It is shameful, too, that the UK Government are acting in a way that risks breaching international law and undermines global efforts to support victims of war and persecution. I urge Members on both sides of the House to reflect, too, on what this means for our reputation and our standing in the world.
The Bill fails to deal with the serious and organised crime groups that are profiteering from human trafficking and modern slavery. Indeed, it removes a number of key protections for victims of these crimes.
Amnesty International and Migrant Voice have pointed out that:
“Far from truly tackling the scourge of human exploitation, including by organised crime, the bill will further empower and enable abusers by rendering the women, men and children on whom they prey ever more vulnerable to that predation.
The introduction of slavery or trafficking information notices, which could be served on people making an asylum claim or a human rights claim, would require individuals to provide the Secretary of State and any other competent authority specified in the notice with relevant status information before a specified time. This totally misses the point that the deeply traumatic nature of modern slavery cases, especially for people abused by sex trafficking gangs, can mean that many victims delay reporting the crime. They may also be victims of coercion, warned not to disclose the extent of their abuse and fearful of what will happen if they do. Given that recent reports show that four out of five rejected trafficking claims are overturned on appeal, this particular aspect of the Bill is extremely concerning.
The Government’s “New Plan for Immigration” paper says that
“we will strengthen the safe and legal ways in which people can enter the UK…we want to ensure that refugees who enter through safe and legal routes can reunite with close family members.”
However, Refugee Action is among those who have expressed frustration that there are no new commitments in the Bill on refugee settlement or family reunion. It has pointed out that there is nothing in it committing to refugee settlement schemes, and that it also fails to reform rules on family reunion or to provide new routes for unaccompanied children to reach safety in the UK.
Several of my constituents have written to me in recent days with their wide-ranging concerns about the Bill. They express concerns about the creation of a two-tier system, the need for safe and legal routes to enable refugees fleeing war and persecution to arrive without making dangerous journeys that put their lives at risk, and the fundamental concern that we should receive vulnerable people fairly and treat them decently.
In essence, my constituents are calling for the UK to play its part in providing humanitarian support to those escaping the most dangerous of circumstances. As Refugee Action says, everyone who has had to flee their home deserves the chance to live again. I call on Members from across the House to vote to protect vulnerable people fleeing violence and persecution.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
The subject of immigration is of great importance to my constituents in Great Grimsby. They have voted time and time again for Government to take control of who enters our country. I am pleased that the Government are finally bringing forward this Bill to do just that. Let me say first, Madam Deputy Speaker, that control of immigration does not mean stopping people coming here. It means that, as a country, we decide on the means by which people enter. My constituents understand that from time to time we need to provide help to genuine refugees fleeing from war zones or from natural disasters. Equally, we have a tradition of providing asylum to people whose Governments are not as generous or as freedom-loving as our own. We as a country do that willingly and with generosity.
What the people of Grimsby do not accept is people travelling through multiple free, safe European countries then attempting illegal entry to the UK and claiming asylum on entry. This is not asylum seeking. This is economic migration.
Madam Deputy Speaker, I am not against economic migration. How could I be with the surname Nici? My late father came from Italy in the 1960s, long before the EU existed or we joined the EEC, but he had a job in the UK before he arrived and then when he came here he worked here with a work permit. He found this country welcoming. He found that Grimsby was a great place to live and so applied for citizenship and became a British citizen. In the process, he had to give up his Italian citizenship, but he did it willingly because he wanted to participate fully in life in the UK as a British citizen, to work hard, to run a business, to pay his taxes and to raise a family. It is not fair on all those who have followed the proper rules to migrate to this country that illegal immigrants and bogus asylum claimants are treated in the same way.
I have been struck by the contributions of Labour Members giving all sorts of spurious reasons why they will oppose the Bill. What they really mean is that they want to prop the door open and let unlimited people come in. I welcome the measures in the Bill and I will be enthusiastically supporting the Government tonight.
Ruth Jones (Newport West) (Lab)
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me in this important debate. Like others, I would like to wish Eid Mubarak to the Muslim communities in Newport West and across the UK.
I have also heard from a number of my constituents in Newport West about the Bill and their concerns with it. Like me, they think the Bill is fundamentally flawed, and I shall be opposing it. Its content means that this Conservative Government will turn their backs on some of the most vulnerable people in our communities, and it risks breaching international law. The reasoned amendment in the name of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), the Leader of the Opposition, rightly calls out the Government for their failures and calls for a more humane and decent asylum system, and it has my full support.
In 2021, we need to demonstrate our compassion and our global leadership. That means getting things right. This Government’s approach is weak on taking action against criminal gangs, but brutal when it comes to orphaned children from war zones. Surely this is a case of misplaced priorities. The Bill also risks criminalising the RNLI for saving people at sea. Had the Bill been in place when Sir Nicholas Winton was rescuing hundreds of children from the holocaust on the Kindertransport, it would have risked him being criminalised for his life-saving actions.
Rather than offering genuine proposals to fix the broken asylum system, for which Conservatives have been responsible for over 11 years, this dangerous Bill will make a damaging and indefensible situation even worse. It seeks to allow the Government to deliver on plans to process people’s cases in so-called third countries. In the lead-up to the Bill, Conservative party briefers have told the media that this could include taking people to west Africa or oil rigs to have their cases heard. Those plans are immoral, wildly impractical and simply not fit for purpose.
From the discussions I have had with local people in Newport West and the many other emails I have received, I know they want to see more done to tackle the appalling crime of people smuggling—as do I. However, key to that is having a workable deal in place with France to stop the gangs operating so frequently there exploiting desperate people for money. Yet the Bill contains nothing that will help to address those vital failings. It would be helpful to hear what discussions Ministers have had with the French Government on that matter.
Newport West has a strong moral compass and our city has welcomed refugees and asylum seekers with open arms, and with the respect and decency they deserve. Because Newport is a resettlement centre for refugees and asylum seekers, I have had the privilege of meeting just some of those awaiting decisions on their applications, courtesy of the British Red Cross, in Newport West. I met a doctor from Nigeria desperate to work in his specialism of cardiology, but prevented by Home Office rules. I met a Syrian woman who showed me photos of her beautiful home, now bombed to smithereens. I have met others fleeing religious persecution and seeking sanctuary here in the UK. These are not scroungers or spongers. They have skills and abilities to bring to us, and we can benefit as a society by them living and working with us here.
This Tory Government have refused to reopen many safe routes with little explanation and certainly zero humanity. The new UK resettlement scheme, in its first month in 2021, resettled just 25 refugees—25. The Government also closed the Dubs scheme, having settled just a fraction of the 3,000 children initially envisaged. That is not my idea of global Britain.
It is very hot in Newport West and across the British Isles today, and it feels like the temperature has been raised through the empty promises and hot air radiating from the ministerial suite of offices on Marsham Street and in No. 10. Those most in need of peace and safety deserve better. The people of Newport West deserve better, and I will do my best to fight for it.
Mick Whitley (Birkenhead) (Lab) [V]
I welcome the opportunity to speak in a debate that has enormous implications for so many of my constituents.
July marks the 70th anniversary of the signing of the refugee convention. Born out of the turmoil and devastation of the second world war, that landmark treaty enshrined the rights of those fleeing persecution and conflict. This anniversary provided the Government with the perfect opportunity to commit themselves to the principle that the UK should provide sanctuary to those who have been forced to flee their homes. Instead, we have abandoned the key principles of the convention, retreating even further from our long-standing moral commitments.
The Home Secretary claims that this Bill will fix a “broken system”, but it was this Government who broke the system in the first place, and nothing in this Bill will clear up the mess they have made. Last year, the number of people waiting more than a year for the initial decision on their asylum claim was 33,000—a tenfold increase since 2010. A staggering 250 people have been waiting for more than five years, including 55 children. The impact on those caught up in this shocking backlog, including many of my constituents, is devastating. Their lives are left in limbo: they unable to work and they are plagued every day by the uncertainty of whether they will be granted leave to remain in the country they call home. Enver Solomon, the CEO of the Refugee Council, has said:
“Leaving vulnerable men, women and children waiting for years on end for news of their fate…is cruel and unjust. It is an incredibly inefficient, ineffective and unfair way to operate a refugee protection system.”
Yet this Bill contains no measures to address these delays or provide justice for those who have been waiting for it for so long.
The Home Secretary has also told the House that these proposals
“will increase the fairness of our system.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 705.]
Nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, the Bill risks creating a deeply discriminatory two-tier system based on how people have reached the UK. Those who come via a third-party country or who lack documents will be unfairly penalised regarding the strength of their claim. The UNHCR has condemned these plans as a “recipe for human suffering”, and it is absolutely right. The Bill will make life infinitely harder for those who have been forced to flee their homes. Instead of providing refugees with the support and kindness they so desperately need, the Government seem intent on treating them like criminals. Victims of human trafficking will lose vital protections and struggle to access much-needed support. Meanwhile, young people and children will be forced into the hands of despicable people traffickers because of the Government’s failure to establish safe and legal alternative routes.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Should nations prevent anyone from crossing their borders? We are all citizens of the world, so should we all have the right to live and work where we choose? All Governments have a responsibility to their citizens to keep their country safe, and ensure economic and social stability for their citizens. There would be mass immigration without border control, which would put enormous burdens on infrastructure and public services, inevitably leading to economic instability and unemployment. These are the reasons why every single country has its own rules about who may travel, work and reside within its borders. Every country has the right to protect its borders and every country has legal migration routes via visas or work permits.
Every day, thousands of migrants and refugees leave their countries in search of refuge, safety and better lives. Refugees are unique in their plight. They have fled their country and are unable or unwilling to return because of war, violence or fear of violence, or being persecuted because of their race, religion, sexuality, nationality or political opinion. An economic migrant is different from a refugee, being someone who leaves his or her country of origin for education or for financial or economic reasons. Economic migrants choose to move to find a better life—they do not flee war-torn countries or move because of past persecution—and there are legal routes for economic migrants to come here. Refugees and migrants are not the same, even though many people, especially Opposition Members, argue that all migrants should be treated as if they were refugees on the basis that they are all seeking a better, more secure life. The United Kingdom has a proud record of helping those fleeing persecution, oppression or tyranny from around the world, alongside providing around £10 billion a year to support people through our overseas aid. The UK is a global leader in refugee settlement. Between 2016 and 2019, as a country we resettled more refugees from outside Europe than any member state of the EU. In total, across all Government-funded resettlement schemes, the UK has resettled more than 25,000 vulnerable refugees in need of protection over the past six years, with around half being children. More than 29,000 family reunion visas have been issued in the past five years.
I welcome this Bill because it seeks to retain a compassionate approach and combine it with increased firmness, fairness and efficiency. I welcome the ambition to see an asylum system based on need, so as to better protect and support those who require our help the most. I welcome the fact that the Government are strengthening the safe and legal routes for refugees and fixing historical anomalies in British nationality law. I welcome the Government’s commitment to ensuring that resettlement programmes are responsive to emerging international crises and that persecuted minorities are represented. Continuing to resettle refugees directly from regions of conflict and instability fulfils our manifesto commitment to support those fleeing persecution. Our refugee settlement scheme has protected thousands of people in the past few years.
I welcome the improved support for refugees provided for in this Bill to help those vulnerable people build their lives in the UK. The enhanced integration package and immediate indefinite leave to remain in the UK for refugees who are resettled through our safe and legal routes will make it more attractive to use legal means of resettlement than illegal ones and help deter perilous crossings.
It is well known that refugees seeking asylum in the UK are not penalised for entering illegally. I welcome life sentences for people smugglers. By cracking down on illegal immigration, we can prioritise those in genuine need. That will help prevent people making dangerous and unnecessary journeys to the UK. I particularly welcome the commitment to tackle modern slavery and the increased protections for those found to be victims of modern slavery.
For too long, criminal gangs have profited from our broken asylum system at the expense of vulnerable people who need protection and the British public who pay for it. The Nationality and Borders Bill will create a fair, but firm system, delivering on our promise to take full control over our borders.
Kate Osborne (Jarrow) (Lab)
Thank you for calling me to speak in this debate today, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to focus my contribution on the impact of detention on women. In 2016, the Government committed to reduce their use of detention. While the number of women in detention has fallen since then, the measures in the Bill will likely lead to an increase.
Research by Women for Refugee Women shows that many of those detained in immigration centres are survivors of torture, rape or trafficking, and locking them up severely impacts their mental health. In March this year, there were just 25 women detained in the UK. These are historically low numbers, yet the Home Office is to open a new detention centre for women at the Hassockfield site in County Durham in the north-east later this year. If the Home Office is committed tousb detention reduction, why the increase in detention capacity?
Then we dig into the detail of this Bill, and it becomes clear that measures are being put in place that will increase women’s detention. For example, clause 10 create two tiers of refugee. People claiming asylum will be recognised as a group 1 refugee if
“they have come to the United Kingdom directly from…where their life or freedom was threatened…and…they have presented themselves without delay to the authorities.”
Those designated as group 2 refugees will have more limited protections upon grant of status, including being given shorter periods of leave to remain. However, because many women often do not realise that their experiences of gendered violence make them eligible for asylum, they do not apply straightaway. This will mean that many women will be wrongly placed in group 2 and therefore liable for detention.
Furthermore, clauses 46 and 47 go against the Home Office’s own guidance on penalising individuals for not disclosing details of their exploitation. Such guidance is in place to recognise that trafficking victims may take time to disclose what has happened to them. The move to penalise individuals for not disclosing, will mean that fewer women are recognised as victims of trafficking. That means that they will become liable for detention or, if already detained, that they will not be released.
In addition, clause 48 raises the threshold for being recognised as a potential victim of trafficking through a “reasonable grounds decision” for the national referral mechanism. It means that a positive decision will now be made when there are “reasonable grounds” to believe that the individual “is”, rather than “may be”, a victim of slavery or human trafficking. Like clauses 46 and 47, it also makes it more difficult for women to be recognised as victims of trafficking, which again means that more women will be liable for detention. Overall the Bill signifies the Government’s attitude towards the safety and rights of vulnerable women who have fled abuse and violence. It disproportionately affects vulnerable women, and criminalises them. I reject this hostile environment, and I ask other Members to do the same by voting against the Bill.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab) [V]
It is distressing that the Government are pushing ahead with this deeply disturbing Bill. A pattern is forming in the Government of introducing legislation that does little or nothing to solve problems, but actually exacerbates them. That kind of right-wing, populist politicking is easy, but it is dangerous and lacks the competence, depth of thought and basic humanity that we have a responsibility to show. The Bill creates a two-tier system for refugees, based on the route by which they enter the UK, and not on need. In doing so, the Home Secretary risks criminalising the majority of refugees for failing to live up to an impossible standard. It does nothing to address the need to create safe and direct routes into the country for asylum seekers, and it essentially criminalises refugees for escaping war and persecution through the only route available to them. It does nothing to stop the risk of refugees falling into criminal hands and using unsafe routes.
I am appalled by the suggestion that asylum seekers could be removed to any third-party country in which they may have spent a period of time, and which the Government deem to be safe. That would renege on our international obligations, put excessive strain on countries that already accept a disproportionate number of refugees, and risk deporting refugees to countries where they will not be safely housed. The most likely outcome of that policy is that vulnerable asylum seekers will be trapped in the system for much longer, without permanent housing or the right to work. I fear the Bill will pave the way for more facilities such as Penally barracks in Wales, and Napier barracks in Kent. When Penally barracks was closed in March, I was relieved. I took it as an understanding that that kind of accommodation was unsuitable. Of course, the UK Government’s understanding of what is suitable is very different from mine, and that of the Welsh Government.
Even more worryingly, the Bill seems to open the door to offshore processing sectors housed in far-flung and remote parts of the world. The suggestion is as baffling as it is inhumane. How does the Bill promote improved dispersal and community integration for refugees? Campaigners have long been calling for a well-funded dispersal system that will safely house refugees throughout the country. Delivering the best outcomes for refugees does not seem to be a priority for the Government, and the Bill does nothing to address the problem of backlogs in the system, and delays in the processing of those seeking asylum. The backlog is now 10 times what it was 10 years ago, but who has been in power all that time? What does the Bill do to improve safeguards for unaccompanied children with bilateral agreements with other countries? What does it do to address the problem of modern slavery? This Government’s decisions are driven not by lack of capacity or funding, but by their total lack of compassion.
These proposals are deeply cruel. My beliefs are centred around fairness, justice and compassion, but it is clear that in introducing such a Bill, the Government do not share those values. The Bill is hardly a suitable 70th birthday present for the refugees convention to which the UK was a proud signatory after the second world war. Thank goodness that those who helped so many people to escape from the horrors of the second world war did not take this Government’s view on refugees and people seeking asylum in the UK. I urge the Government to shelve the Bill and return to the House with a proposal that reforms the asylum system and respects the basic rights of refugees to live a dignified, safe and contented life in the UK, as is their wish.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD) [V]
The Bill feels like a series of poor choices made on the basis of ignorance of the evidence, or maybe even contempt for it.
Let us start with the Bill’s major premise, which is that we are overwhelmed with asylum seekers. That is not true. The United Kingdom had 35,000 or so asylum seekers last year; Germany had 120,000; France had 96,000. By the number of people we take in and consider for asylum each year, we are behind 16 members of the European Union, so we are low or mid-table. We are an island, so there is an extent to which we are protected; that has some horrific consequences as well, but the notion that we are overwhelmed with asylum seekers is bogus nonsense. It is not true, yet it is the premise of much of the Bill.
There is a problem with the asylum system, but it is the colossal backlog. Somehow, even though the number of people claiming asylum here has dropped by 58% in the past couple of decades and by 21% in the past two years, the number of people languishing in the asylum system has increased by 28%. That is proof that we are overwhelmed not with asylum seekers, but by the incompetence of the Home Office, which is what the Bill ought to be tackling. It pretends there is a problem that there isn’t, and it pretends that there isn’t a problem that there is.
Secondly, let us be quite honest about the whole issue of safer routes. So many comments have been made by Members on both sides of the House about how we need safer routes to prevent people from making dangerous crossings. There is such a need, but unless the Government allow people to apply for asylum from outside the United Kingdom, the United Kingdom will be complicit in and responsible for people making dangerous crossings. That is the safer route, but the Bill sets out nothing of the sort.
Creating two categories of asylum seekers—which I am sure the Government are doing because it winds up namby-pamby liberals and therefore somehow pleases them and their base—is probably illegal under international law. It is morally repugnant and wicked, and surely it is utterly counterproductive. Maybe that is the argument that might land with Ministers: that it will make things worse.
Just yesterday, I was talking to one of the Home Office’s own asylum accommodation providers. I will not name it, because that would not be fair, but it told me that the two-tier system will make no difference whatever to the number of people who come here via the irregular route; it will simply lead to refugees coming here, not claiming asylum and slipping into the informal economy. In other words, the Government are presenting to the House and the people a charter for a massive increase in exploitation, modern-day slavery, a wicked use of people through trafficking and all the awful things that come about when people go below the radar.
That seems an obvious consequence. the Government’s own suppliers know it, and I assume that the Government know it themselves, but they somehow think that they can get some useful clickbait by separating desperate people into the deserving and the undeserving. That is shocking. It undermines what it is to be British, and the Government should be ashamed of themselves for proposing it. Even if they have no shame, surely they have some practical understanding of the consequences of this foolish procedure: that it will force people underground into exploitation, modern slavery and appalling things like that.
It is not just on those issues that the Government have shown contempt for the evidence, or let us say an accidental ignorance of it. There is a huge impact on the world of work. In my constituency and right across Cumbria, the hospitality and tourism industry is by far our biggest employer. If I were to tell the House that, in the Lake district, 80% of the entire working age population already work in hospitality and tourism, Members will be able to see that there is no huge, sufficient reservoir of the additional people we need to work in our hospitality and tourism industry. Eighty per cent. of the working age population already work in hospitality and tourism. We are Britain’s second biggest destination, behind only London. Do the maths: we need overseas labour.
This year, and in the past few days especially, people I have spoken to right across my community, from Grasmere to Grange, from Sedbergh to Staveley, have been telling me that they have fought and struggled, spent their life savings and gone into debt to survive covid. They have been grateful for the Government support that has helped them to just about do that. Having survived covid, guess what? Loads of them are closing now. Why? Because of the Government’s barmy, impractical, stupid visa rules.
Home Secretary, why did you do all this? Why did the Government make provisions to support hospitality and tourism in the past 16 to 17 months if they were only going to kill them off by stupid visa rules at the end? The simple fact is that, if an Italian restaurant or a gastropub in the Lake district sources half its staff from overseas and half from the local area, if it cannot get the half from overseas and the business therefore closes, as dozens have done, the half who are local will lose their jobs too. So I will use the last few seconds to ask the Government to do something sensible— I and many Conservative Back Benchers think this should happen—and have a youth mobility visa with the countries that are close to us in Europe so that we can at least provide a source of labour to protect excellent businesses from going under because of stupid Government policies.
Neil O'Brien (Harborough) (Con) [V]
The reason we need to take action through this Bill today is not, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said, because the country is overwhelmed, but because the system is both broken and unfair. It is obvious it is broken to everyone who sees on TV every summer large numbers of people risking their lives as they are trafficked from France, a safe country, to the UK. The system is broken because it is leading to people profiting from putting others’ lives at risk and to people putting to sea in dangerous vessels. It is unfair to those who have played by the rules. They have often jumped through a lot of hoops, paid a lot of money and done everything right, and then they see other people pushing to the front of the queue as economic migrants, despite not following all the rules. Ultimately, we have to insist on a system that is rule-based and set our own rules on who comes to this country. If we are to do that, we have to crack down hard on illegal migration and those who profit from it.
Therefore, I welcome the measures in the Bill. I welcome the extra resources for Border Force to police channel crossings. I particularly welcome the extra life sentences for people traffickers—it is amazing that that is not the case already. It is right to bring those in for people who are profiting from others’ misery and from others being put in extreme danger as they cross the channel. It is right to bring in those tougher penalties and in the legislation to increase the penalties for those who return after being the subject of a deportation order. Those who break the rules in that way again should clearly be the subject of stiffer penalties.
I also welcome, as many of my constituents will, the measures to reduce the vexatious claims that see people potentially taking legal action, even though on the steps of a plane, with the endless appeals and poorly merited cases that people use to clog up the system, slow things down and waste lots of people’s time and taxpayers’ money. We have to have a decision-making system that is not only fair, but makes clear decisions and does not lead to endless legal processes of a kind that many of my constituents are certainly frustrated by. It is also right that we have tougher measures to limit visas for those third countries that are not co-operating with us. If other countries do not want to help us and are not taking back their nationals who are being deported—they are not taking back their own citizens from this country—we have to be more symmetrical about things and look again at the visa rules we have for those countries.
I am proud to support this legislation, which ends a broken system, reduces the chance of people having their lives put at risk and ends some basic unfairnesses in the system that have gone on for far too long. It is a Bill that I am very proud to support.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I rise to speak against this Bill. In the face of an unprecedented global refugee crisis in which 82.4 million people have been forced to flee their homes, what is the response of this Tory Government? It is to close down the dedicated Department whose responsibility it was to provide help and assistance to people in desperate need across the world, giving hope, creating safer, more secure environments and reducing the need to flee their homes. It is to slash the funding for international aid, with a devastating impact on the programmes that support the world’s poorest communities so that they do not become displaced, demonstrating that the UK is no longer leading by example and reducing our authority to ask other countries to step up their contributions.
It is to close down the Dubs scheme for family reunification, having accepted just a fraction of the children that the scheme was designed to resettle in the UK. It is to withdraw from agreements with our European neighbours, with no replacement treaties and therefore no basis for agreeing how to share responsibility for supporting desperate people seeking sanctuary and the opportunity to rebuild their lives in Europe. It is to do everything possible to make desperate people arriving in the UK, many of whom are traumatised, feel as unwelcome and unwanted as possible, housing them in illegal conditions in Napier and Penally barracks, depriving them of sleep and dignity and exposing them to coronavirus infection.
It is to allow the asylum system, during more than a decade in power, to become broken, inefficient, inaccurate and inhumane. It is to close down safe and legal routes to seek asylum in the UK wherever possible, funnelling desperate people into the most dangerous routes—the peril of the English channel—because they feel there is no other way. It is to cut the funding to support English language training and voluntary sector organisations that can help refugees to settle in our communities, rebuild their lives and actively participate in our economy. And it is to bring forward legislation today that risks criminalising the Royal National Lifeboat Institution for saving lives at sea.
This is the Conservative party’s global Britain. This divisive, deeply flawed Bill sits in stark contrast to the response of local communities across the country to refugees arriving in their midst. Time and again, when faced with traumatised individuals who have been through experiences so horrific and distressing that most of us can barely imagine them, we see the deep compassion of our communities who want to help. We see this in the numerous community sponsorship groups springing up across the UK, more than 150 of them—communities coming together to raise funds, provide housing and support to welcome a refugee family to their area. I am hugely proud of the work of Herne Hill Welcomes Refugees and Peckham Sponsors Refugees, both of which have welcomed refugee families to live in my constituency. Community sponsorship works. The families who are welcomed in this way have very successful outcomes because of the support that they receive.
Instead of this divisive Bill, the Government should be bringing forward plans to provide more support to communities and local authorities that want to help with refugee resettlement and working out how lessons from the approach to community sponsorship can be applied to refugee settlement more widely. I see the willingness of our communities to help and support people fleeing to safety in the UK. In the coffee morning I attended last week at a local church in my constituency for people living locally in Home Office initial accommodation, I joined volunteers in listening to the harrowing stories about the traumatic events that led to them fleeing for their lives, their hopes and aspirations for a new life in the UK, and their frustration and despair at being caught up in the Government’s dysfunctional asylum system.
I want to put on record my concerns about the inadmissibility rules in the Bill, in particular. Everyone in this House agrees that people traffickers who exploit vulnerable people are immoral and should be stopped, but whether someone has a right to asylum in the UK must be dependent on what they suffered in their home country and the level of risk they face should they return, not how they got here. The Bill risks creating a two-tier system for asylum that will result in some people being returned to situations in which their lives are at risk solely because of their means of travel.
This Bill is a deep embarrassment to the UK. It is being introduced at the same time as the Government are cutting funding for projects that help to prevent displacement in the first place. They talk of creating safe and legal routes, without taking a single step actually to create or expand any safe or legal route. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees has taken the unprecedented step of stating that the Bill will undermine the 1951 refugee convention and international protection system, not only in the UK but globally. The Bill diminishes us in the eyes of the world.
I call on the Government to withdraw the Bill and bring forward proposals to deliver a functioning, fair, accurate and humane asylum system, to restore our leadership in the world on the actions that support the poorest people, to broker peace and uphold human rights, to support communities who want to resettle refugees in their area, and to open safe and legal routes such as the Dubs scheme, so that we can continue in our proud tradition of providing safety and a welcome for those fleeing conflict and persecution.
James Sunderland (Bracknell) (Con)
Since I was elected to Parliament, one of the issues that I have been left in no doubt about whatsoever by many of my constituents is that the UK must take back control of its borders and deal with the tide of illegal immigration. We have all seen the sad and appalling scenes—images of asylum seekers making the perilous journey across the channel in small boats, on dangerous tides. Frankly, it is suicide, and it needs to stop, for all the reasons that have been debated today. The UK has shown itself over many years to be more than generous and hospitable, but there cannot be an indefinite blank cheque for those who come here illegally.
The Bill, as we know, has three main objectives. The first is to increase the fairness of the system—I emphasise the phrase “fairness of the system”—to better protect and support those in need of asylum. The Bill deters illegal entry into the United Kingdom, thereby breaking the business model of people-smuggling networks and protecting the lives of those they wilfully endanger. The Bill also enables those with no right to be in the UK to be removed more easily. The UK’s legal immigration system is being reformed by the ending of free movement and the introduction of a new points-based immigration system. In my view, this Bill is intended to tackle illegal migration and asylum seekers and to control the UK borders, and it fulfils the manifesto promise that was made in 2019.
Let me set out some of the facts. The number of asylum seeker cases is growing. We must assess the current system and innovate to create a fairer and more efficient, modern system. There were 29,500 asylum applications in 2020 alone, and many more continue to arrive. Contrary to popular perception, the UK will continue to resettle genuine refugees directly from regions of conflict and instability. That has protected over 25,000 people in the last six years, more than any other European country.
The proposals in the Bill will rightly create a differentiated approach. How someone arrives in the UK will impact the type of status they are granted in the UK if their asylum claim is successful. Ministers rightly argue that that approach will discourage irregular entry into the UK, such as entry across the channel via small boats, as we have discussed, which, again, increased significantly in 2020.
Stuart C. McDonald
Even on its own terms, that will not work. There is not a shred of evidence in the world that tinkering with the asylum system discourages people from coming to claim asylum. In fact, parts of the Bill are already in force, including the six-month palming off of complaints, and of course we already have Napier and Penally barracks, yet still the number of crossings continues to rise. It just will not work. People will still come. They will not be put off coming to Britain; they will just be put off claiming asylum because of how bloody awful this Government are making the system.
James Sunderland
I am pretty clear that the Bill is designed to do exactly what I said it is designed to do. What we have to do is disincentivise the ongoing passage across the channel. We have to break the cycle. If asylum seekers know that entering the UK illegally via that method is not going to result in a successful claim for asylum, then it may stop. That will also discourage those gangs from wilfully imposing their own selfishness on these vulnerable people.
Let me move on to immigration enforcement. The Australian experience has shown what can be done legally and fairly with state intervention. The Bill will provide our border force with additional powers to search unaccompanied containers located in ports for the presence of illegal migrants. It will seize and dispose of vessels intercepted and encountered, including disposal through donation to charity if appropriate, and it will stop and divert vessels suspected of carrying illegal migrants to the UK, and, subject to the agreement of the relevant country, such as France, return them to where their sea journey to the UK began. Almost all these migrants have passed through many other countries, which should by rights have offered them asylum, to get to the UK, which, clearly, people perceive to be a soft touch, and that has to end.
Currently, there are more than 109,000 asylum cases in the system, 52,000 of which were awaiting an initial decision at the end of 2020. Around 5,500 have an asylum appeal outstanding and approximately 41,000 cases are subject to removal action. These figures are completely outrageous and point not to any failure by the Home Office, but to the sheer numbers of people who continue to seek the UK as a soft touch. Doing nothing is no longer an option. I therefore welcome the measures outlined in the Bill, and I am clear that our current asylum system is unequivocally in need of reform.
In conclusion, this is not a moral or an emotional judgment, but a pragmatic one. Although I urge the Government to ensure that implementation is as humane, kind and hospitable as possible, as we have seen for many years, it is time for change and I shall be voting this Bill through tonight.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
May I say what a particular pleasure it is, Madam Deputy Speaker, to see you in the Chair today?
The great English jurist, Lord Bingham, famously wrote that the rule of law encompassed eight principles. Principle 5 states:
“The law must afford adequate protection of human rights.”
Principle 8 stipulates:
“The State must comply with its obligations in international law”—
as in national law. These principles are widely revered and have gained international respect, yet barely a week goes by when this British Government do not bring to this House a Bill that threatens to breach one or both of those principles. This Bill is yet another such example. It is also another example of the Government breaking their word, given the U-turn on their previous commitment to decrease the use of immigration detention.
If anyone was not following the first stage of this debate yesterday, I would commend to them the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald), which set out in a very eloquent and measured way the many problems with this Bill. He described how it seeks, as the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) said, to tackle a problem that does not exist and fails to tackle a problem that does exist. My hon. Friend also set out in some detail how, if this Bill becomes law, we risk breaching both our international treaty obligations and our obligations under the European convention on human rights.
Antony Higginbotham
The hon. and learned Lady says that this Bill seeks to address a problem that does not exist, so what about the illegal crossings in the English channel, involving small boats and dinghies, which are overfilled with people who are risking their lives? Would she say that that is not a problem that we should try to address?
Joanna Cherry
When I said that the Bill addresses a problem that does not exist, one of the previous speakers talked of the country being overrun by immigrants. That is simply not the case. As I said in an intervention earlier, yes, I do think—to use the hon. Member’s words—“innocent” and “vulnerable” people crossing the channel with people smugglers is a problem, but I do not think that the solution to that problem is to criminalise those innocent and vulnerable people. That is one of the central problems of this Bill. In fact, to criminalise those innocent and vulnerable people is potentially in breach of our international legal obligations.
If this Bill becomes law, we risk breaching the 1951 UN refugee convention, the 1961 UN convention on the reduction of statelessness, the UN convention on the law of the sea and the international convention for the safety of life at sea, and we also risk breaching the UN convention on the rights of the child. If this Bill becomes law, we also risk breaching multiple articles of the European convention on human rights, to which this Government assure us they are still committed. In fact, the Lord Chancellor gave evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights last week and was most anxious to assure us that the Government are still committed to the European convention on human rights. But there is not much point in being committed to it in name if they bring legislation to the House that threatens to breach it by its terms, as does the introduction of a two-tier system for refugees, which potentially breaches the right to be free from discrimination and enjoyment of one’s human rights.
The changes proposed by the Bill potentially undermine the right to life for those at sea. Changes to the application and appeals process for asylum seekers and provisions regarding credibility, and the weight to be given to evidence, risk breaching the right to a fair trial. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, of which I am a member, has already raised concerns that decision making by the Home Office in immigration matters is not sufficiently independent or rigorous to ensure that human rights are respected, and the Bill will make that worse.
Why would Scotland want to be part of a Union where decisions like this affecting our international standing and the perception of the state on the world stage are forced through by a Government with such scant regard for human rights and the rule of law? It is not just this Bill. This Bill is one in a succession of Bills that have gone through this House recently which many independent commentators have said threaten to breach our international treaty obligations and also threaten to breach our commitment to human rights under the European convention. In one case, the Government were quite brazen about it. A Minister stood up in the House and said that
“this does break international law”
but only
“in a very specific and limited way.”—[Official Report, 8 September 2020; Vol. 679, c. 509.]
Would that it were so with this Bill. This Bill will break international law, not in a specific and limited way, but in a number of respects that those with more time have enumerated more eloquently than I can.
This is not the way to do things. It is not right and it is not humane. There are millions of displaced people across the world and millions of refugees. The United Kingdom cannot wash our hands of responsibility for them, particularly when at least some of the reasons for their displacement can be laid at our door and at the door of our foreign policy and our colonial past. The real mischief that the Bill should seek to tackle, but does not, is that there are insufficient lawful routes for claiming asylum in the United Kingdom. Yes, resettlement programmes are laudable, but they are not a solution for those claiming asylum because resettlement programmes deal with those already recognised as having a protection need. Those in need of international protection who reach the shores of the United Kingdom should not be criminalised.
It is time the Home Secretary stopped playing to the gallery and did the hard work necessary to fulfil the United Kingdom’s moral and legal obligations to refugees and asylum seekers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said so eloquently, there is no point in Conservative Members waxing lyrical about the rights of persecuted Christians and the rights of the Uyghurs to be free from Chinese atrocities if they threaten to criminalise those sorts of people when they make it to our shores.
Angela Crawley (Lanark and Hamilton East) (SNP)
My hon. and learned Friend is making the point very eloquently. So many people who come here through an illegal route, through no fault of their own, are often in a set of circumstances beyond their control. The message that this Government send is, “You are not welcome.” What would she say to those who have made a life here and contributed so much, which they could continue to contribute were it not for this abhorrent policy?
Joanna Cherry
What I would say to them, what the Scottish Government have said to them and what my party says to them is that they are very welcome in Scotland, but unfortunately at the moment we do not have control over that aspect of policy. Until we take the steps to ensure that we do have control over that aspect of policy, we are stuck with trying to persuade this British Government that their policies are wrong.
I fear that the chances of this Government amending the Bill in any meaningful way are absolutely zero, but I know that it matters very much to my constituents, other people in Scotland and many organisations—the Trades Union Congress in Edinburgh passed a motion condemning this Bill just in the last few days—that the Scottish National party stands against the Bill. As I say, I do not think that our stand will work, and I continue to look forward to a future where an independent Scotland will be able to set a better example on refugee policy.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?
Alyn Smith (Stirling) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to see you in your place, Madam Deputy Speaker; thanks for the slight jolt, as I was called a wee bit earlier than I was expecting. I have also forgotten that I can take my mask off while I am speaking. Eid Mubarak to my constituents across Stirling and those elsewhere who are celebrating.
Today’s debate really cuts to matters of deep principle. How we treat the world’s most vulnerable seeking sanctuary here touches deeply held sincere principles on all sides. I detect throughout this debate a real difference in world view between the SNP Benches and the Government Benches. Scotland’s tragedy is that for centuries we exported our people. We are a third of the UK landmass, but we are not full. We need more people, not fewer. Scotland’s challenge for decades has been a declining population. European freedom of movement was helping us with that and then it was ended.
Chris Philp
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being a little more accommodating than the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry). He says that Scotland would like more people. Could I therefore urge the Scottish Government and Scottish local authorities to accept dispersed asylum seekers? The only one of Scotland’s 32 local authorities to accept dispersed asylum seekers is Glasgow. Scotland accepts only a small handful of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, each one of whom carries with them £53,000 a year of funding. If the Scottish Government are so keen on having more people, how about they play their part in the way that I have just described?
Alyn Smith
The Minister, I presume inadvertently, actually makes my point for me. Scotland, under my party’s philosophy, wants to play a part on the world stage as an independent state of the European Union, playing our part in upholding international law—all of it, not breaching it on a regular basis—however limited or specific that way may be. We want to take our fair share of asylum seekers. We want to be that haven. But the financial mechanisms in the UK, as the Minister well knows, mitigate our ability to do that. That is my answer to him.
I thank the hundreds of my constituents who have been in touch about this Bill—all against it. I thank in particular Forth Valley Welcome, Stirling University Student Action for Refugees, the church groups across the Forth Valley and Start Up Stirling, all of which have done great work to welcome refugees.
I will try for consensus, because this issue is too important for Punch and Judy politics. Let us accept that this is a difficult, sensitive issue for any Parliament, anywhere, to deal with. It is a problem that needs to be addressed; we agree with that. We all want to see the dreadful people traffickers properly penalised for their dreadful actions. Scotland, independent, will have immigration, nationality and asylum laws, and we will control our borders—the UK is not the only country dealing with these issues—but we will not do it like this. The Bill is not all bad, but from our perspective it is assuredly more bad than good. We would contend that the problems of the UK’s complicated, expensive, bureaucratic and slow nationality and refugee policies are entirely made in London and have been made worse by this Government.
The Bill is about issues of deep principle, so let us hear what some of the faith groups think about it. The Very Reverend Dr Susan Brown, the convener of the Faith Impact Forum of the Church of Scotland, says:
“we are urging the Government to think again and listen to asylum seekers and refugees, organisations that support them and people in receiving communities working to provide welcome and friendship.”
How about the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of Scotland? It says:
“Creating arbitrary divisions based on people’s method of entry will have profound implications for those who need our support most… many families and individuals have no choice in the route that they take, and to penalise them on this basis dangerously undermines the principle of asylum.”
In the time allowed, I will focus only on clauses 10, 29 and 38, because between them they provide ample grounds for voting against the whole package, although there are parts to which we might be more amenable.
I am particularly grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for its forensic examination of the Bill, on which I will draw heavily.
Clause 10 introduces a two-tier treatment of refugees based on means of entry. The Law Society of Scotland endorses the UNHCR in saying that
“to create a discriminatory two-tier asylum system”
undermines
“the 1951 Refugee Convention and longstanding global cooperation on refugee issues.”
A number of Conservative Members have said that France should somehow solve the UK’s problems for it. If the UK is playing a part in undermining global co-operation, it can hardly expect co-operation back.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Is it not the case that the UK worked with the UNHCR in the refugee camps in places such as Jordan? It selects the people who have a good reason and a right to come here, rather than just being able to afford to pay a people smuggler.
Alyn Smith
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I hope I have made it clear that there are parts of the Bill to which we are more amenable. I do not deny the work that has been done internationally, and I do not deny that this is a problem that needs to be fixed, but I see nothing in the Bill that will make it better, and I see plenty of things that will make it worse.
Clause 29 alters the criteria for well-founded fear of persecution. Again, the Law Society of Scotland is pretty trenchant:
“In summary, we take the view that the change in clause 29 appears to go against the intention of the New Plan for Immigration, and flies in the face of 25 years judicial scrutiny.”
Clause 38 expands the criminality of assisting refugees, removing the existing limitation that it is only an offence if the assistance is given for gain, thus effectively extending the penalty to any good Samaritan. The Law Society of Scotland says:
“We are…concerned about…Ships’ Masters who save asylum seekers from drowning as they are obliged to do by…Article 98 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea”.
This is a problem to be fixed, and it is a problem that can be fixed, but it is a system that has been entirely home-grown. In our view, the idea that the UK needs to implement what we believe to be flawed legislation is based on a flawed premise. There is a need for legislation to reform the UK’s awful immigration, nationality and asylum laws—we can agree on that—but this is not it. If the Bill is passed tonight—and I hope it will not be—it will not be passed in Scotland’s name, for Scotland can do better on this and many other issues.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. I am changing the speaking time limit to seven minutes, with immediate effect.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
It is great to see you in your new place today, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I am not against immigration at all. In fact, I have signed the forms for many friends who have decided to make the UK their permanent home after entering it legally and working here for many years. People who want to come to the UK and work legally can do so under the Bill, and I think that that is exactly the position that my constituents want to see. They want to see those people entering the UK legally, along with others who, in desperate straits, are fleeing persecution from abroad. Britain has welcomed such people for centuries.
The UK Government has proudly welcomed many tens of thousands of people—25,000 under the resettlement scheme—who were fleeing persecution: not those who were able to travel halfway across the world, not those who were prepared to pay illegal traffickers, but people in genuine need, coming from refugee camps that were at the heart of the worst action in recent wars. My constituents are proud to have taken those people in. Several asylum seeker families have settled in my constituency recently, and I look forward to their playing a real part in our local community, as others have done before them. However, my constituents are fed up—
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Will he also reflect on the fact that 25,000 is more than any other European country has taken in? We should be very proud of what we are doing, and should reinforce the legal routes into this country.
Mr Holden
I could not agree more. What I keep noticing today is that Opposition Members seem to be pushing the illegal routes more than the legal routes. We have legal routes into this country, and people can take them. I cannot understand why anyone who actually had the interests of people fleeing persecution at heart would promote people travelling in the backs of lorries or fleeing in boats across the channel, sometimes across the Mediterranean sea to get to France or Italy, and then having to travel all the way here. It is deeply irresponsible of Opposition Members to constantly try to promote these routes and to paint Conservative Members as though they are not trying to act in the best interests of those across the world who are facing incredibly difficult circumstances.
Although my constituents are happy to welcome economic migrants who come through the legal channels and want to play their part in our country, especially those who want to settle and permanently make the UK their home, they are fed up of seeing illegal migrants from across the world taking whatever opportunity they can. They are particularly fed up of seeing people being used and abused by illegal gangs, and being forced into this country. That is what really grinds their gears, and I cannot understand why Opposition Members cannot understand my constituents.
My constituency voted Labour ever since its creation. This was an issue that came up time after time on the doorstep, not only at the last general election but at the previous election. The Labour party has totally lost touch with the reality of the communities it has traditionally represented.
Angela Crawley
The hon. Member makes a number of points that suggest the view of his constituents is the view of all constituents, and it is simply not the case. In Glasgow, on Kenmure Street, we saw people protect individuals from being deported by the Home Office, and in many instances the message has been loud and clear that we welcome refugees in Glasgow. The message the hon. Member sends is not only toxic; it is not representative of all constituents across the UK.
Mr Holden
My constituents are very happy to welcome genuine refugees to the UK. We are taking them now, unlike many constituencies in Scotland where they are not taking asylum seekers, as was pointed out by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp). It is quite astonishing really.
My constituents are very happy to take genuine refugees, but they do not want to see an open-door policy, where anybody can just come into the UK and we cannot remove them if they have come here illegally, overstayed their visa or committed a criminal act while they are here, when they should be deported.
If Opposition Members are really interested in ensuring better and safer legal routes for migration, I cannot understand why they are not arguing for that. Why are they not arguing for safer routes? Why are they instead arguing that we should just allow the boats to continue? It seems crazy to me. Totally mad.
As I was saying, people are fed up of seeing people coming to the UK and being used and abused by illegal gangs. They are fed up of seeing them come here illegally. They are also fed up of seeing some lawyers—some lawyers—milking the system. I remember Opposition Members, when I was a special adviser in the Ministry of Defence, defending Phil Shiner, who was saying that British soldiers out in Iraq were doing all the wrong sorts of things. Spurious allegations were sprayed across honourable members of our armed forces. Today we are seeing exactly the same sorts of lawyers doing exactly the same sorts of things to our immigration and asylum system.
Mr Holden
No, I am not giving way to the hon. and learned Lady. I have already given way twice.
Far too often we see made-up claims. And then, time after time, they come back with different claims put in different ways. “I was this age at that time, and now I’m a different age. I was claiming under those conditions, and now I’m claiming under these conditions.” It is absolutely mad.
I can understand why Opposition Members, who supported people like Phil Shiner in the past, are now defending exactly the same system today. It is absolutely crazy, and it was at the time. I am glad the Government have moved on from those systems under Phil Shiner and we are going to tackle some of the same issues today.
There are three key elements that are particularly great to see the Government tackling. One is boat interceptions. It is interesting to see that we are learning from international examples. We are learning from the Australian system, where they have had terrible issues over the years with people coming. They do not have people arriving by boat in Australia any more, because they have dealt with the system.
We are also looking at the offshore processing of claims, and it is similar to the Australian system. They do not have the same problems that we do today. They do not see people dying in their channel any more—the channel between Australia and Indonesia and Papua New Guinea.
Opposition Members seem to think that this is a price worth paying. I do not think it is. The Government, more than any other Government in Europe, are doing the right thing in supporting legal routes from refugee camps. That is exactly what we need to see here.
Let me turn to immigration offences and enforcement. People are also fed up of seeing those who have come to the UK and been deported coming back again, and it is right that we are enhancing the sentences for such people—not only when they are initially deported, but if they come back again, when the sentences need to be tougher still. How can Opposition Members not support those sensible provisions on illegal migrants who have been deported? Surely constituents, whether they are in Consett or in Glasgow, support those sensible measures. They want a sensible immigration system whereby people come to the UK based not on their ability to get here, but on their need. That is what Conservative Members put forward every time—the need of the people in the refugee camps, not the need of the young men who can just make their way here.
The Bill, in the broader sense, also tackles modern slavery. That is a great step in the right direction on what is a real issue in parts of the country. I remember speaking to some long-standing police officers in my constituency who had dealt historically with cases of trafficked women and the horror that they went through. Often, those people disappeared into the system after being smuggled here illegally, so the Bill is taking a sensible step.
We are including a sensible framework to determine the age of people coming over to this country. We cannot have a system whereby someone can destroy the documentation that proves their age but is then able to claim to be whatever age they wish.
We are also including a good-faith provision. People should act in good faith with the Government when they are determining an application. How can the Opposition oppose good faith? It seems like a really sensible thing to me.
I am delighted to support the Bill on Second Reading. It will deliver exactly what my constituents want—a fair, balanced immigration system.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to welcome as Deputy Speaker one of my former neighbours from Cross Gates in my constituency of Leeds East. It is good to see you in the Speaker’s Chair. What it is not good to see, however, is this vile Bill.
I have been a Member of Parliament for six years, and in that time I have seen some vile legislation—legislation that punches down and attacks the poorest and most vulnerable, from the bedroom tax to the slashing and denying of benefits for disabled people, and welfare caps that force children into destitution—but this dreadful Bill is up there with the worst of it.
I find the Bill stomach churning. I cannot help but feel sick reading it, reading the Government’s plans and reading what they want to do to vulnerable people, including children fleeing war, rape and torture. The Bill will criminalise people seeking asylum simply because of how they get here. That is not only immoral; it is in breach of international law, although that is not all. The legislation—this rotten, sick legislation—opens the door to offshore detention centres. What kind of dystopian society do the Government want to create? They want offshore detention centres where, hidden from public view, people seeking asylum can be subjected to the mistreatment the Government are already known for, without any accountability.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of the most vulnerable and needy people are from Syria? Would he be surprised to hear that when the camp at Sangatte was cleared, of the 750 migrants who came here, only eight were from Syria? No one in Syria can afford the cost of the people smugglers.
Richard Burgon
It appears that there is a twitching of a conscience one Bench back from the Tory Front Bench. If the hon. Gentleman has a conscience on these matters, if he cares about the people he purports to care about from Syria or from anywhere else, I would urge him to vote against the Bill, because this reactionary Bill should be killed off today.
Stuart C. McDonald
To bring things a little more up to date, if we are looking at the statistics about who is in these boats crossing the channel, the nationalities are Iranian, Iraqi, Syrian, Eritrean and Sudanese. People from almost all those countries have success rates when they claim asylum of about 60% or 80%. The vast majority of people crossing the channel are refugees. Instead of locking them up, let us look at their applications.
Richard Burgon
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point and brings some reality to this debate. This reactionary Bill should be killed off today.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Richard Burgon
No, I will not give way. I will only give way if the hon. Gentleman wants to stand up and say he will vote against this dreadful Bill.
The Bill is not a one-off. It is the latest in a long list of racist interventions from the Government—a Government who have already deliberately stoked division and hate over the past decade. From the “go home” vans touring working-class communities to the Windrush scandal that saw black citizens deported, to the hostile environment policy and the attacks on Black Lives Matter, hatred, division and racism are used as weapons of mass distraction to try to shift the blame for Tory policies that hurt the majority of society. Rather than to blame the Government for the lack of school places and council houses, or the underfunding of our health service, the Government want to encourage people to blame their neighbours and other people in their community. The good news is, however, that the working class in all its diversity in this country is better than that and better than this Government.
Listening to speeches from the Government Benches, they remind me very much of speeches by Donald Trump. I think that, like Donald Trump, the Government’s approach will be thrown into the dustbin of history before too much longer. The policies that this divisive approach seeks to distract from and shift the blame from mean that people’s wages have not improved in over a decade. These are policies that have slashed key local services and ripped the heart out of many communities.
This Bill comes at a time when millions and millions of people have been having a long-overdue debate on racism in our society. Last week, England footballer Tyrone Mings rightly called out the Government for stoking the fire, because racism starts from the top. We have seen, of course, Tory MPs make themselves look like complete mugs, attacking footballers for being opposed to racism and showing their opposition to racism. The Bill that we are looking at today is exactly the type of legislation that we end up with when we have a Prime Minister who has labelled black people piccaninnies with watermelon smiles and Muslim women letter boxes. [Interruption.] Conservative MPs can groan and shake their heads all they want, but they should save their outrage for the people who will be criminalised, demonised and abused by this legislation, should it pass.
The Tories have a low view, as I have said, of working-class people and hope that they can whip up anti-immigrant sentiment to distract from their own failures. I do not share that view, and the response we have seen over the last week in this huge national conversation about racism shows that, while racism starts from the top, anti-racism and solidarity start from below. This legislation is about fear. It is about division. It is about hate. In the diverse, multicultural communities across the country that have come together over the last week we have seen a far better country than the one that this Government imagine—a country full of the spirit of community, the spirit of unity, the spirit of hope, and I encourage anyone, regardless of their political party, with an ounce of humanity in them to reject this Bill today.
I make this speech thinking of the asylum seekers I have met in my immigration surgeries at the Bangladesh centre in my constituency, and thinking of the sons and daughters of asylum seekers who go to school at Bankside Primary in Harehills in my constituency—a school where over 50 languages are spoken. I make this speech thinking of them, and this is just a small part of my effort to speak up for them, because those in power, those in government, are not speaking up for them; they are sticking the boot into them. They are chasing favourable headlines from the disgraceful individuals that run newspapers like The Sun that seek to divide the working class, but those views, I am glad to say, are going out of date. Our country is a far better, far more decent place than this Government imagine. That is why this rotten, racist, divisive approach is, in the long term, bound to fail. So I urge everyone who is appalled by the idea of offshore asylum seeker processing centres and everyone who is opposed to this to do what is right and vote against the Bill.
Jonathan Gullis
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice. The hon. Gentleman has thrown the slur of racism at the Conservative Benches throughout his speech, yet he was a key leading member of the Labour party that was found to be institutionally racist at its core due to the antisemitism that took place. I ask for your ruling on whether that—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. That is just a point of debate. It is not a point of order. Moving back to the debate, I call Kenny MacAskill, and there will be an immediate time limit of eight minutes.
Kenny MacAskill (East Lothian) (Alba)
I would like to start by saying what neither I nor, I believe, anybody else expressing opposition to the Bill is opposed to, and that is an immigration policy or immigration Acts. Everybody who is taking part in this debate recognises that there requires to be an immigration policy.
I remember many years ago, as a young Scottish Justice Secretary, going to visit my counterpart in the Republic of Ireland and expressing concern for the difficulties they were having. They were requiring to make changes, even constitutional changes, because at one stage anyone who was born in Ireland was guaranteed citizenship, and people were flying in to give birth, to take advantage of that. I was rather naive about that. Ireland has a proud record on how it deals with immigrants and with those seeking asylum in refugee crises, but it recognised that it had to have an immigration policy.
So, in opposing the Bill, nobody is suggesting unlimited immigration. It has to be dealt with in a co-ordinated manner, but equally, this is fundamentally about the manner in which this is being done and, in particular, the steps that are being taken against those who are most vulnerable, those who are most requiring aid, support, sanctuary and whatever else and those who are asylum seekers and refugees.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the Bill does still provide a route for the most vulnerable, but that it is based on need, not on a willingness to make a dangerous journey?
Kenny MacAskill
No; I think it is just creating so many obstacles that it will make life extremely difficult for those who are already the most challenged.
There are also actions that require to be taken against modern slavery—again, I go back to my days as Justice Secretary—but I do not believe that significantly more legislation is required. In fact, what is required is co-ordination. I remember—we are now going back over seven years—requiring to establish a taskforce because we realised that in dealing with serious organised crime, what was needed was the establishment of a taskforce to get everybody around the table, from whatever authority was necessary, to determine what worked and what would maximise the power and punch of the forces of law enforcement. With regard to modern slavery, that was done, but it was not done simply with those forces in Scotland; it was done with forces from Northern Ireland as well. At that stage—I have no doubt that it is still the situation—there was a link and co-ordination between paramilitary groups, and it was a paramilitary group based in Scotland that was operating modern slavery in Belfast. So that co-ordination with my then counterpart, Mr Ford, was welcome.
I also remember bringing together the business community and the local authority, and speaking to a senior representative from the Scottish business community who said that when they had turned up at the meeting, they did not realise why they had been called, but when they finished the meeting, they realised precisely why they were there. There is a suggestion that modern slavery is all to do with the sex trade—it is usually puerilely put in tabloid newspapers or wherever else—but it is not. Overwhelmingly, the victims of modern slavery are working in agriculture and other aspects. They are being used and abused. It might suit the titillation of some to suggest that it is the sex trade. That does happen, tragically, but equally it goes beyond that. That was why we required co-ordination, not legislation.
Similarly, on those who are coming in and seeking to feign marriages and whatever else, that is about co-ordination with registrars and local authorities, not seeking to grandstand and say, “We’re bringing in fantastic new laws.” At the end of the day, laws work only if we have the co-ordination, the force and the resources. That is why we must ensure that the National Crime Agency, Police Scotland, police services south of the border and, indeed, across Northern Ireland, and all other organisations—both civil and in the legal process—are working. That is what needs to be done, not simply to look tough.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman just mentioned that we need to know about organised crime. Is it not right that in the 21st century it is important for a nation to know who is coming into the country, how they are getting here and who is crossing to be here? How on earth can we control organised crime if we have no idea who is entering the country?
Kenny MacAskill
With regard to serious and organised crime, certainly in Scotland, and I think through the NCA, it has already been mapped. We know who it is; what we require to do is to work against them. With regard to those coming in, that comes back to the recently departed Donald Rumsfeld. There are known knowns. There are a lot of people that we know are active in people-trafficking gangs. There are others that we do not. It is about police resource and police intelligence; that is how we deal with it, not by compounding the hardship upon people who are already suffering.
Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (Ind)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for the very informed comments that he is making from a place of experience, having been in government. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) answers his own point. The way to deal with the issue is to increase the size of the legal resettlement programme. That undercuts people smuggling. Otherwise, we are engaging in a war like the war on drugs—a war against people smuggling that cannot be won.
Kenny MacAskill
I fully agree, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for his eloquent contribution.
Opposing the Bill is about seeking to protect values, as has been mentioned, as well as opposing actions that, in terms of where people are to be placed and how they are to be treated, I believe are fundamentally wrong. On each of them, I believe that there are clear failures. Foreign venues seem to be mentioned and trumpeted. What we have seen in Australia with the use of Nauru was frankly shameful. Indeed, Australia appears to be backtracking from that because of the failures that have occurred there.
There seems to be little planning and few suggestions. I have recently asked parliamentary questions about what jurisdiction would apply and who would be in charge. We do not know. We are just told to believe that the 1951 convention will be adhered to and all will be well. In Scotland, we would say that all will be hunky-dory. No, it will not. What the Government are seeking to do is to move people to a place away from visibility, where they will be treated appallingly. It has been dreadful in Australia, and it would be shameful if this country were to replicate it.
Mr Holden
I do not think that is what the UK Government are proposing at all. The hon. Gentleman opposes offshore detention centres. The Opposition often oppose onshore detention centres. Where does he think that people who have no proven status, some of whom need to be deported, should be kept?
Kenny MacAskill
If people have to be detained we have measures for detaining them, but in the main we do not have to detain people. I will again digress, with a story not from my period as Justice Secretary, but from when I was a defence agent. I once represented a young woman who had been detained as an asylum seeker. The crime was working in a restaurant in Orkney. She was detained in Her Majesty’s Prison Aberdeen. There was no Chinese translator. It was an overwhelmingly male prison. She was frightened witless. Those of us who know Orkney will know that someone cannot get off the island without boarding either a ferry or a plane. There was no way for her to escape, and to lock her up when she was no danger was frankly shameful. That was more than 25 years ago and things, sadly, are much worse now.
I always remember an old friend of mine, who was a prison governor and indeed a penologist, saying that if we want to look at who the most vulnerable and weakest members of a society are, we have only to look at who is in prison. In America, it is the black population. In Britain, it is the ethnic minorities. In Australia, it is the aborigines. In Scotland, it is the poor. Equally, we can take the corollary to that in this case, and ask who is coming and from what lands.
Kenny MacAskill
No, not at the moment.
That tells us where the areas of conflagration are and where the areas of natural disaster are, because people are coming from Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Iran and Iraq, where there has been war and carnage. That is what they are fleeing, and that is why we have a duty to support them.
Kenny MacAskill
No, I have to make some progress.
We have to make progress, because it goes against the values that, I believe, not only do we hold in Scotland but are replicated across Great Britain and Northern Ireland. People have come to this country—the Huguenot French, the Jews fleeing the pogroms, Basque children escaping Franco’s atrocities. They have come here, they have been welcomed and we are proud of that. It is something England and Wales are right to be proud of. Scotland has its own immigration, and I will deal with that in a minute, but that is something in which those who have come to this country and those from south of the border are right to take pride.
In Scotland, we have similarly seen people having to flee here. In fact, I say to Members from Northern Ireland that the first of those fleeing in were probably those fleeing the north of Ireland in the 1798 rebellion, who had to get out after the defeat of the rebellion and the conflagration that took place.
Kenny MacAskill
No, not at the moment.
That was followed by those who fled Ireland during the famine and, similar to south of the border, by those fleeing the Jewish pogroms or war. Scotland has benefited from these people coming: they have made us a better country. As others have said, we are losing population and we require people to come here—not simply retirees who wish to go and buy a nice house on the basis of their pension or the property they have sold, but people of younger age who are willing and able to come here and work, many of them those are asylum seekers and refugees. We need to have them coming because Scotland has a need for them.
Equally, this is about representing our universal values. Every day I see people lining up here for Prayers, and why do we do that if it is not because those in this Chamber are supposed to act according to values, whether Augustinian or whatever else? Within those values, and certainly within the Christian faith, the church was viewed as a sanctuary, yet the terms of the Bill remove sanctuary not from a church building, but from this entire country. It is entirely wrong. It goes against the values of the people not simply of England and Wales, but of Scotland and the United Kingdom as a whole, and those Conservative Members who are fuelling racism should be ashamed.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
This Bill, of course, reflects a manifesto commitment from the Conservative party at the last election—a manifesto that delivered an overwhelming majority for the Conservative party and a mandate to do precisely what we are doing today.
Since last spring, a great many of my constituents have been alarmed by a still ever-increasing number of migrants making the dangerous channel crossing. They are troubled by the risk to life, the reprehensible actions of illegal gangs exploiting vulnerable people and the challenges of protecting our own borders. This Bill meets all three key concerns of my Orpington constituents for reasons that I will set out, so I will be strongly supporting it this evening. Before I begin, however, I would like to pay tribute to Border Force personnel for all the work they do to save lives and keep our country safe—thank you to them.
This Bill is necessary because conflict and instability have displaced hundreds, if not thousands—or, indeed, millions—of people over the past few decades. In 2015 alone, more than 1 million migrants crossed into Europe. Over the last three years channel crossings have increased: 1,900 made this journey in 2019; that quadrupled in 2020 to over 8,400; and in the last six months alone, it has reached almost 6,000.
Jonathan Edwards
The House of Commons Library briefing on this issue indicates that, at the beginning of the century, the number of asylum claims was about 84,000 a year, which went down to 36,000 in 2019, the last year before the pandemic. Is not this narrative of a deluge of asylum seekers somewhat overstated by the Government?
Gareth Bacon
I do not believe so, and I do not recall using the word “deluge”. It is undeniably a problem, and it is one of the largest things to feature in my inbox on a daily basis.
This has been exacerbated by criminal gangs that are making an immoral profit from human smuggling and trafficking. Critically, migrants are crossing through safe European countries and refusing to claim asylum there. In ever growing numbers, migrants are being drawn to this country, and the situation is becoming unsustainable. The UK is one of the world’s most generous countries for refugee resettlement, and that is right.
Duncan Baker
My hon. Friend is making a wonderful speech. He has made two points that I have sat up at. The first was that it was a manifesto commitment to get this piece of legislation delivered. The second was that his inbox is full every single day with queries relating to the Bill. Is it not the case, therefore, that the British public overwhelmingly want to see this issue dealt with? It dominates the news every single day. That is why the Home Secretary is bringing this piece of legislation to get it dealt with once and for all.
Gareth Bacon
I agree with my hon. Friend entirely. Having listened to the debate on the monitor in my office, I have to say that the tone and content of some of the speeches from the Opposition underline and reinforce why they are the Opposition and not the Government.
Analysis has shown that many migrants might actually be economic migrants and not genuine refugees. Without this Bill, our asylum system is in danger of being continually abused, so we must take steps, as my hon. Friend has just said, to protect our own borders. Part 2 of the Bill, which deals with asylum, is understandably vast, so I will focus on some specific points arising from it. It is remarkable that all claims made by asylum seekers are processed in a homogeneous way and that there is absolutely no distinction between those who have entered the UK legally or irregularly. Some 62% of applicants in the 12 months ending September 2019 entered irregularly.
It is surely common sense that those who have respected our laws and entered our country via legal routes should be on a different footing from those who have sought more clandestine access. Clause 10 will change things by allowing for such differentiation to occur while making the distinction that all genuine refugees will continue to be afforded the same protections under international law. This will in turn help to deter people from making dangerous crossings. Clause 26 will make possible removals to a safe third country while an asylum claim is being heard, further deterring activities that put lives at risk and, in several tragic cases, claim them.
Clause 41 in part 3 is a key part of the Bill, because it gives more powers to Border Force to meet the specific circumstances faced. The problem, as I have said, is severe. Not only are criminal gangs responsible for facilitating these crossings, but they show no signs of stopping and are growing ever more expansionist, using larger vessels and carrying more people.
Migrants crossing in small boats have thus far been intercepted and brought back to the UK to have their asylum claims processed. At present, enforcement powers do not extend to ships in foreign or international waters, and clause 41 would change that by giving Border Force the ability to require migrant vessels to leave UK waters and deter them from our shores. The clause also provides for controlling the vessel and returning it to a safe country—most likely in these instances where it originated from, so the northern beaches of France or Belgium, or any other country accepting disembarkation.
Those who oppose the Bill have claimed that by legislating in this way, the UK would somehow be acting in breach of the 1951 UN refugee convention. That is false. It is fully compatible with all international obligations and conventions. The 1951 convention allows for different classifications where a refugee may not have come directly from a country of persecution. In this instance, if migrants have already transited through a safe European country where they could have claimed asylum, their return is not inconsistent with the convention. Who here in this House would consider France, Belgium, Germany or Italy not to be safe countries? If someone had been in a country where they have seen the worst atrocities possible, they would be lucky to settle there.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
My hon. Friend has made a very important point about travelling through safe countries, but does he not agree that these asylum seekers are not just travelling through one safe country? They are very often travelling through many safe countries. Essentially they have a shopping trolley as to what they want in this economic migration, so the best way to deal with this is to do so up front and have a meaningful policy, which is what the Bill is here for.
Gareth Bacon
I do agree with my hon. Friend. It is a fact that people will travel, often by land, through several safe countries to get to the border of northern continental Europe, thereby to embark for Dover or other parts of southern England.
The simple truth of the matter is that between 2016 and 2019, the UK settled more refugees from outside Europe than any other EU member state. Similarly, safe and legal routes for those needing protection or to reunite with their families still exist. More than 5,400 family reunion visas were issued to partners and children, and more than 29,000 family reunion visas have been issued in the past five years. There have been claims that the Bill reduces support for victims of human trafficking, which would be shocking if it were true, but part 4 of the Bill actually strengthens protections for victims of human trafficking and will be supported by a package of non-legislative measures as part of the new plan for immigration to provide enhanced support for victims.
The public, including my Orpington constituents, want strong but fair border controls. The Bill is about creating a fairer asylum system, both for those who need aid and for the British public. It does just that, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and her Ministers on introducing it.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab) [V]
Albeit remotely, may I join colleagues in saying what a pleasure it is to welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker?
I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the Bill, having worked on migration policy in one form or another for much of the decade that I have been a Member of the House. That has taught me that, like many complex policy problems, these issues are most effectively dealt with when we try to work across the House, aiming for consensus where we can find it. That is what we did with the 2014 cross-party inquiry on immigration detention, and its recommendations for a statutory limit and its ambition for community based alternatives were accepted by the House, although still not by the Government.
There is consensus that there are problems with the asylum system, and we are all clearly appalled by the desperate journeys that we see people making across the channel. However, the Bill does not aim to solve the problems with our asylum system; it simply plays to the gallery. It is introduced by a Home Secretary who has been found out for making false claims to pitch for headlines, fuelling another culture war that has sadly been reflected in some of the speeches today. We really should do better with such an important issue.
The Bill cynically claims to support refugees by cracking down on criminal gangs, but in fact it makes pathways to refuge more difficult and dangerous for the most desperate. Whipping up divisive rhetoric about illegal entry to the UK, the Bill proposes to criminalise irregular entry, and it flouts our obligations under article 31 of the 1951 refugee convention, according to the UN Refugee Agency. That refugee convention was signed by Attlee’s Government as we responded to lessons from the second world war, and to lessons from pre-war hostility in the media and among politicians to those fleeing Nazi persecution in Germany. The convention prevents states from imposing penalties on account of mode of entry, but as Members know, the Bill disregards that duty altogether by creating a two-tier system.
This is another instance of where this Government are content to degrade our status on the global stage by breaching international agreements and laws to which we have signed up. Clause 10, on the differential treatment of refugees depending on mode of arrival, includes provisions on whether family members will be granted family reunion, on the length of leave to remain given, and on whether a condition of no recourse to public funds is attached. The Bill discriminates in so many ways, and if it passes in its current form, a woman who, through desperation, has fled an abusive relationship in a dangerous country, without passing through a safe and legal route, could be criminalised with a four-year prison sentence. As refugee women whom I met recently told me, we should remember that the nature of women seeking asylum is often a desperate and frantic journey that is incongruent with Home Office procedures.
The Bill’s focus on safe and legal routes would be more understandable if it set out additional provision, but it does not. The UK resettlement scheme that opened earlier this year is not transparent and there is very little information about it in the public domain, so the Home Secretary must see that it is not a viable route for those fleeing urgent danger to seek refuge. In its first month, March 2021, the route settled just 25 refugees. While the Bill has no targets for resettlement and while the only such route is making no significant contribution, the Home Secretary’s rhetoric about safe and legal routes is empty.
The Home Secretary often professes the UK’s generosity in resettlement, suggesting that we take more refugees than our European neighbours; we have heard that in many speeches today. In fact, according to the most recent available data, in 2019 Germany resettled more than three times as many refugees as the UK, while Sweden and Norway, which are much smaller countries, both resettled more refugees than we did—and that was while the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme was still open. That route has now been closed, reducing the safe and legal pathways available to those seeking asylum.
The Bill contains worrying proposals that will allow for inhumane treatment of those who arrive through irregular routes. Clause 12 makes provision that
“An asylum claim must be made…at a designated place”,
paving the way for the offshore reception centres that the Government have flirted with. The Bill’s amendments to section 77 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 will enable the offshore processing of asylum seekers while their claims or appeals are still pending. The reported proposals for processing centres in Rwanda and other locations are not only seriously concerning because of the potential for indefinite detention and warehousing of asylum seekers in out-of-sight, out-of-mind locations, but frankly ridiculous because the Government have failed to strike any kind of international agreement on processing asylum claims or removals to safe countries. Frankly, their bullish approach to international relations post Brexit has left the prospect of any kind of replacement for Dublin III looking unlikely.
Finally, although there are many more issues in the Bill to discuss, I want to cover the proposed changes to the asylum process. Like many others, I am seriously worried that they will disadvantage the most vulnerable, particularly women. Clause 24 proposes that the appeals process be fast-tracked, while clause 23 proposes that judges be told to give “minimal weight” to evidence raised by an asylum seeker later in the process, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Clauses 16, 17, 20 and 23 contain provisions to penalise a submission of late evidence in a case. They ignore the reality of how asylum claims are made and how those seeking asylum can gather and provide evidence.
I recently met refugee women in a meeting facilitated by the charity Women for Refugee Women. They explained how a one-stop process would force traumatised women to raise all the reasons that they need protection at the outset or risk being penalised. Those who have experienced extreme trauma may simply be unable to do that—we know that—and must not be discriminated against for the very circumstances that have led them to seek asylum in our country.
When we seek to reform our asylum system, which does need reform, we should put those most at risk and most in need at its core, alongside the values for which this country stands. Sadly, the Bill has dog-whistle politics at its heart, not those values of which should be proud or the people we should protect. I urge Members to vote against it tonight.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
I am conscious that there have been many contributions, so I fear that this will be slightly repetitive, but my constituents in the Black Country elected me on a promise to sort this out. It is as simple as that. This is the way we will ensure we sort out the issue, which has been going on for decades. I find it absolutely laughable that some Labour Members attack us on our record, when they could not get a grip in their 13 years in government. The fact of the matter is that the small boat crossings that my constituents see on their screens every day are what inundates my inbox. That is not made up; it is not laughable. I can show it.
We talked earlier about whether the Bill aligns with public opinion. I will tell the Labour party how the Bill aligns with public opinion. Last week, on a 17.5% swing, Labour lost a seat in my constituency that it had held in perpetuity, because it had lost contact with the communities that it purported to represent.
James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)
My hon. Friend’s description of the by-election in his constituency is absolutely typical. Is it not typical of the Labour party that, in an important debate such as this, on which they express so much passion, so much support, so much belief, there is not one single Labour MP in the Chamber?
Shaun Bailey
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I have a lot of respect for the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) and for Newport East (Jessica Morden), but, as I say, where are the rest of them? Where are they? We could all ask that question, and my hon. Friend has articulated it in his unique way. [Laughter.] I assure him that that was a compliment.
I sat here last night and listened intently to the contributions on both sides of the House. I was pretty aghast, to be honest, by some of the stuff I heard—particularly the parallels that people tried to draw between the Kindertransport and this Bill. That was abhorrent. There is no way that any conscionable Government would illegalise the saving of people from a regime such as the Nazis. For Opposition Members to use that parallel in a debate shows, quite frankly, that when they have lost the argument, they just throw mud. That is exactly what that analogy—
Shaun Bailey
Not at this point. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I will just make a bit more progress.
I thought that was a disgraceful analogy to make. I also want to draw on a point on the 1951 convention that was articulated very well last night. I agree that we make international agreements and we should abide by those international agreements, but it was interesting to hear in the contributions last night that one of the debates that has had to happen is around how the international community defines “migrant” and “refugee”. We have seen the debate that has been going on, and we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May) about the conversations she had had with the UN about really drilling down into what that definition meant. By getting the definition right, and through this Bill, we can ensure that we protect those most vulnerable.
Let us just remind ourselves of one thing. We are not trying to turn away refugees and people that need our help. I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends who have been lambasted today and yesterday by some of the most disgraceful slurs I could possibly have heard would agree that we uphold our place in the international community to protect the most vulnerable.
Felicity Buchan (Kensington) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that when we have genuine asylum seekers, we want to make the system fairer? In fact, we have resettled directly the most of any European country in the last six years.
Shaun Bailey
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, which leads me to the point I am trying to make: we need to ensure that we are best placed to help those most vulnerable, by ensuring that the people we are helping are the ones that truly require that help. The ancillary support—ensuring that things such as education and housing and the right skills are in place—is so important as well.
I am a fervent believer that there is a promise that this country has to offer, that there are opportunities here that people can take advantage of and that we are a safe haven for people. I do not think anyone across this House would deny that for one minute, but it has to be done in the right way. It has to be done for those people who are truly vulnerable, and I am sorry, but my hon. and right hon. Friends are right when they say that a lot of the images we see are of economic migrants. I am sorry, but I would rather be taking in people that are fleeing war-torn countries and need that help and support, and I will not take lectures from Opposition parties on that. I fundamentally believe that we do have an international conscience, that we are—
Alexander Stafford
On the economic migrant point, did my hon. Friend see the reports in the paper yesterday about the small boats, with people paying more than £8,000 to criminal gangs to come over? Not only are these economic migrants coming over, but they are funding these gangs—gangs that traffic humans, supply drugs and arms, and bring death and destruction to our streets. Does he agree that the Bill not only helps the most vulnerable coming over, but undermines and destroys some of the criminal gangs and takes the blood off our streets?
Shaun Bailey
My hon. Friend has articulated that really well. Obviously, the Bill is part of that wider jigsaw. We have to nip this because all of us see the impact that these criminal gangs have on not just the migration debate that we are having today, but the follow-through in our communities and the blight of drugs and knife crime that he talked about. We get abhorrent stories in our mailbags—I am sure he gets them just as I do—and the fact is that this underpins so much of our society, not just in the migration debate, but more broadly. He is absolutely right to make that point.
We, as Government Members, are not saying that we do not have international obligations. If anything, we are trying to ensure that we can actually follow through on those international obligations. When I hear the arguments that we are somehow ignoring or riding roughshod over them, I think it truly is laughable.
Let me turn to the citizenship provisions of the Bill. We have heard some quite inflammatory arguments about the migration debate today, but on the citizenship requirements, the Bill reforms the British Nationality Act 1948 and the British Nationality Act 1981. On a broader point, that is the right thing to do, because we have to accept that society has changed in the last 70 years—and in the last 40 years, if we are talking about the previous Act. In my examination of the Bill I noticed particularly the point about family circumstances, and we have to recognise that the family as we see it today is not what it was 70 years ago. It is therefore right that, in drafting the Bill, my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench have recognised that fact. Our citizenship provisions allow us to ensure that citizens of Hong Kong, for example, can apply for their British citizenship and that we can continue to protect the most vulnerable.
I turn to the notion of the first safe country, which I have touched on slightly in my other remarks. I appreciate that Opposition Members have shouted about the unfairness of that, but I must bring this back to the fact that, ultimately, we have to ensure that within our asylum system, we are protecting the most vulnerable. I will always bring it back to that.
I have raised previously with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary the cost of this system: £1 billion. When I think of the communities I represent in my constituency, an example that comes straight to mind is an area called Princes End. It is in Tipton, the beating heart of the Black Country, and has some of the highest rates of child poverty and of unoccupiable social housing. Do you know what £1 billion would do for a community such as that? Of course I am not saying that there is a like for like, but I am saying that by getting these systems right and by ensuring that they are cost effective and streamlined—that has been such an important part of the discussion today—we will have the resource to invest in communities such as that.
There are people in Princes End who, quite frankly, feel, after listening to the debate today, that this House is just talking at them. These are the people raising concerns about small boats with me, and they feel that this place is saying that they are racist and that they are bigoted. No, they are not. They are just concerned about the country that they are in. They are angry about what they see and they have been promised time and time again—[Interruption.] I will not take interventions. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) was trying to intervene, but I did clock her. It is absolutely wrong that they are rubbished like that, because their opinion matters just as much as anyone else. That is the frustration that comes through in my mailbox. It makes me so angry, particularly with the Labour party who purported to represent this community for 50 years and whose Members sit here now and rubbish them.
We have to get this right. I will support the Bill. The amendment by the Opposition just reeks of procedural ignorance, really, and as far as I am concerned, I commend the Bill to the House.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Where to start, Madam Deputy Speaker? Thank you for calling me to speak—I think.
As many Members have noted throughout these proceedings, it is the 70th anniversary next week of the refugee convention—a convention built on article 14 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which recognises the rights of persons to seek asylum from persecution in other countries. That was the building block: the right to seek asylum from persecution. I know that the current Government are keen to distance themselves from our international treaty obligations. I have been expressly told that those obligations hold no weight in their opinion, but we simply cannot let that be the narrative. That is a concern shared by the Law Society of England and Wales, which sees it as vital that the UK applies, and is seen to apply, a convention that it willingly became a party to.
Anne McLaughlin
No!
Our legal standing on the international stage relies on this concept. Are we not in the strangest position when the Prime Minister, who seemingly holds Churchill in the highest esteem, is willing to undermine and redefine the post-war legacy that his political hero left behind?
The Government are trailing the Bill as a chance to streamline the immigration system and to cut down on so-called unmeritorious claims and time-wasting appeals. They have even introduced a wasted cost order that will ensure that those attempting to pursue their legal rights to a fair hearing are liable to pick up the tab for certain types of conduct that they consider improper, unreasonable or negligent. What about the wasted costs that the Government will run up if this Bill goes through unamended? I am sure that the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), who is so keen to help the most vulnerable in our society, will be interested to know that the cost of imprisoning so-called illegal asylum seekers could be as much as £412 million a year. If we do the maths, as the Refuge Council in England has done, the proposed plan to lock asylum seekers up for four years—yes, four years; there are some people in this House who clearly do not understand that refugees could be locked up as well simply for trying to come here—comes to an eye-watering £1.65 billion. Parts of the UK already have a prison system groaning under the strain of over-population. How can the Government justify moves that increase the number of people crammed into the prison estate?
When I prepared this speech earlier, I wrote that the hardest bit about speaking in this debate is having to leave out so much but that I was grateful to be on the Bill Committee because nothing would be left unsaid. Then, Madam Deputy Speaker, I experienced something that I have never experienced here before: the minutes went up and up, and now I am completely confused and have no idea how long this will take me.
Anne McLaughlin
Well, okay, if it gives me extra time, I will take an intervention.
Alexander Stafford
The hon. Lady is talking about costs and the costs of, as she says, locking up asylum seekers, but what are the costs of housing these tens of thousands of asylum seekers? What are the costs in terms of GP services? What are the costs in terms of housing for my constituents. My constituents are struggling to get access to the GP services. They are struggling to get houses—
Anne McLaughlin
Is it not funny, Madam Deputy Speaker, that all afternoon Government Members have been saying, “Why are more council areas in Scotland not taking more asylum seekers?” We want to do that, but the Government do not fund it. If the Government funded it properly, we absolutely, certainly would take more. Sometimes it is not just about the money, but about people’s human rights.
I want to concentrate a little on congregated living—I do not know the term, but Members will know what I mean. Today, the hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) mentioned Ireland. Yesterday, at the all-party group on refugees, we heard from the Irish Refugee Council, whose chief executive, Nick Henderson, described this as a “Sliding Doors” moment. Just as Ireland changes its immigration system, after a 19-year campaign, and sets out on a path to end congregated living for asylum seekers, we are embarking on the opposite journey, closing down community dispersal for those deemed to have arrived unlawfully by slinging them into degrading and inhumane detention centres—“Sliding Doors” indeed. I will say a bit more in a minute about the Irish experience, but at that same meeting we also heard a Belarusian politician describe his experience of living as an asylum seeker in congregated settings in London. He was at pains to point out how grateful he was that the UK had taken in him and his wife, and he was very clear that, had it not done so, he would have been murdered. He is now settled, but he is worried about others. He knows the impact of congregated living for asylum seekers. None of us knows it, but he does, and he wants to warn the Government against going further down that route. He talked about the powder keg that is created when a melting pot of multiple cultures and languages lives in one space with always just one thing in common: trauma. The constant stress of that and the indignity of communal living left him feeling suicidal. Yes, I agree with those Conservative Members who say that we have a broken asylum system: we certainly do, but they are trying to fix it in the wrong way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) talked about the inquiry that the APPG on immigration detention has been doing. I attended some of those sessions and I was as sickened as she was when I heard people talking about the outbreak of scabies. How is that giving people dignity? She and I have both worked hard to try to close down the so-called mother and baby unit in Glasgow. There is a fantastic campaign called Freedom to Crawl. It is called that because in that mother and baby unit the rooms are so tiny that the babies and toddlers cannot crawl; they cannot move. That is inhumane.
I am sick to the back teeth of hearing about people who come here by very dangerous routes characterised as wealthy and selfish and just coming here for their own benefit because they want to make money.
Duncan Baker
There is an awful lot of talk about refugees. First, would the hon. Lady like to comment on the fact that this country has taken the highest number of refugees of any other European country? [Hon. Members: “Not true!”] Let me finish. Secondly, is there not a part of her that recognises that if we are to house refugees, as we should, and meet our international obligations, giving them a safe route to come here—not making them risk life and limb through coming on boats, as we are hearing—is a sensible and practical way to try to move the legislation forward?
Anne McLaughlin
On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, that is not true. We have just heard—he was clearly not listening—about a number of other countries that, per head of population, take far more than us. He might also be interested to know that 82% of the world’s refugees are in displacement camps in developing countries, and that the poorest countries are taking the most asylum seekers.
As I said, the gentleman who came to the APPG on refugees acknowledged that he would be dead if it had not been for the United Kingdom taking him in. Nobody here is saying that it is not a positive thing to have a system, but what the hon. Gentleman’s Government is doing to the system is vile. On safe and legal routes, yes, there is not a single person alive that would not want people to use safe and legal routes, but I must have missed something because I have not seen anything in the Bill that tells me how the Government will beef up those safe and legal routes so that people do not need to desperately cross the channel on those boats.
Stuart C. McDonald
The most important thing is to have a sense of perspective. Everyone supports safe, legal routes, but even in a good year, pre-covid—I think the figure was about 25,000 last year—the total number of resettlements globally from UN-mandated camps was in the region of 50,000. We are talking about 25 million or 30 million refugees. We would be here for centuries before resettlement provided a complete solution. We will have resettlement but we must also have an asylum system alongside that. All we are asking is for the United Kingdom to offer a relatively small, by European standards, number of asylum seekers a place of sanctuary.
Anne McLaughlin
I completely agree, as I always do, with everything that my hon. Friend says.
I ask Conservative Members: just imagine it was you. I talked about a Belarusian MP, but imagine it was you. Imagine that for some reason—lucky us; we do not have to—you ended up in that situation where you had to flee. Is there anything Conservative Members would not do to keep their families safe? If there is anything they would not do to keep their families safe, maybe they should be thinking about their moral code.
Ireland has been through attempts to reform the system. It argued at the time, as Conservative Members do, that its system was a deterrent. Those at the Ministry of Justice in Ireland wanted to build misery into the accommodation system. It was not a train of thought imagined by critics; it was their actual policy. But they realised it was wrong and there is now cross-party consensus that it must stop. They reached that consensus not just because it did not work, but because they have recognised the inhumanity of that system.
Anne McLaughlin
I want to come on to my last point, and I do not get an extra minute.
The Home Secretary set the tone for this debate by immediately, in the first paragraph of her speech, talking about people having “had enough”. She used the words “uncontrolled” “failed asylum system”, “illegal”—that was used three times—“foreign”, “crime gangs”, “pretending to be genuine” “pretending to be children”, “criminals”, “murderers” “rapists” and abusers. Yes, I am sure Conservative Members loved it. That was the first paragraph and it set the tone. It was calculated and it was irresponsible. She knew exactly what she was doing. We will be doing everything to make sure that the people know the truth out there .The Home Secretary should be ashamed of that speech yesterday, and all Conservative Members should be ashamed of this Bill.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab) [V]
I have listened to the debate over the two days and the best thing for us all individually to do is bring our own experiences to it. I represent a multicultural, working-class community in west London, and I have two detention centres in my constituency. I have been visiting them and dealing with asylum cases for more than 45 years now, as a local activist, a local Greater London Council councillor and then as the local Member of Parliament. I can remember when there was a single Nissen hut with no more than a maximum of 20 people in, but now we have two detention centres, with up to 1,000 people detained in prison-like conditions. I listen to the people and their stories when they have been detained there, and it is heart-rending. We need to express what people have been through to get to our country, seeking safety and security. They are just trying to ensure that they no longer have their human rights abused and their lives put at risk. Interestingly, for all the money we spend on detention, the majority of those detained are eventually released and enter into our community. After that, there is the condition that someone must be in this country for 20 years before they can apply for indefinite leave, and then it takes 10 years. People have been talking about the amount of money that smugglers are making, but in the discussions we had yesterday on undocumented migrants we discovered that it costs about £12,000 for anyone to secure status in this country now.
At the weekend, an asylum seeker—a young Sudanese man—died in the Crowne Plaza hotel in my constituency. We do not know the cause of death yet, and I will not mention his name, because I am not sure his family have been traced yet. I went to meet a group of asylum seekers there. They were mainly young men, but we need to understand why that is. It is because families come together and they are desperate. They have tried various routes out of the terrible situation they are in and they realise that there is realistically only one way of getting out, and that is the illegal route for most of them. They will club together. What will parents do? They will choose for their child to go for safety, so that there is some future for them; yes, it is usually a young man, but often young women do this as well. That is why there is a preponderance of young men, and we can understand it. We would do the same: we would sit down and say, “Perhaps our son or our daughter should be the one who has the hope of safety.”
This is harsh but I am going to say it: I hope that anyone watching and participating in this debate wakes up to the depths some of the speeches have sunk to in the past couple of days. Yes, some have been inspiring, but some would not go amiss at an English Defence League meeting. A few months ago, the Government were derided after they published a report suggesting that there is no institutional racism in the UK. Well, today proves there certainly is, because this Bill institutionalises further racism in our asylum and immigration system. It is done with cynicism that has become the hallmark of this Government. Time after time I have heard Conservative speakers refer to the 16,000 arriving illegally to claim asylum; cynically, they know that for people desperately seeking safety, there is realistically almost no other way. There are so few safe routes for asylum seekers to reach this country, and there are no additional mechanisms set out in this Bill. There are so few resettlement schemes for them, and those that have existed in recent years have been limited by successive Conservative Governments.
This Government and, unfortunately, others on the far right of British politics have made much of the increase in asylum seekers reaching the UK via the English channel. If we listen to Home Office statistics, two thirds of them are then accepted as refugees, and appeals push the figure even higher.
I looked at the figures yesterday, and for the year up to September 2020 the UK received 26,903 asylum applications. France had over three times as many, 92,000, while Germany received 122,000. Even countries with smaller economies and populations, such as Spain, Italy and Greece, received more asylum seekers than the UK.
The myth that we resettle more than any other country in Europe is untrue, because those countries use routes other than a simple resettlement scheme. The truth is that we are not taking our fair share of refugees. The Government are complaining about having to do that, and this Bill seeks to demonise people who are fleeing war and persecution. And in many instances we have contributed to those wars, particularly through our arms sales.
This is a shameful, squalid, small-minded and racist Bill, and it does what this Government do best—in fact, the only thing this Government do well—which is whipping up division and demonising people to distract from the Government’s own failures. I join all those who ended their speeches by echoing the call that refugees are welcome here.
To those people I met yesterday, and to the relatives of the young man who died in my constituency at the weekend, I say that refugees are welcome here. I will do everything I possibly can to oppose this Bill. I want people to know that there are many in this country, many in my constituency, who are willing to stand up bravely and say, “We will uphold basic human rights. We will welcome refugees and, yes, we know the benefit of those who come here and the significant contributions they make to our country.”
A number of MPs have stood up and said, “Listen to the people.” Well, I am listening to my constituents—there will be different views, too—and sometimes we have to stand up for what is right.
I know some have criticised my colleague who referred to the 1930s, but some people in the 1930s, and particularly some of the right-wing press, prevented a Government from allowing Jewish people to come to this country from Germany. Yes, we accepted the children, but we did not accept the parents and, unfortunately, they lost their lives in the concentration camps.
Let us stand up for humanity, let us show the best of this House, let us show the best of our country and let us offer people succour, safety and security through the asylum system, with protection for them and their families.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con) [V]
Compassion and robustness go hand in hand when it come to the way in which we manage our borders. Our common humanity requires that we update our approach as the challenges we face in the world develop. Every Government in every era and every generation have looked for a system that is more efficient, that is safer for those seeking refuge, that is cheaper for taxpayers in the United Kingdom and for the communities taking in refugees, and that is more humane in the way it supports people who have faced some of the most terrible circumstances.
The website of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees says that, although our debate is very much about what is happening in the European neighbourhood, the issue is challenging Governments, countries and populations across the world. In Westminster, it is an issue that Parliament has wrestled with since—[Inaudible] —by the post-war Labour Government in response to the retreat from empire.
Most of us, as constituency MPs, will know that our constituents have a very wide range of views on the issue. On the doorsteps campaigning in elections, we will all have heard a good deal of concern from constituents and voters about the impact of migration on the UK. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I have had umpteen contacts from constituents asking me to intervene to prevent the deportation from the UK of someone who has been found to be an illegal immigrant in my constituency who they know, who their friends know and who lives in the neighbourhood. I am yet to have a single contact letting me know about an illegal immigrant that someone wants to see removed. So there is a conundrum in this debate, which is that our voters and constituents are in general very concerned to see that our borders are effectively managed, but tend to have a very positive view of the migrants and refugees they know in their community and in their neighbourhood.
Perhaps that reflects the fact that the UK is not a particularly popular destination for asylum in Europe. UNHCR figures indicate that Germany has about 10 times as many refugees as we do in the UK and that the UK is a middling destination in our European neighbourhood for asylum seekers. However, the UK is particularly active in resettlement. That is something that this House and the Government should rightly be proud of, in creating safe, legal routes for people who we have identified as displaced because of war and conflict, and who can be resettled in the UK. For me, it is an essential principle that we build on the success of things such as the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, which cut out the people smugglers from the system and enabled communities the length and breadth of the United Kingdom to welcome refugees without any of the challenges we faced with some of the parts of the asylum system.
We also know that of those who arrive by any route outside of resettlement, about three-quarters are granted asylum under UK law, which shows that most do have a well-founded claim, however they arrive into our country. So we clearly need to tackle the major problems that are inherent in the routes by which people arrive. The smuggling of people into our country and the rest of Europe is helping to fund terrorist organisations in parts of the world, which are making money out of the deaths and misery of many, many thousands of vulnerable people.
There are criminals closer to home, and we have seen some particularly hideous cases in the United Kingdom where large numbers of refugees have died in the hands of those criminals because of the way in which they are being smuggling into our country. I personally saw, on a visit to the Jungle refugee camp in Calais, smugglers driving around offering what is essentially a rate sheet: “If you can pay this many euros, you are allowed to break into a lorry. If you can pay significantly more, we will smuggle you into the UK in a British-plated car with a British driver.” It is an absolutely evil trade and we have no idea how many people have lost their lives in the waters of the English channel trying to get to refuge in our country, so we must tackle that.
It is clearly critical that we have a really effective programme of safe and legal routes. Those safe and legal routes need to work in both directions. This is not just about people who may be fleeing persecution who need to come to the UK. We need, post-Brexit and the loss of the Dublin arrangements, to have routes in place with other third-party safe countries. It is critical, in my view, that we get a clear assurance from Government that we will have that in place to make a real success of the proposed arrangements.
Fundamentally, we need to ensure that we retain public good will and confidence. We need to consider the way in which this operates in the UK. Asylum seekers were first treated separately from the wider benefit system under the Labour Government of Tony Blair in the early 2000s. Dispersal was created under Andy Burnham, then the immigration Minister and now the Mayor of Greater Manchester, in 2005. There are lessons from that system. We need to be wary of trying to do it on the cheap. Unaccompanied children and dispersal demonstrate that engaging communities is difficult when we do it on the cheap, whereas the Syrian resettlement scheme, which was costly, garnered a huge amount of public good will and was much more effective in securing public confidence because it was demonstrated in advance that people had a well-founded claim to be in the United Kingdom. It is not a matter of law, but the House will need to be vigilant to ensure that the system is resourced so that the ambitions that are set out can be achieved.
Let me turn to the question of how we achieve that. The plumbing and wiring of the system clearly need to work right. The concept of effective advocacy and advice for refugees at the point of entry to enable them to lodge a really effective claim is critical. We need to ensure that the way in which we work at the border enables us to understand the circumstances of the asylum seeker as fully as possible. If we are to have a two-tier system that treats people differently according to their means of transit to the UK, we need to recognise that in some parts of the world it may, for example, have been necessary to pay a people smuggler to get out of immediate danger and then to make the rest of the journey by another route. We need to consider how our courts will carry forward decisions on that process. There have been a number of steps in a positive direction, including the recent announcement about working visas for those seeking asylum.
The House needs to balance the views and needs of all parts of our country. When it comes to migration, that means balancing the needs of the businesses in my constituency that are crying out for new workers to enable them to make the most of opportunities with those communities already under pressure for housing need and social challenges, for whom new arrivals may be seen as an unacceptable burden. If we go local, engage communities and recognise complexity, we have a chance of making the system much more effective.
Christian Wakeford (Bury South) (Con)
It is an honour and a privilege to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), who is clearly an expert in this field. If I remember rightly, his maiden speech was made during a debate on Syrian refugees.
I find myself in the unusual position, very early on, of agreeing with the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), in that I normally get about three minutes for a speech in this place, but that has gone up to four minutes, five minutes and six minutes, and we are now on eight minutes; I am afraid that my notes might not last that long.
I welcome the introduction of the new Nationality and Borders Bill. It is the cornerstone of the Government’s new plan for immigration and delivers the most comprehensive reform in decades to fix our broken asylum system. With this Bill, we are truly delivering on our manifesto commitment to the British people to take back control of our borders and put in place an asylum system that works for those in genuine need—and I do emphasis the genuine need aspect.
I want to take a minute to highlight some of the, quite frankly, disturbing comments from the Opposition Benches. I think in particular of the hon. Member for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), who called Government Members racist for wanting to look after our borders and the communities that we represent. Quite frankly, comments like that are abhorrent and disgusting. At some point, Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to speak to you about that, because in my view it is neither honourable, nor respectful of this Chamber, to be insulting Members.
Joy Morrissey
I find it interesting that Labour Members are not here today. They throw odd comments over the virtual airways, but where are they when this is an issue that matters so much to their constituents? Why are they not in the Chamber debating it?
Christian Wakeford
It is almost like they are creating another argument for the Online Safety Bill. They want to insult us via virtual participation, and then turn their screen off and hide away because they cannot deal with the arguments. What we are hearing is generally insulting and, quite frankly, wrong. We are truly representing the views of the people—the views of our constituents.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend agree that when Labour Members point at us and imply that we are racist, they are also pointing the finger at millions of former Labour voters who actually agree with us on this matter?
Christian Wakeford
I could not agree with my hon. Friend any more; he puts it far more succinctly than I possibly could.
We also see the Opposition turning their back on the British people and the red wall all over again. We have had this debate many, many times, but unfortunately the Opposition are not listening—well, they are not here. What we are seeing is a paradigm shift whereby the Labour party no longer represents those working-class communities. It is no longer listening to those working-class voters. Thankfully, on this side of the Chamber we do listen.
There is also a particularly harmful argument that we have heard far too many times in the debate. It is about listening.
Duncan Baker
I am thinking of the clock entirely, but I would like to explore the serious point that my hon. Friend has just introduced on the allegation of racism. When people want to disagree with legislation that is all very well, but resorting to calling Members from another party racist simply because they want to control our borders and create a better system so that people can come here without risking life and limb is utterly wrong.
Christian Wakeford
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are seeing a party that wants to fight the deportation of foreign criminals but whose Members then insult their opponents and hide away by turning off their screens.
Let me return to my speech. Britain truly does have a proud history of providing a safe haven for those fleeing persecution and oppression. I know that because my own family have been part of it. During the second world war, my grandfather came home from university one day and saw his entire family, other than his twin brother, get shot. They fled during the war and ended up, of all places, in Tamworth, followed by Pendle and finally Keighley, before my grandfather passed on. People who have come here have been part of recent wars and recent refugee camps. They sought refuge in our country. We are a proud nation, a helpful nation and a compassionate nation. We will do what we can. That is especially the case in my constituency of Bury South, where, if people need help, we respond.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland) (Con)
We have heard from the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) that there are between 25 million and 30 million asylum seekers worldwide, so demand clearly outstrips any possible form of supply. We should be having a debate about the number of legal asylum seekers within the process. Should it be 10,000, 20,000 or 40,000? There has to be some limit. If the focus of the argument were that, would it not be more sensible to shut down obviously illegal and obviously dangerous routes of alternative entry?
Christian Wakeford
My hon. Friend gets very much to the crux of the problem. I am not going to talk about what threshold is right or wrong, but I am going to talk about the fact that we are trying to achieve a fair system that helps those who are most in need. That is what we truly need to understand. Our communities are rich in their diversity because of immigration and because of the people we have been helping. I think again of the Syrian resettlement scheme, which we are proud of. In Lancashire we have taken thousands, and I am proud of us helping those most in need, but for far too long the system has been exploited by people smugglers, criminal gangs and asylum shoppers, who cheat that system. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, people are paying extra either to break into a lorry or to get into a boat to be shipped across. That is not the right way to try to seek asylum.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
That abuse is not limited to people smugglers. It extends to the so-called human rights lawyers who know how best to game the system and to activists who encourage people to claim asylum on all kinds of different grounds, and when they fail to claim again. The system is corrupted by those individuals who seek not to defend the interests of the most needy, which my hon. Friend has described, but to exploit those who will do anything to get into this country, legal or illegal.
Christian Wakeford
I thank my right hon. Friend for those meaningful comments. I was not going to touch on that matter, but it is an important part of the debate that again takes us to the crux of why we are trying to—[Interruption.] I get the feeling that another intervention is on the way.
Jerome Mayhew
May I elaborate on that point? As a former member of the Bar, I struggle to criticise members of the legal profession who use legitimate means to extend the stay of their clients, but that is surely an argument—a very strong argument—for exactly the terms of the Bill. It is not an abuse of the system to exploit it, so we cannot complain about that, but we need to remove those loopholes so that our legal teams properly represent their clients but it does not slow the system down.
Christian Wakeford
I thank my hon. and, perhaps, learned Friend for his further comments. As I said earlier, this goes to the heart of what the Bill is actually about. Some Opposition Members, in particular, may disagree with particular points. I say to them, “Back the Bill on Second Reading, and try to make the changes that you want to see in Committee.” They acknowledge that there is clearly a problem, but they do not want to do anything to fix it. It is almost as if they want to see us fail and want to see Britain fail, and that is absolutely wrong.
The way in which things currently operate is not fair to the most vulnerable people who are in genuine need of asylum, or to the British public, who unfortunately have to pay for it. We must help to ensure that refugees claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. The current trend means that we see refugees reaching a safe country such as France, Greece or Italy—indeed, countries in most of southern Europe—and then pressing on with their journey, paying people smugglers to help them into the UK illegally or falling victim to criminal gangs who exploit them. There was a reference earlier to the Jungle camp. We need only see what goes on there to realise that many of these journeys are life-threatening for many people, so we need to do what we can to prevent them.
In October 2020, a Kurdish-Iranian family tragically died when their overcrowded boat sank off the coast of France. Both parents drowned, along with their nine-year-old, their six-year-old and their 15-month-old baby. Every journey across the channel is life-threatening, so we absolutely need to take this seriously and do everything we can to try to prevent anyone from making that journey when it is not necessary.
Last month was the worst ever recorded for illegal crossings, more than 2,100 people having arrived, and I fear that that figure may be surpassed this month. Many of the people risking their lives to cross the channel are young men who are economic migrants and are denied legitimate asylum seeker status.
As Conservatives, we will protect those most in need and put the rights of those who respect the rules above those of the asylum shoppers who take our country for a ride. We need an asylum system that is fair to everyone—a system that prioritises women and children escaping wartorn countries and those fleeing unwarranted persecution, not a system that is openly gamed by economic migrants or exploited by people smugglers.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. The wind-ups will begin at 6.36 pm, and by my reckoning, because there were two late additions who are not on the call list, there are nine Members wishing to get in. This being the final day of a two-day debate, it would be good to get everyone in, would it not? However, I do not want to put the Clerk through the trauma of yet another time change, so if every speaker takes about five minutes—[Interruption.] Too late! If every speaker takes about five minutes, everyone will get in, so please, will everyone play ball?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I wish not only to speak about the Bill, but to describe the type of Bill that I would like it to be. The Minister and I have similar opinions on many matters, and I know that he has spoken about these matters before, so I am fairly hopeful that in Committee we can make changes to bring about what I would like to see in place.
I am ever minded that children from the Kindertransport came to my constituency during the second world war. They came to my constituency because they had nowhere else to go. When it comes to speaking in debates on this topic—and I have spoken in many—I express my belief that there is a right to flee persecution on religious grounds. We want to see the safer legal route to which the Government have referred; I certainly do, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for international freedom of religion or belief. We speak up for those with Christian beliefs, those with other beliefs and those with no beliefs.
Across the world, so many people find themselves in positions where they cannot practise their religion, or enjoy the human rights that we enjoy in this country. When it comes to putting a legal system and an immigration system in place, I look to the Minister, because I see in him someone who encapsulates what I believe to be a system that helps people in other parts of the world to relocate here because of the persecution they have been experiencing.
Alison Thewliss
The hon. Gentleman is making a good point about religious persecution. Does he agree that sometimes it is the very Governments of the countries that people are from who engage in and endorse such persecution? That makes it all the more important that we have safe and legal routes, because those Governments would not allow people to leave their country.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I agree with her.
The Minister knows that I have been a great supporter of the Syrian resettlement scheme throughout. I was glad whenever we were able to send people to Newtonards town and families were able to relocate. The Government bodies and the Churches that were there brought communities together to help. Those people are well settled today. None of them want to go home. Their home is now Newtonards in my constituency. Will there be more opportunities through the Syrian resettlement scheme? If there are, I believe we can produce a safe haven in Strangford and across the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The world is a dangerous place. People are persecuted because of their religious views. Their human rights are abused. I would like to think that the United Kingdom has a reputation for being a generous country, and part of that lies with having a fair and efficient asylum process for those who need it. Recent stats show that in the year ending March 2021 the UK received 26,903 asylum applications, meaning that possibly that number of people needed a better life with better choices and better opportunities. There has been a lack of direction in the past number of years regarding the position of asylum seekers, meaning that people are left in disarray, unable to seek work or resettle. I want to see that system improved in the future; access to the UK asylum system should be based on need, not ability to pay people smugglers, to whom other hon. Members have referred.
Detention Action—a charity that dedicates much time to ensuring fairness for asylum seekers—has used a great slogan to describe the situation. It says:
“It is political will—rather than legislation—”.
That is wholeheartedly accurate. Welfare should be at the core of legislation. In 2019, 24,400 people entered immigration detention in the UK—the lowest figure since 2009. However, I am not classifying that figure as necessarily low.
Another major issue surrounding the Bill is that young children are being placed in immigration detention. I made that point to the Secretary of State yesterday. I make it again today because it is a key issue for me and where I am. I want to see young children getting opportunities. They are often separated from their parents and family members. They come here and are sent straight into detention. The Secretary of State mentioned it yesterday, and I very much look forward to seeing changes on that. I wish to see legislation to protect children, particularly those who are fleeing persecution.
The Government have stated that they will support victims of modern slavery. What they have said so far is good news, and it is important that we have on record where we are on that. The Government have also stated that they wish to give people the opportunity to come here if they are under any distress in other countries. While asylum seeking is something that we should take seriously, illegal immigration also needs to be taken into consideration when discussing the Bill. In the year 2020-21 alone—I conclude with this comment, Mr Deputy Speaker, ever mindful of your request about time—3,500 people are said to have crossed the Channel to enter the UK illegally to work and live without the correct documentation. Both issues need to be given the same importance, and I urge the Minister to shed some light on the steps that he will be taking to address both. A humane approach must be used when discussing such a sensitive issue. Individuals should not be criminalised for seeking asylum. A sustainable system needs to be in place for those who want to enter the UK and can legally do so. There should not be a prolonged process. More important, asylum seekers should not be mistreated.
I call on the Home Office and the Minister to provide the necessary assurance that the United Kingdom can and will deliver a trustworthy haven for those who seek asylum. I wish to see in the legislation that we give protection for those overseas who are persecuted because of their religion and whose human rights are abused.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I thank Mr Shannon for his co-operation, but the Clerk informs me that trauma management is one of his specialities, so we have decided to introduce a five-minute limit, which means that we will now get everyone in. I will call Peter Gibson next. If you do not mind, Peter, could you stick to that limit?
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con) [V]
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
This Bill is the cornerstone of the Government’s commitment to reforming our immigration policy. Having taken back control, following our departure from the European Union, it is essential that we deliver for our constituents, who want us to take proper, effective control of our borders.
The Bill will introduce new and tough criminal offences for those entering the country illegally, and introduce life sentences for those who perpetrate the despicable crime of people smuggling—those who would willingly and knowingly put men, women and children in the backs of lorries and in dinghies, and take money for doing so, with not a care in the world for whether their victims will live to see another day, never mind complete their journey. Those criminals are clearly the lowest of the low, and it is right that we do all that we can to stop that trade. That means prosecuting those who facilitate it and sending a clear message to those who seek to make such illegal entry into our country.
We all know that the system as it stands is in need of reform, with lengthy waits for decisions, bureaucracy that makes little sense, endless appeals, and no certainty for anyone in the system. People live lives in limbo for years—in some cases, decades. That is not right, and the new regime will be based on firmness and fairness. The Bill will deliver key elements of the Government’s new plan for immigration, on which I and my colleagues on the Government Benches were elected. The plan addresses our broken asylum system, which sadly has provided incentives to sickening people smugglers and illegal immigrants at the expense of those in conflict zones who are unable to travel.
The UK has a proud record of supporting those in genuine need of refuge and asylum. Far from closing the door on the most vulnerable, the Bill ensures that safe and legal routes remain open. It cannot be right for a decent, civilised society that welcomes those fleeing persecution to allow an unsafe, illegal route to be repeatedly exploited by criminal gangs. Immigration is a good thing. It brings skills, talents and abilities to our country, and has provided us with some of the most diverse communities in our towns and cities across the country. It has made our culture richer and is something to celebrate, but at the same time it is right that that immigration is controlled by the Government and legislation, responding to the needs of those in need around the world in a controlled way, not through a system undermined by criminal gangs sending victims to their deaths in lorries and dinghies.
The UK is delivering support through the world-class vulnerable persons resettlement scheme, which has protected 25,000 people in the last six years—more than any other European country. That is 25,000 people who have been able to restart and rebuild their lives in safety. We will also continue to offer family reunion, which has enabled a further 29,000 people to come to the UK and settle here. At its heart, the Bill will break human smuggling and trafficking chains, introducing new criminal offences for those attempting to enter the UK illegally and new life sentences for people smugglers. I know that the majority of my constituents in Darlington will welcome those steps.
Closing legal loopholes and opening safe routes, ending the horrific practice of people smuggling that has seen thousands put on small, unsafe boats in northern France, is testament to the resolve of the Home Secretary, who has faced the most dreadful personal abuse for doing the right thing by this country. She has my full support in all her efforts. She knows that the overwhelming majority of the British public want to see the problem of illegal entry tackled. It is such a shame that Her Majesty’s Opposition remain completely out of touch with what our country needs and what our constituents want.
We have seen the Opposition’s true colours today—determined to oppose the Government’s plans to tackle a problem that has beset us for many years. We know that they would sign up to free movement once more. Why they would want to enable a system to continue that sees people die in the channel or in the backs of lorries is truly unfathomable.
Aaron Bell (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson). As my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) said a little while ago, we need a system that commands public good will and confidence. I am afraid that what we have at the moment is not that.
My constituents in Newcastle-under-Lyme expect us to follow the rule of law, and they expect fairness. What is going on at the moment is not fair to anyone. It is not fair to the migrants making the dangerous journeys. It is not fair to the migrants unable to make those journeys, who tend to be women and children, who are perhaps at more risk, and it is not fair to my constituents, and the constituents of all of us in this Chamber, who are paying for the system. The only beneficiaries are the people smugglers, and we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner—sorry, my hon. Friend, but I am sure it is only a matter of time—that those people smugglers are making thousands and thousands of pounds for every journey across the channel. This Bill dramatically changes the incentives involved in the immigration system and the illegal immigration system to deter illegal entry, as well as to remove those with no right to be here and remove them more easily. In so doing, it increases fairness and reduces the danger in the system.
I would like to make it clear that we are not hard-hearted and Newcastle-under-Lyme is not a hard-hearted town. We support those in genuine need of asylum—for example, we support those who have been displaced from war zones. We have resettled more refugees in this country than any other country in Europe. Our vulnerable persons resettlement scheme has resettled 20,000 refugees from Syria in the UK to rebuild their lives. We should be proud of that, and I am proud of it.
However, I think the Government are right to try to find a better way, first, to differentiate between economic migrants and refugees, and secondly, to make sure that there is still a route for the most vulnerable, but one that does not mean that most dangerous of journeys. Bluntly, there is almost unlimited demand for a place in the UK. If were to open our borders completely, as it seems some of the Socialist Campaign Group members want us to do—by the look of it, they are going to be proscribed soon, the way the Leader of the Opposition is going—millions of people would want to come to the UK, because we are an open, tolerant nation. But supply is not unlimited, so we should—in fact, we must—prioritise those most in need, not those who are most able to get here. That is the only moral thing to do.
On deterring illegal entry, today, like every other day, there are hundreds crossing the channel and taking that risk. First, my constituents want to know why they are coming from France. France is a safe country, and they could claim asylum there, and before that they could have claimed asylum in Spain, Italy, Greece or wherever they crossed into the European Union. But the European Union does not want to defend its border there, because it knows that people just migrate through the European Union to the United Kingdom. Under this Bill, we will now look at removing those people, and if France will not take them back—I believe it should, but I do not think it will—then we will look at removing them to a safe third country.
The example for this is Australia. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill), who is no longer in his place, abhorred the Australian system, which is known as Operation Sovereign Borders. However, let me say that that has been not only a successful policy, but a deeply moral policy. To quote the evidence the Australian Government submitted to the Home Affairs Committee:
“Between 2008 and 2013, more than 50,000 people travelled illegally to Australia on more than 820 individual maritime people smuggling ventures. During this period, more than 1200 people drowned in the attempt to reach Australia…Following the establishment of Operation Sovereign Borders on 18 September 2013, it has been more than six years since the last successful maritime people smuggling venture to Australia, and more than six and a half years since the last known death at sea”.
That is what we should be aspiring to—a system that commands public confidence, but reduces the risk of people losing their lives.
We should also of course remove those who have no rights to be here, and we need to do that more quickly, because the spectacle of these appeals lasting years is undermining public confidence. We are going to look at accelerating removals and measures to combat lengthy vexatious claims. We are going to put in statute a single standardised minimum notice period for migrants to access justice, and we are going to make that into a one-stop process. We will also expand the early removal scheme, which will remove foreign national offenders, and we will remove criminals who are currently in our prisons as soon as possible.
I would like to ask why 60 Labour MPs, none of whom are here—there are only those on the Front Bench—have written to Government opposing the removal of foreign national offenders. They could not be more out of touch if they tried.
Aaron Bell
Yes, indeed.
To conclude, the British people have repeatedly voted, most recently in 2019, to take back control of our borders. After our exit from the European Union, we now have the tools to do so. We have already put in place new rules for legal immigration, and with this Bill we are going to put in new measures to deter illegal immigration. I believe this Bill will give our Border Force and our justice system the tools they need to deter that illegal immigration at source and to change the incentives. In so doing, we will cut out the criminal gangs, and we will finally deliver a fair system that can command credibility both at home and abroad.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
Since I was elected in 2019, one thing many of my constituents have told me they want to see is this country taking back control of its borders. They are not racist; they are genuine, hard-working, decent, honest people, and they are actually generous to those in genuine need.
Our asylum and immigration system is not fit for purpose. It lines the pockets of criminal gangs and people smugglers, and it is not fair on genuinely vulnerable people who need protection. It is also not fair on the British public, who pick up the tab. There appear to be some in the Opposition who cannot see a problem, but there is a reason why they no longer represent constituencies like mine.
Yesterday saw record numbers of people arriving in this country by boat, with 430 crossing in a single day. Since 1 January, approximately 8,000 people have made that crossing. Something is wrong. Many of them have travelled across several safe countries; some have paid as much as £5,000 for a ticket to board those illegal crossings and jump the queue for asylum. Most of the genuine asylum seekers I have met in my constituency could not afford £5,000 and would not be able to make a journey across five countries to get here.
Of the whopping 8,500 people who arrived here in 2020, 80% are male and 74% are aged between 18 and 39. Something has to be done, not only to stop abuse, but to ensure that the world’s most genuinely vulnerable asylum seekers are not arriving in this country via legal routes to join huge queues and be left in limbo for months, if not years, by our overburdened system. This country cannot allow criminality to be rewarded, especially not at the expense of providing haven for those in genuine need.
The Bill will bring forward fundamental and—in my view—long overdue reform, creating a system that is firmer and fairer. It is firmer on criminal gangs of people smugglers and those who enter the UK illegally, it increases the penalty for illegal entry, and it introduces life sentences for the disgraceful people smugglers who put lives at risk to profit from this illegal and dangerous activity. It is firmer on foreign national offenders, increasing sentences for those who return to the UK in breach of a deportation order. That will save British taxpayers’ money that could be spent on building back better and levelling up the most left-behind areas, or on actually supporting vulnerable people such as those subject to slavery and people trafficking. Importantly, the Bill will rebuild the British public’s confidence in our asylum and justice system.
The Bill is not just firmer; it is fairer. It is fairer on our border forces, which will now have the power and resources they need to do the job that we have tasked them with—powers to search unaccompanied containers, to seize and dispose of any vessels intercepted, and to stop and divert vessels entering the UK illegally. It will be fairer on genuine vulnerable people who are fleeing persecution and tyranny, who currently join a queue in a system stretched to its limits, often by repeated and vexatious claims.
The total number of people in limbo waiting for a decision has doubled since 2014. I have spoken to genuine refugees who have seen some of the most terrible atrocities. They have been forced to wait for more than a year simply to get an interview date, because they are in a queue behind those who cross the channel illegally. That is unsurprising, considering that this country has 109,000 outstanding asylum claims that need to be dealt with. The system cannot cope. It is at breaking point, and that is utterly unfair on those who follow the proper channels to claim asylum.
The Bill is also fairer on the British taxpayers, who have voted time and again for the UK to take control of its borders and who, while generous to those in need, do not wish to see that generosity abused. It is firmer on the criminal gangs that profit from putting others in peril, and firmer on foreign national offenders in breach of a deportation order, but fairer on genuine asylum seekers, on our border forces and on the British people who pick up the tab.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
I am slightly disappointed: not only do I not get nine minutes to speak, but there are no Opposition Members. They have all gone home, when we are debating such important legislation. What a disappointment! I wonder why.
Our immigration and asylum system, as we have heard many times today and yesterday, has not worked properly for years. It is fair to say that leaving the European Union was about many things—it was about controlling our laws, our money, our trade and our borders. Along with a points-based immigration system, we can look to control our borders further with proper legislation to deal with the issues that have dogged our country for many years. In the shortish time that I have, I want to make two overall points.
First, there is an issue that has been raised many times already, the thousands upon thousands of migrants making dangerous crossings to get here. We read that yesterday saw a record number of people crossing the channel to arrive on our shores. We saw 2,000 in June. Quite simply, constituents write to me every single week imploring us to get to grips with this situation, to have control of our borders, of who is here and of how many people are entering the country. In doing so, the Bill has to deal with the criminal element and deter people from coming en masse to claim illegal asylum.
The Bill, as we know, will make it a crime to knowingly arrive in the UK without permission. In doing so, these measures will act as a strong deterrent to curb those who, as I said in my interventions, have many times risked life and limb to come here.
We also know that people are being led here or smuggled by gangs, and the Bill has new powers to deal with that. There will be maximum life sentences for those convicted of people smuggling, which has to get to the very core of the gangs that profit from such heinous crimes. It is absolutely right that we prosecute those people.
Secondly, I draw attention to our ability to properly protect and support those who genuinely need safe asylum here. As the Home Secretary said yesterday, we need a firm but fair asylum system that provides a safe haven to those fleeing persecution and oppression. I do not think anybody on either side of the House has disagreed with that point.
Those claiming asylum should be doing it in the first safe third country they travel through, and I welcome the provisions in the Bill to try to achieve that. We have heard a lot about this in the past few weeks, and we should not forget that we are the third highest contributor of overseas development aid in the entire world, and we have resettled more refugees than any other country in Europe. This Bill is about having the powers to discourage those making crossings and irregular entries. It is right that, if a person ends up on our shores, their asylum claim should be impacted, because it has to be part and parcel of the deterrent mechanism to try to stop people risking their life to be here.
We will continue, no doubt, to resettle genuine refugees directly from regions of conflict and instability. As I said, we have already protected 25,000 people in the past six months. This Bill, which many constituents regularly write to me about, is finally here. It takes time so, to all those who write to me wanting to see it done and dusted as quickly as possible, we have to get it right. Complex legislation takes more than just a few months to get right. The Government have done a good job of introducing the Bill today. It will hopefully have its Second Reading and we will finally start to get an end to this problem that has dogged the country for years.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker).
I will tell the House a little story, if I may. When I was listening to the debate yesterday, I was particularly taken by the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson). He talked about Janis Bite from Latvia and his experience of being conscripted by the Nazis during world war two, fighting on the Russian front and, ultimately, coming to the UK as a refugee.
I have a similar story, featuring Anton Petela—lovingly known as “Gido”. He was my wife’s grandfather, and he was a gardener in Ukraine. Like Janis, he was conscripted by the Nazis and forced to fight a war on the Russian front. It was a dreadful experience in unimaginable conditions, and he suffered the horrors of war. He could not return, because he would have been either executed or exiled, and he came as a refugee to Britain. He joined the bomb squad, fell in love and started a family. I am not sure how he would feel about his granddaughter marrying a Conservative MP, but he was always grateful for the chance to start a new life here in the UK.
Gido and his family did not see a cruel and heartless country. We have nothing to be ashamed of; we are a kind, tolerant and welcoming country. Nothing evidences that more than the city of Peterborough, a caring and special city. Peterborough is the home of many different communities—people from all over the world, who quite often started their life here as refugees. I pay tribute to Moez Nathu from the Peterborough Asylum and Refugee Community Association, who does brilliant work advocating for refugees in my city.
My inbox and constituency mailbag are regularly filled with asylum cases, and of course my team do their very best to help. They regularly deal with asylum and wider immigration claims that have been ongoing for 15 or 16 years. Endless legal processes and appeals, lawyers and professionals have made things very complicated and difficult, and there have been many heart-breaking phone calls and meetings with those going through this. Empathy and compassion are skills that MPs should have, but nothing prepared me for the sheer weight of numbers my office would encounter when I took this job. Some of my team are even going through legal training on asylum and immigration—something they are very happy to do, but not something they expected to do when they applied to work in an MP’s constituency office.
Opposition Members have shouted and made passionate speeches, throwing around accusations of racism and a lack of compassion. I just find that offensive. They are talking to committed Conservative activists and constituency staff—my constituency staff—who are comforting those trapped in this endless and unfair system. They are talking about decent people—Christians, Muslims; compassionate people—who are trying to make sense of a nonsensical system. There is nothing kind about throwing people into this appeals system for years on end, and our work in Peterborough makes the case for reform much more clearly than shouty speeches from the Opposition Benches.
I must say that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) made a typically insulting speech, suggesting that Members on the Government side of the House are far-right. The right hon. Member does not own compassion on this issue. The left do not have a monopoly on empathy. We need a much quicker and much fairer asylum system, and I know that those who work on asylum and advocacy in my constituency would agree with me. We need to prioritise those in need of protection while stopping the abuse of the system.
In the few seconds I have left, I want to make this point, because I fear that something very shocking is about to happen if we are not careful. The English channel is the busiest shipping route in the world. Over 600 cargo ships use it. It is a dangerous sea crossing. If we are not careful, and if we do not do something, we are going to see dead bodies floating in the English channel. A compassionate Government would do something about that, and that is what we have here today—a solution to that problem. I know that Anton Petela and the people of Peterborough have one thing in common: they want to see a fair, empathetic and compassionate asylum system, and that is what this Bill will deliver.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
There are 13 minutes before the wind-ups and there are three speakers left, so if you all speak for a shade under five minutes, you will all get roughly the same.
Dehenna Davison (Bishop Auckland) (Con)
As ever, it is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow), who gave a very thought-provoking account of Gido and of the experience he has had in Peterborough.
I want to start by thanking the Home Secretary, the Immigration Minister and the entire Home Office team for their hard work in bringing this Bill before the House. It has been a long time coming and I think all of us on the Government Benches are very proud to see it arrive.
Thanks to freedom day’s relaxation of restrictions, later this evening—depending on the time—I am hoping to attend an event with the Australian high commission. I mention that not just because it will be a lovely do with great wine, but because I have a great deal of respect for the way that Australia has handled the entire debate around immigration and asylum through Operation Sovereign Borders, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) gave a great account of earlier.
Wanting to have integrity of one’s borders and an immigration system that suits one’s nation, yet some out there would have us believe that that is not only shameful, but thoroughly unpopular with the public. That is not my experience.
Shall we just remember the general election of 2019, in which one party stood on a manifesto with a promise to tackle immigration as a key tenet? Which party was it? It is the one represented on these Government Benches right now. May I say, it is shameful to see so few Labour Members on the Opposition Benches when they claim to represent people right across our nation?
If it is true that the Bill is not popular, that is not reflected in the communications that I receive from my constituents. Local people across Bishop Auckland have not been shy in letting me know their views on the channel crossings and the wider asylum system. Their overarching opinion is not bigoted or racist, but it is clear that we need to protect our borders. We must tackle illegal immigration. We must crack down on the criminal gangs and people smugglers and their exploitation of some of the most vulnerable people. Those who have a genuine need to uproot their families and move to Britain because of war, discrimination or persecution should be welcomed.
Despite the outcry from some, I perceive the Bill to have safety at its core. We know that those who board small boats or cling to lorries to make the perilous journey across the channel are often being exploited by sophisticated criminal gangs of people smugglers who charge thousands upon thousands for a ticket and a new life in the UK, and that is precisely what they sell. We heard in the Home Affairs Committee about carefully marketed images of a better life, with some even posting adverts on Facebook and TikTok featuring pictures of luxury cruise liners and promotional videos of the glamorous life people can lead in London. I will never ever criticise someone for wanting to lead a better life, but I will always condemn these lying criminals exploiting people for profit without any apology.
Mr Goodwill
Does my hon. Friend agree that often the fee paid is only the down payment to a life of modern slavery?
Dehenna Davison
I completely agree with my right hon. Friend. There was a very interesting report in, I think, The Independent earlier this month. It went into the detail, talking about people effectively being kidnapped and their families being exploited to allow them to make the next stage of their journey, which I think we would all agree is an absolute disgrace. It is exactly the sort of thing that the Bill aims to tackle.
For me, people smugglers are the key to cracking this issue. We need to crack down on them and get rid of these routes as a legitimate means of entry, and that is what the Bill seeks to tackle. There seems to be a very strange perception that the Bill seeks to stop us offering asylum to those genuinely seeking refuge, but would that not be thoroughly un-British? From the Kindertransport to the Bosnian genocide, the UK has a proud history of welcoming people fleeing war and persecution, and we should be proud of our reputation as a tolerant nation holding out its arms to the most vulnerable.
I am very proud that our nation has resettled more refugees from outside Europe than any other European nation. With more than 25,000 refugees and 29,000 close relatives welcomed to the UK since 2015, our record shows global Britain in action. Earlier, I heard the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) say that I should be ashamed to support this Bill, but the Nationality and Borders Bill will fix our broken asylum system with a dual approach, tackling dangerous and exploitative illegal routes while honouring our moral obligation to provide safety and security for the world’s most vulnerable. [Interruption.] I hear an SNP Member on the Opposition Benches claiming that is rubbish, but where were they earlier in the debate to make that point? That is why I will be proudly and unapologetically voting for this Bill tonight.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Dehenna Davison). In Ipswich, we have extended the hand of friendship to huge numbers of refugees over the years. We have a very significant Kurdish community in Ipswich, which has made a massive contribution to the town, supported by the Suffolk refugee centre.
Only recently I was in the Bloom Lounge, which is quite a trendy, upmarket cocktail bar in Ipswich, where I had pornstar martinis and all that sort of stuff. It is run by Erion and Francesko. They run the hugely successful new cocktail bar, and they came here from Albania. They were refugees. They fled Albania, and the people of Ipswich and this country extended the hand of friendship to them. What is more, Erion is a Conservative councillor. The local Conservative party in Ipswich is a party of refugees—far more so than the local Labour party.
We have a major problem here. We must realise that there are those who make the decision to come to this country illegally. They shun the legal process and come here illegally—break the law. Every person from that category who stays limits our capacity to show compassion towards the most genuine of refugees. There is also a limit to how many refugees we can take, so we need to be realistic about that. Each one of those people who decides to come here illegally—some are economic migrants—means that one fewer family can be supported. That is the reality of the situation.
The Labour party makes this charge of racism, but the vast majority of the British public support the position that we are adopting today. Frankly, they probably want to go a bit further. That is the reality of the situation and that comes across in the correspondence that I receive. The vast majority of people in this country abhor racism. They welcome immigration, and they want to extend the hand of friendship, but what they do not want is lawlessness. What they do not want is what we are seeing at the moment. Sadly, the message that is going out is that once you are in, you are in, so it is worth the risk. The consequence of that is the loss of human lives, an unsustainable pressure on public services, and a limit on our ability to show compassion towards the most needy.
I have met the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp) on many occasions to discuss this issue. He knows my views on it, and I am rather robust on the issue. I have to say that I never thought that the French would deliver on this for us. Ultimately, the people of this country voted to take back control of our borders and they do not want a situation in which we are dependent on the French playing ball for us to be able to do so. This Bill enables us, on this vital issue, to take back control and make sure that we deliver, but we must deliver. We can sit on these Benches confident that the vast majority of our constituents and the British public—decent British people—stand four-square behind us, but their patience is wearing thin. We cannot be here in six, seven or eight months’ time with the numbers that we are seeing today, because it is a problem and it is getting worse. Denying that there is a problem is for the birds.
The Labour party will vote against this Bill tonight. Ultimately, Labour’s position would mean that we have thousands more people attempting this dangerous route. The Labour party would probably put all those individuals up in hotels. The Labour party would send out a clarion call, “Come over. Once you’re in, you’re in.” That would put intolerable pressure on public services. That is the Labour party’s position, is it not? It is the Conservative party’s position to have a humane system that welcomes genuine refugees through a rules-based system, but that acknowledges that many people attempting this route are not refugees. Some are and they should follow the correct procedures, but many are not.
I welcome this Bill. I am incredibly proud to support it, but we need to deliver it. My view is that all options should be on the table when it comes to this vital issue, because this simply cannot continue.
Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for working so hard to get all colleagues in.
The issue of our borders has always attracted attention and the strongest feelings both here in the House and across the country. Judging by my inbox, there are some actions that my constituents want to see taken very promptly. The first is to ensure that safe routes to come here are the primary routes to come here, and that means making them more attractive and it means making the unsafe routes less attractive. What does that mean in policy terms? Well, we can see from the Bill that it means improving support for refugees to help them build their lives in the UK with an enhanced integration package when they come here. It means tackling the process so that it works much better. The speed of processing claims is absolutely woeful. All of us, I am sure, have dealt with difficult cases in our constituency casework of people who have been in the system in limbo for years. It is inhumane, not fair at all, and it needs to be speeded up.
We also have to tackle the illegal route by making the unsafe route less attractive, and that means tackling the evil of people traffickers. This is organised crime, and these are peddlers of misery. My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) spoke powerfully about how people had died during this process. Improving judges’ sentencing options to include life sentences is a welcome step forward. There are huge links between people trafficking and modern slavery. The hon. Member for East Lothian (Kenny MacAskill) spoke about the links with the sex trade, but it is not just that. There are all sorts of other parts of our economy where modern slavery is an evil. Other measures in the Bill will prove attractive as well, such as the speedier removal of foreign criminals.
Overall we have a system that is broken. That has been fairly clear from comments across the House throughout the two days. It is less clear what the Opposition parties would do about it. They have been keen to use blood-curdling language to criticise those who may take different views, but I am absolutely sure that the Government are right to look for a better system, to promote the legal over the illegal, to focus on need, to tackle organised crime and to support people better when they get here. I want to see a continued focus on the resettlement scheme, tackling the most vulnerable parts of the world’s conflicts and bringing people here from those regions. I am sure all of us want to see support for those fleeing persecution, and I will—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am sorry, Andrew, we have to leave it there.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
We have had a lively debate, and I want to pay tribute to the many excellent speeches made on this side of the House. On the issue of the broken asylum system, I want to thank colleagues including my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Kim Johnson), my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) and my hon. Friends the Members for Vauxhall (Florence Eshalomi), for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) and for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), who all spoke about the length of time it takes to process claims.
On the need for safe routes, I want to thank colleagues including my right hon. Friends the Members for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) and for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), my hon. Friends the Members for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) and for Edmonton (Kate Osamor), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for pointing out the need for those routes.
On the issue of the two-tier system, which penalises asylum seekers in breach of the 1951 refugee convention, I want to thank colleagues including my hon. Friends the Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell), for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood), for Birkenhead (Mick Whitley), for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), for Cynon Valley (Beth Winter), for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), for Newport West (Ruth Jones), for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) and for Cardiff North (Anna McMorrin), as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy), who also spoke about Einstein’s experience during the 1930s when he was a refugee here.
On the issue of strong support from the community for refugees, I want to thank my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake), for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and for Dulwich and West Norwood (Helen Hayes), who spoke about their cities of sanctuary and their community groups that are ensuring that there is support for refugees in their communities.
As many hon. Members have mentioned, next week marks the 70th anniversary of the refugee convention. I am proud of the leading role that the UK played in coming together with our international partners in the aftermath of the second world war to offer refuge to people seeking sanctuary here and across Europe, and to help to rebuild a shattered Europe. That legacy goes hand in hand with the British values of fair play, decency and respect for international law, but this Bill steps back from that agreement and once again further diminishes the UK’s international standing in the world. It is a dangerous, draconian, dog-whistling piece of legislation. It threatens those values, it is ill conceived and it is being rushed through for media headlines rather than getting to grips with our broken asylum system.
The basis of the Bill was the Government’s consultation, the “New Plan for Immigration”. The consultation was meant to inform the Government and help to shape policy, but as yet we have not been told what the responses to the consultation said and we have not seen the Government’s response to the consultation. Instead, we have this rushed Bill. Like the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland, the Bill is a case of sentence first, verdict afterwards. That is how the Government want to treat asylum seekers: criminalising them first and checking their claims later.
Mr Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has said twice that the Bill was rushed, but we are now at the end of the second day of debate on Second Reading. This is extremely rare, in my short experience in this House. How many days of debate would he want before he would say that it was not rushed?
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Member misunderstands me. It is the process of the Bill getting here that has been rushed, not the debate we have had today.
There is also no impact assessment accompanying the Bill. We have no idea how much it will cost or what the overall impact will be.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Bill has seven placeholder clauses—something I have never seen before—so the House will not see what the Government are up to until the Committee stage where most Members will not take part.
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Member makes an excellent point.
Less than a week ago, we had hon. Members rightly berating the Minister for Care, screaming blue murder at her failure to produce an impact assessment for the health and social care regulations. Where are those howls today? Not a word. I dare not ask about the legal advice that was sought to formulate this Bill, but if there was an Olympic event for legal gymnastics, it would definitely win a gold medal.
The Bill is riddled with holes. It is fatally flawed and it will not work. It will not work because of the glaring omission of the lack of bilateral agreements with France and other EU countries. Conservative Members can huff and puff all they like, but it should begin to dawn on them that without any such agreements the Bill will not work and it will not stop any channel crossings.
Aaron Bell
If France will not take people, does the hon. Gentleman agree with the proposal in the Bill that we find a safe third country that is willing to take them—we may have to pay it—and they can be processed over there? It worked in Australia and it saved thousands of lives.
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Member is running roughshod over international law. I would be interested to see which third countries would be interested in taking people. If there were such third countries, I am sure the Minister would have introduced them today.
Many colleagues have spoken about the broken asylum system, but let us be clear about who broke it. The Government have had 11 years to fix the system but there is nothing in the Bill about how they will fix the current scandalous state of affairs. I know many hon. Members who have constituents who have been waiting for a decision about their asylum status. I have had one case where a constituent from Afghanistan had to wait seven years for his claim to be processed. It took my direct intervention with a Minister for his claim to be determined. It should not take the direct intervention of MPs for the system to snap into action. With fewer claims being made—yesterday the Home Secretary mistakenly said that claims have gone up when in fact they have gone down—it should not be taking longer to process applications. If the asylum system was operating as a business, it would be going bust by now.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Member accept that the basic principle of asylum is that people should claim asylum in the first safe country that they meet? As far as I am aware, France is a safe country, Greece is a safe country and Italy is a safe country. There are a lot of safe countries that people cross before they arrive on our shores.
Bambos Charalambous
I invite the right hon. Member to read the refugee convention and he will find there what the actual law is. On the basis of his logic, we would only be taking asylum claimants from France, Ireland and Belgium.
Looking at the detail of the Bill, many hon. Members have quite rightly highlighted the odious clause 12, which creates a two-tier system for refugees based on how someone arrives in the country and their mode of transport, not on the strength of their claim. As my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) put it, it is
“judging them on how they arrived, not what they have left.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 757.]
Once again, sentence first, verdict later.
Bambos Charalambous
Criminalising people who have come to this country irrespective of what they have left behind makes them criminals. What law have they broken when they are seeking refuge here?
What we have seen playing out in the channel crossings over the past few days occurred because the Government have closed down all safe routes for refugees to travel to the UK for protection. People are being driven to make dangerous journeys because they are out of options. To this callous Government, it is all a game—pure theatre. The Tories use all migrants, an ever-easy target, as a distraction from their own institutional failings and the gross inequality that falls upon their citizens.
The Bill does nothing to propose refugee resettlement or family reunion routes and will only put more pressure on Britain’s broken asylum system. About 10% of arrivals are expected to be unaccompanied children. The Government should be properly addressing the issue of safe routes for claiming asylum and helping unaccompanied children. Penalising refugees is a clear breach of article 31 of the refugee convention, but even more disconcerting is that clauses 27 to 36 seek to interpret the refugee convention to suit the Government’s whim. Unilaterally deciding how international law should be interpreted never ends well for the Government. The reason they feel the need to do so here is that they know they will be humiliated when those clauses are challenged. Once again, it is not so much a case of marking their own homework; more a case of being judge, jury and executioner.
One thing the Bill will almost certainly do is ensure that people seeking asylum here are kept longer. Whether through imprisoning asylum seekers for four years in our prisons or detaining them in barracks, that is an awful lot of money to spend on something that is not going to work. I dread to think what impact that will have on our creaking criminal justice system. Again, we have not seen the sums. Why not? Surely the Home Secretary will have cleared this with the Chancellor and costed it?
Bambos Charalambous
I am conscious of time. I have to sit down in three minutes.
The Law Society of England and Wales warned yesterday that the Bill risks putting England’s global reputation for justice at risk—shameful. This is the Government who are reducing the country’s global standing so significantly. As if the inhumanity in the way the Government propose to treat asylum seekers is not bad enough, they go further by deciding to punish victims of modern slavery. The Bill peddles the Government’s signature toxic politics of fear and hostility by changing the standard of proof for determining if someone has a well-founded fear of persecution and making it more difficult for people to be recognised as victims of human trafficking. Despite choosing to start by disbelieving trafficked victims, there is nothing in the Bill about setting up a national operating standard procedure to train those whose first point of contact is clearly to identify victims of modern slavery. Why is that not in the Bill? Once again, it is just like the Queen of Hearts: sentence first, verdict afterwards.
We should most definitely be going after the traffickers and people-smuggling criminal gangs, but without international co-operation we will struggle to do that. The Bill is high on rhetoric, but low on action. Without introducing any safe routes, the Bill will be a boon for the international criminal gangs and a boost for their profits. Rather than breaking the business model, the Government have breathed new life into it by pushing people further into the arms of smugglers. Having reduced our ties with Interpol and tarnished our reputation with the international community, we have lost the soft power that things such as our commitment to international aid bought us.
We have been asking for safe routes to replace Dublin III since last year, but we have had nothing from the Government. Meanwhile, the Bill gives the Secretary of State new powers to act like the playground bully in delaying or suspending visa processing for citizens of countries that she believes are unco-operative with removals. In all honesty, if the Government seriously think that that will work in getting international co-operation, they are deluded. It is the same desperate politics that created the hostile environment and the Windrush scandal. Labour strongly opposes this misleading and deeply flawed legislation, and urges the Government to engage responsibly in a debate that recognises the humanity of those who have to flee their homelands and seek protection, no matter how they arrive in the UK.
This Bill is nothing more than a house of cards. It does nothing to address the crisis in our asylum system. It is deeply flawed and will end up collapsing if there are no bilateral agreements with our EU neighbours. We on the Labour Benches will be opposing the Second Reading of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Chris Philp)
I thank all Members who have spoken in this extremely thorough two-day debate.
The public expect this House to protect our borders, they expect us to combat the dinghies crossing the English channel and they expect us to remove those with no right to be here. This Bill will deliver those people’s priorities. The Labour MPs who say those priorities are somehow racist are not only wrong, but they are insulting our fellow citizens who rightly want proper border control. The Bill is fair but firm: fair to those in genuine need, but firm towards those seeking to abuse the system. Let me reiterate the Government’s commitment to supporting those in genuine need. Of course, we cannot help all 80 million displaced people around the world who may wish to come here, but we will play our part.
First, we are continuing our world-leading resettlement programme. We are working with the UNHCR. We resettle the world’s most vulnerable. We have resettled 25,000 people in the last six years—more than any other European country—half of them children. We will be strengthening that arrangement by immediately granting indefinite leave to remain to those entering via the resettlement programme. I am concerned about the poor integration outcomes in the resettlement scheme—fewer than 5% are in work after a year—so we are going to do more on integration. We are also going to draw in a wider range of persecuted people, recognising, for example, that the most persecuted group globally are persecuted Christians, whom we should make an effort to look after as well.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister talks of what the public expect, but one thing I do not think they would expect is for this Government to create a criminal offence that would see a Uyghur fleeing genocide in China, a Syrian fleeing war crimes or indeed a persecuted Christian who gets here without a visa subject, potentially, to a four-year prison sentence under this Bill.
Chris Philp
The hon. Gentleman mentions Syrians fleeing war crimes. Our resettlement programme has principally focused on Syrians fleeing war crimes, who, via the UNHCR working in the region, have been able, safely and legally, to come to this country in greater numbers than are seen in any other European resettlement programme. That is quicker, safer and easier than illegally crossing the channel in a dinghy. We are not just running Europe’s resettlement programme; as we speak, we are bringing locally engaged staff from Afghanistan to the UK, and we have opened up a route for British nationals overseas from Hong Kong to come here, escaping the oppressive regime of the Chinese Communist party. In addition, 29,000 people have come in the past six years as part of refugees family reunions. So when the Opposition claim that we are not offering safe and legal routes, that is simply not true.
The Scottish nationalists have been saying that Scotland would like to do more. I am very disappointed, as I said in my intervention, when I was able to get in, that out of the 32 local authorities in Scotland only one, Glasgow, takes dispersed asylum seekers. If Scotland wants to do more, they have the opportunity to do so. Moreover, when it comes to taking unaccompanied asylum seeking children under the national transfer scheme, Scotland took only a very small handful of the 600 or so who were transferred last year. Scottish National party Members cannot talk about money, because those children have more than £50,000 a year of funding going with them. There are children right now in Dover who need to be looked after, so I call on the Scottish Government to put action behind their words and take some of those children on—tonight. They do not need independence to do that; they can do it now.
Let me be clear: we will always play our part for those in genuine need, but we should choose who deserves our help. Illegal immigration undermines that choice. Instead of the UK being able to choose the children and families most in need, illegal immigration instead allows those who pay people smugglers or who are strong to push their way to the front of the queue.
Chris Philp
I will give way in a moment. There is no worse example of that than the small boats crossing the English channel. About 80% of the people on them are young single men, who have paid people smugglers to cheat the system. They are not fleeing war. France is not a war zone. Belgium is not a war zone, and nor is Germany. These are safe European countries with well-functioning asylum systems. These journeys are dangerous and unnecessary, and push to one side those in greatest need, including women and children.
Sir John Hayes
I am delighted that my hon. Friend has brought us this Bill. He deserves great credit for it, alongside the Home Secretary. But will he go further? Will he fulfil the pledge to actually turn back the boats in the channel that he has just described, using the Royal Navy, if possible? Will he process claims offshore, as has also been pledged? Will he do something to frustrate those lawyers who game the system by claiming all kinds of international obligations taking precedence over our sovereign law and our sovereign Parliament?
Chris Philp
I thank my right hon. Friend for his very timely intervention and I agree with what he says. This Bill contains provisions such that people arriving by small boat and other illegal means will be liable to prosecution and a four-year jail term, and people smugglers will face a life sentence. This Bill also gives Border Force the powers it needs to make interceptions at sea. Let me be clear: nothing in this Bill would have made the Kindertransport from the 1930s illegal. That was an authorised and organised programme that would be perfectly legal. Indeed it is rather analogous to the safe and legal route we are at this very moment offering locally engaged staff from Afghanistan. Let me also reassure the House, and in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), that there is no intention in this Bill to criminalise bona fide, genuine rescue operations by the RNLI.
Let me also be clear that nothing in this Bill infringes our international obligations. Opposition Members should study article 31 of the refugee convention, which makes it clear that it is permitted to impose penalties where someone has not come “directly” from a place of danger and where they did not have a reasonable opportunity to claim asylum somewhere else.[Official Report, 22 July 2021, Vol. 699, c. 10MC.] The people coming from France are not coming directly from a place of danger, as required by article 31, and they did have a reasonable chance to claim asylum in France. These measures are wholly consistent with our international obligations.
Chris Philp
I must finish soon. I apologise.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) asked about the legal system, which also needs reform as it is open to abuse. People make repeated human rights claims to asylum and modern slavery claims, which are often strung out over many years in an effort to avoid removal. Very often those claims are later found to be without merit. For example, in 2017, 83% of the last-minute claims that were raised in detention to frustrate removal were later found to be without merit. I have seen terrible examples of murderers and rapists making last-minute claims, without merit, to avoid deportation. It is not just me saying that. Let me quote what the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Burnett of Maldon, said in a judgment last October:
“Late claims raised shortly before…removal have been endemic, many fanciful or entirely false…It is a matter of regret that a minority of lawyers have lent their professional…support to vexatious representations and abusive late legal challenges.”
In those remarks, the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales is saying that change is needed.
The Bill also contains measures on age assessment. We are the only European country not to use scientific age assessment. Recent evaluations in Kent concerning 92 people claiming to be children later found that half were not. There are obvious and serious safeguarding issues if men who are 23 years old, for example, successfully pretend to be under 18 and get housed or educated with 16-year-old girls. We cannot tolerate that.
Chris Stephens
The Minister has referred to Glasgow’s dispersal area, but there are also individuals who have come over on false passports because that is what they were given to flee their country of origin. They are children, but their passport says they are adults. What assistance will the Home Office give those individuals?
Chris Philp
Where somebody claims to be, or says they are, under 18, if there is any doubt, there is already a system—and in future there will be a better and more rigorous system—for properly assessing someone’s actual age. There are risks in both directions. If we wrongly assess someone to be over 18 there is a risk, but equally there are risks in the other direction, and it is time those risks were recognised.
On modern slavery, I pay tribute to the work done by my right hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs May) and for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). The Bill will ensure that we identify genuine victims of modern slavery and avoid unmeritorious claims that are designed to delay removal or deportation. Where someone is a genuine victim, we will ensure that they are properly looked after. This policy will make it clear for the first time in legislation that confirmed victims with recovery needs stemming from their exploitation will be entitled to a grant of leave, where that is necessary to assist them in their recovery, or to assist a prosecution. We hope that by encouraging people to bring their claims upfront in one go, asylum claims and matters involving modern slavery and human rights will be identified early and properly, and that we avoid some of the abuses that we have unfortunately seen all too often.
Some Members raised questions about detention, claiming that it was indefinite. That is not the case. We do not have indefinite detention, and 75% of people spend less than a month in detention prior to removal. The Hardial Singh case law principles mean that someone cannot be detained if there is no reasonable prospect of removal. There are frequent opportunities to apply for immigration bail, in addition to the protections afforded by article 5 of the ECHR. On the Dubs amendment that we have seen in the past, we prefer to prioritise, not people who are in safe European countries, but those who are in dangerous places.
The public expect us to look after those in genuine need. We will do so, but the public also expect us to protect our borders from illegal immigration and to promptly remove those with no right to be here. The Bill delivers those objectives. When the Labour party votes against it in a few minutes, it is voting against border control, and against removing dangerous foreign criminals who pose a threat to our constituents. The Labour party may not be prepared to protect our borders, but the Government are. I commend the Bill to the House.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I am anticipating two votes. Even though we have relaxed the regulations, I still urge Members to show due caution in giving safe distancing to their colleagues.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Nationality and Borders Bill (Second sitting)
Tuesday 21st September 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 September 2021 - (21 Sep 2021)
The Chair
I remind Members about the public health guidance, and that electronic devices should be switched to silent.
We will now hear oral evidence from Lucy Moreton, the professional officer at the Immigration Services Union, and Zoe Gardner, policy adviser at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants. Lucy is appearing in person and has just arrived, and Zoe is appearing virtually. Before calling the first Member to ask a question, I remind all Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we must stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee agreed. For this session, we have until 2.45 pm.
Examination of Witnesses
Lucy Moreton and Zoe Gardner gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Lucy Moreton: Good afternoon. My name is Lucy Moreton, and I am the professional officer for the ISU, which is the union that represents borders, immigration and customs staff.
Zoe Gardner: Good afternoon. My name is Zoe Gardner. I am actually policy and advocacy manager at the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants—I think my title was communicated wrongly before. JCWI is one of the oldest organisations in the country representing migrants and refugees going through the UK immigration system.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Q
Lucy Moreton: I think that if we knew how to fix the system, we would all have much quieter and easier lives. The Bill addresses some of the issues with the current asylum system, but without a significant underpinning of resources it will not make the difference that is anticipated. We have reached the situation that we have with the structures, both above and below the border, breaking, if not in fact broken, because of under-resourcing. You can set up an additional fast-track appeals process, for example, but if you do not resource the courts to enable them to have the rooms to hold the hearings, the judges to make those adjudications and the clerks to promulgate them, it will make no difference. You can express wishes in a Bill to return migrants to a safe third country, process them offshore or turn them back before they reach UK waters, but all that requires the co-operation of international partners, and if you cannot achieve that, it is nothing more than words on a bit of paper.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Zoe Gardner: Yes. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today. The short answer is that the available evidence does not support the approach being taken in this Bill. The aims of the Bill that the Government have put forward are to create a fairer asylum system and to discourage the use of irregular journeys by asylum seekers using smuggling routes. A fair asylum system would provide protection to refugees based on their need. The Bill does not propose a system that would do that. Furthermore, the evidence from similar policies enacted in other countries, or previously enacted in the UK, shows us that this approach is unlikely to deter people from seeking to come to the UK using irregular means, because it does not provide meaningful alternative ways for people to travel. In short, the Bill will not work. The only people who will be celebrating its implementation will be the criminal smuggling gangs.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Lucy Moreton: I do not know the details of those 399 cases. If they have been in the system for more than 10 years—about 10 years ago, I was an asylum decision maker—it is likely that there will be other elements within that that are more complex. It is possible to repeatedly delay conclusion of a case through the late submission of evidence, for example. Whether that is the case in any or some of that group, I do not know. Clearly, the needs of anyone genuinely seeking protection in the UK are not served by being stuck in the system for months, let alone years.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Lucy Moreton: My understanding is that the stated aim is to deter irregular migration. I cannot see how some theoretical change, which is what it is at the moment, to how you might eventually be treated when you are finally granted asylum here would deter irregular migration. One element proposed for the group 2 refugees —the ones who have entered irregularly—is that it may limit their family reunion rights. Absolutely accepting the political balancing act that has to be done here, if you prevent people from travelling through a regular route, they will use an irregular route, so that alone seems to be circuitous.
Zoe Gardner: I agree with that assessment. The available evidence shows that the people who are making these journeys in order to seek asylum do not know the detail of different refugee protection regimes in different countries. They base their decision making on where to go. Either they do not make the decision at all themselves and it is in the hands of the smugglers who transport them, or they make the decision based on their connection to a country—so having family members in a country, speaking the language, or having other connections. In the case of Afghans at the current time, they might be ex-colleagues who have worked with the British military in Afghanistan. That might be a reason for their trying to come to the UK. The details of the system will not deter anybody.
With regard to the aims of the Bill, which is concerned with fairness, if we look at how the inadmissibility rules have operated so far, in the first six months of their operation since January, 4,500 people have been issued with a notice of intent under the inadmissibility rules, and 173 of those are from Afghanistan. This means that in effect their asylum claim has been put on hold for at least six months while the Government seek to find another place to send them—anywhere else but here. That is obviously not in the interests of fairness when it comes to people from Afghanistan who are clearly fleeing a dangerous situation.
JCWI has a client from Syria who is 19 years old. He was individually targeted by the Syrian military and was forced to flee at a moment’s notice. He had no other option but to take an irregular route. He has two sisters living here in the UK, so that was what motivated his choice to pay a smuggler to make a desperate escape and come to the UK. He is now in the inadmissibility process, and his mental health is deteriorating because of his fear that he will be sent away. The Government have told him that they are considering his removal to Austria or France or to anywhere else—anywhere else being somewhere that has no legal obligation to take him in and where he will have no family members. If he were to be removed, we would potentially be giving the smuggling gangs a repeat customer, because he would obviously have reason to seek to come back to the UK.
It also does not make any sense to pause that client’s claim for the time being, and the claims of 4,500 others—probably more at this stage—and have them wait in this limbo system, at great cost to the taxpayer and great harm to their mental health, on the basis of agreements to return people here, there or anywhere that we do not actually have yet. This approach is not going to achieve its aims whatsoever. The only thing it will achieve is cruelty, delay, additional bureaucracy and, as I say, lining the pockets of the smuggling gangs.
Bambos Charalambous
Thank you. I will let other Members ask questions now. If there is time, I would like to ask some more later.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Q
Zoe Gardner: There is considerable evidence that every time we spend more money on trying to close down a route that is regularly used by smugglers to bring people through irregular means to the UK—indeed, this is the case in any other country—the people who are desperate to take that route do not simply disappear. In fact, the routes are simply redirected, often to more dangerous paths. It does not stop the journeys, but it does allow the smugglers to charge more, for yet more dangerous journeys and yet more complicated ways of making it through these barriers. There is always going to be more flexibility on the side of the smugglers than on the side of the state. Until we provide people with a regulated alternative means of travel to the UK, every round of security spending that we throw at this and every attempt at this failed model of deterrence and pushbacks will be celebrated by the smugglers, because it simply lines their pockets.
The increased sentences proposed by the Bill are all very well, and would be perfectly reasonable if in reality they were aimed at smuggling gangs. However, what we have seen in the last 12 months is that the Home Office has used legislation that was intended to be used against smuggling gangs and members of international criminal gangs to unjustly prosecute asylum seekers themselves. Several asylum seekers have served jail time on the basis that they were facilitating the entry of other asylum seekers on the same boat.
That practice was being undertaken until, in August this year, the Crown Prosecution Service published some clarified guidance confirming that it is not a crime to enter the UK, even on a small boat or through other irregular means, if your purpose is to present yourself to the authorities and seek asylum. That is the case for almost all, if not all—I think the official figure is 98% —of the people on these boats. It has been confirmed that those people are not committing a crime or an immigration offence.
The danger of the increased sentences is that they will be targeted at the wrong people and that they will be used to punish people who are exercising their right to claim asylum rather than being targeted at the people at whom it should be targeted: the organised criminal gangs. That should be done on the basis of credible intelligence and international co-operation, and not on the basis of picking people up off the beach in Kent when they clearly intend to make an asylum claim.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Zoe Gardner: This refers to the differential treatment for people who, once they have arrived and been served with their notice of intent, have to wait six months in this unnecessary and harmful limbo situation in the asylum system. If the Government do not find somewhere else to send them—another country willing to take on our responsibilities for them—as is likely to happen in most cases, they will have their asylum claim assessed in the usual system. Given that the nationalities are overwhelmingly those recognised as refugees in this country—people from countries such as Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Syria, which have a high recognition rate—they will be recognised as refugees in need of protection from persecution.
The Government then propose, with this Bill, to offer them only temporary protection status, which is not the same as the refugee protection status that we have provided them with until now. That would mean people having an unstable status that would need to be consistently renewed, potentially once every 30 months, and with no guarantee of obtaining permanent settlement.
That is completely harmful to the mental health and integration prospects of refugees. It runs counter to obligations under the UN refugee convention, which requires that recognised refugees are assisted to naturalise and integrate. It also simply does not work from a practical perspective. We have an example of a JCWI client who is a gay man from Iran. He has been granted a temporary protection status for six months, due to complicated factors of his case. The Home Office proposes to reassess whether this gay man from Iran will be at risk again in six months, and again in six months, and again in six months. If it was every 30 months, I am sure that members of the Committee can see the lack of logic being applied there.
People who obtain refugee protection almost always need long-term, stable protection status. They come from countries where it is very unlikely that it will be safe to remove them again within 30 months. That puts a huge additional bureaucratic burden on a Home Office that is already failing to get through its case load at a reasonable speed and will very seriously hamper those people’s integration prospects.
Furthermore, as Lucy Moreton mentioned, those people may be denied the right to family reunification. That means that the largely female or child contingent of refugees who are currently able to get protection through a safe route of family reunion would then be denied that protection. That might mean that, in desperation to join their loved one who has come to the UK, they may then embark on those dangerous irregular journeys, so this may in fact provoke more irregular journeys and, again, enrich and empower the smugglers yet more.
Finally, the proposals also suggest that refugees granted this secondary status of protection would not be granted access to public funds. Aside from being cruel and harmful to refugees, that follows the same pattern of being illogical and impractical. The reality is that if these refugees are destitute, they will be able to apply to have the “no recourse to public funds” conditions lifted. Given that they will have waited for at least six months and then gone into the standard asylum procedure, which at the moment takes well over six months in many cases, and during that time will not have been allowed to work, plus being people who are recovering from trauma, the likelihood that they can go into a job and start earning straightaway is extremely low. The likelihood that they will be destitute under those circumstances is extremely high.
This just adds a huge additional bureaucratic burden where there will be application after application for these “no recourse to public funds” conditions to be lifted. In the meantime, there is the risk that people will fall into destitution. From the perspective of fairness and compassion, this plan does not work. From the perspective of having a functioning asylum system and a Home Office that produces efficient and tolerable procedures that work on a reasonable time frame, again, it completely fails.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Lucy Moreton: My colleague’s point on the administrative burden of constantly having to reassess and read asylum claims was absolutely right. It feeds back into the point I made about resourcing: you cannot make this work if you do not put the resources in. If you want civil servants to reconsider applications every six or 30 months, you are going to have to put enough civil servants in there to do it.
On the issue of pushbacks, as things stand at the moment, given the instructions that we work under to ensure the safety of life at sea and the legality of it, it seems to us—the trade union, and the members who advise us—extremely unlikely to happen in practice. The restrictions are, quite rightly, very tight. No one wants to see a fatality from what is a very dangerous manoeuvre. It was not expected to be announced as it was. It had been in discussion in various iterations for a couple of years, but for it to be announced suddenly in the press came as a surprise.
It had the unfortunate impact of endangering both border officers and migrants because suddenly migrants feared that they were going to be pushed back, even though they are in circumstances where they never would be—they are vulnerable, the vessel is vulnerable, it has vulnerable people in it and it is not in the right bit of the channel. Because they are frightened of being approached by border officers, they are less willing to be rescued in circumstances where they deeply need rescuing. That was most unfortunate.
I recognise the risk in saying this, but I will personally be very surprised if this ever actually happens and is completed. I would be amazed. We do not see migrant vessels that are not vulnerable in one way or another.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Q
Lucy Moreton: There are communications channels between migrants who make it and those who are waiting. Also, the spin put on it by the smuggling gangs is absolutely phenomenal. For example, we were seeing a lot of migrants being told that the small vessel route over the English channel would become illegal once the UK had left the EU. It was illegal before and it was going to be illegal after: nothing changed. But the gangs used that to pressure more people into taking the route—“Go now, before they stop it!”—and to charge more money for that route. Different vessels have different amounts of information, but this has been reported quite widely in the press.
Migrant groupings in France, I understand, are now aware that this is a risk. We know that they resist approaches by the French; they put themselves at risk in order to prevent the French intercepting and returning them while they remain within French waters. We get reports from our members on the cutters, particularly the smaller ribs, that migrants make absolutely sure that they have got a British vessel. They are far more likely to trust the RNLI or the coastguard, who they recognise because they are on telly and have different uniforms, than to trust us. The last thing we need is someone standing up and going overboard. If they are trying to avoid being intercepted, either by the French, by us or anyone they do not recognise, that is the risk.
Paul Howell
Q
Zoe Gardner: Can I jump in on that point? There is a difference between having some gossip information or potential misinformation about what will happen directly on the boat journey and what to do immediately on disembarkation, and actually having a complex and sophisticated understanding of the functioning of the asylum system in the UK, especially in comparison to the functioning of the asylum system in France.
Regarding the levels of understanding and information, as Lucy rightly said there is a lot of misinformation going around, but knowing that you need to avoid being intercepted at sea is different from knowing what your entitlements will be once you have got to this stage in the asylum system in the UK. They are different issues.
Lucy Moreton: I think that is a fair point; it is more about misinformation, spin and misunderstanding than about concrete information and a robust or detailed knowledge of what actually happens.
Paul Howell
Q
I will come to the point I was going to make. The number of cases and the backlog are increasing at a faster rate than the number of applications. I would like to try to understand whether that is purely resource—you have indicated there are resource concerns anyway—or whether there are ways in which the Bill could be written so that it was easier to make decisions and the decisions could be clearer and swifter, rather than having too many complexities, which results in longer times before you get a first decision. Is it the Bill? Is it the resources? Is it a combination thereof?
Lucy Moreton: It is a combination, inevitably, but there are elements of both. The rate of cases in decision is increasing in relation to the number of initial applications, but that is because of late and repeated applications that slow things up, and that may well be an element in the 399 that was mentioned earlier.
One provision in the Bill suggests that individuals would be served with a notice of information to say, “If you do not produce all the information that you know at this time, you will not be able to bring it up later—or, if you do bring it up later, much less weight will be given to it.” I am not convinced that that will work as well in practice as it might appear.
There will always be information that changes if someone has been here and been in the system for six months or six years. There can be a change of situation in their home country that might make late information come up, and even if the information comes up late and is given less weight, it must still be considered and will still have some limited access to appeal, albeit I think that the intention is to remove the ability to seek judicial review of the decision by giving an expedited appeal through the immigration tribunals process.
If the immigration tribunals process does not have the capacity to hear that case for six months, it will not make a great deal of difference anyway, but certainly any measures that assist in encouraging migrants to produce as much information as they intend to rely on at the beginning will help. Most migrants do that, but you get to the end of the system and then suddenly you get, “Oh, but hang on a minute—now I’ve changed my religion, recognised my sexuality, the situation at home has changed, I’m married, I’ve got a child, I’ve got closer ties here, I’ve got a medical condition,” or whatever additional applications come in.
Anything that can control and manage that better will help; that is a recognised method of abusing the process, but we cannot shut it off, because there will always be people for whom it is absolutely true that their situation has changed and they do need protection. We need a method for considering that quickly, getting it through the appeals process quickly, if that is relevant, identifying those who are abusing the system and, crucially, removing them. Another large part of the Bill is the ability to remove people who have come to the end of the system, while still identifying and extending protection to those for whom we have an obligation to do so.
Paul Howell
Q
Lucy Moreton: Everything will be in the detail. The words used will help, but I suspect we will find ourselves in a situation in two or three years’ time where there has been a loophole or a contrary decision by an upper court that has changed the way this works. There will always be genuine last-minute situations; there will always be genuine last changes that merit a fresh application.
If you front-load the resourcing at the beginning, if you can decide an application and have it through the court system in a matter of weeks, the scope for those last-minute changes of situation is significantly narrowed. If you make the whole process faster and tighter, rather than just trying to block the tail end of a very lengthy process, that would probably be more beneficial both to genuine refugees and to the British taxpayer.
The Chair
I do not want to limit anybody’s questions, but there are quite a few people who would like to ask questions. Jonathan Gullis.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Q
I am a bit perplexed. On the one hand, I am hearing that the system is broken; on the other, I am hearing that ultimately this is not going to be good enough. Lucy, on the pushbacks—I think the pushbacks are something that our commanders on those vessels need support and top cover from—you have said that that is not a deterrent, even though you have said that people will be scared of it. We have talked about the fact that people will not be getting access to housing in the legislation, at clause 11—we will use centres such as Napier barracks—which I think is brilliant and is also about the use of public resources; that will not deter. In Stoke-on-Trent they are livid at seeing illegal economic migrants—the ones coming over the Channel at the moment—paying thousands of pounds into the hands—
The Chair
Mr Gullis, I do not want to stop you, but it would be great if there could be a question, so that your colleagues can also ask questions.
Jonathan Gullis
There will be. Illegal economic migrants put thousands of pounds into the hands of people smugglers. Does that not show that these people are not genuine refugees or asylum seekers, like those we have seen from Afghanistan and Syria, who we have brought through safe and legal routes?
Lucy Moreton: It is a system that requires a great deal of money. You are not likely to have that money immediately available to you if you have fled in circumstances of danger. You may be able to gain it from relatives outside the country. Worse, though: you may put yourself into the hands of people traffickers, who will lend you the money for your crossing in exchange for your services in one way or another in the UK, be that in the grey economy or in modern slavery.
If you knew, before you spent all that money, that it was only going to get you a few weeks here until your claim is processed and dealt with, you would be far less likely to spend that money. If you knew that you spend that money and you are going to spend six to 10 years here to get through the system, that money is probably worth it.
Jonathan Gullis
Q
Lucy Moreton: From what I understand, the experience of Australia has been that it has not been as much of a deterrent as they would have hoped, but certainly, on paper, anything that shortens the system is going to be a positive. The reasons why people travel are so multi-factoral; it is not going to be a 100% answer, but nothing is. If there was an easy answer, we would have done it a decade ago when this started to be a problem. It may help, but it will not be a universal panacea.
Jonathan Gullis
Q
Zoe Gardner: I would like to pick up on the distinction you were making between Afghan refugees and the people you referred to as illegal economic migrants crossing the channel. It might interest you to learn that Afghans make up one of the most significant groups of people making those irregular journeys across the channel.
JCWI has some difficult in ascertaining at what point these people switch from being considered refugees—for example, if they worked with our military, or if they are gay and are facing persecution by the Taliban. Given that the resettlement efforts, as laudable as they are, will necessarily not reach all those people and certainly will not reach even all the people who worked with our troops in that country, if those people are facing being hunted down and murdered by the Taliban and are therefore forced to make a chaotic and immediate escape by whatever means necessary, be that with a smuggler, that does not remove their need for protection. It does not make them any less refugees.
It is really useful that you make that point, because it does point to a wider distinction that the Bill seeks to make, which is to draw a completely false distinction between two groups who are made up of essentially the same people. As I have mentioned, over two thirds of the people who are in Calais at the moment and who are making that crossing are from countries with very high recognition rates as refugees in this country. As I have said, they are from Iran, Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan. They are refugees and they need our protection.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the commitment made by the Home Secretary to implement the recommendations of the “Windrush Lessons Learned Review”. One of Wendy Williams’s recommendations in her review was to avoid viewing policy making on a binary of “Do this or do nothing”. That is the binary that, with respect, you are putting forward here. Nobody is suggesting that the status quo is acceptable. Unfortunately, the do-this option, according to all the available evidence, is likely to make the situation significantly worse rather than achieving its ends.
As Lucy mentioned, the evidence from Australia suggests that offshore processing centres for refugees had no discernible impact on the numbers of people attempting the crossing, but it did have a huge impact of cruelty and harm to the refugees who were subject to offshoring. We already have difficulty in this country in ensuring that asylum seekers have adequate access to legal representation, to adequate hygiene and to the other most basic needs. To take that process offshore to somewhere out of sight and away from our ability to scrutinise it would make it much more difficult to ensure that those minimum standards were met.
What I hope would never happen is what happened in the Australian case, where teams of experts from the UN and Médecins sans Frontières, and teams of paediatricians, reported finding the most traumatised population that they had ever seen or worked with, including among victims of torture. There were extremely elevated rates of self-harm and suicide, even among children. It ended in abject failure. Not only had it not deterred people from taking boats to Australia; it ended up with the Australian Government forced to medically evacuate all remaining residents of those camps in 2019, having spent €6 billion on the entire process. That is an absolutely disastrous model for the UK that we absolutely should not pursue.
Aside from the moral objections that may not be shared by all but that the JCWI certainly feels about the UK––one of the richest countries in the world––attempting to palm off our responsibility to refugees on to a developing country such as Rwanda, the impact was cruelty, and cruelty with no point, no purpose and no achievement. The situation just continued––
The Chair
Ms Gardner, you have put your case extremely well and I do not want to inhibit what you want to say, but I do want to see whether more Members can ask questions.
Jonathan Gullis
Q
Lucy Moreton: Many of them have.
Zoe Gardner: As I am sure you are aware because I think the previous witness did say this, the vast majority of people who seek asylum worldwide––86% of refugees and displaced people worldwide––remain in the country neighbouring the one they have fled. So 86% of people remain in developing countries.
France received three times as many asylum applications as we did last year. Most people stop as soon as they feel safe. The people making their way to England and who specifically wish to come to the UK do so because they have ties to this country, either because they have served with our military, as in the case of people from Afghanistan, or they have family members, as with the Syrian client I mentioned whom the JCWI is representing. They may also speak the language because of our colonial history and have other ties of kinship and history here.
There are people who have legitimate ties to the UK and there is no good reason why they should have their claims assessed in France if they do not wish to. It does not really work for us to say to the French, “Given that we are geographically located slightly to the west of you, none of these refugees is our responsibility. They are all on you,” because France could say the same thing. Then Italy could say the same thing and the entire international refugee protection system will crumble. It is necessary––
The Chair
Ms Gardner, you are making your case really well but I am trying to get a couple more people in before we go to the Minister, if that is okay, so I apologise. Paul Blomfield.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Q
“There is a risk that increased security and deterrence could encourage these cohorts to attempt riskier means of entering the UK.”
Could you share your views on that with us––first, Lucy?
Lucy Moreton: That has been the experience to date. There is a large displaced population in Europe. The majority of them have been there for some time. Just under half of them, in the last set of statistics I saw, have a failed asylum claim elsewhere within Europe. Whether they have legitimate ties here or legitimate reasons to be here or not, they will not simply say, “Oh gosh, it got a bit difficult today. Let’s turn around and go home.” If they do not have another route that they can try, they will simply become—as the risk assessment says—more and more risky.
We built the fence around the edges of where the Eurotunnel trains were, so people moved to Calais. We fortified Calais port, so they moved to Boulogne, went further north, or moved to Le Havre or Ouistreham. Every time we build a wall, they just move a little further down. Nobody wants—I don’t think anybody wants—to build a massive fence along the entirety of northern France, Belgium and Holland, but if we did so, they would come from Spain. Simply reinforcing the border is not effective if we do not also provide some form of alternate route, ideally an expedited route.
Paul Blomfield
Does Zoe have anything to add to that?
Zoe Gardner: Lucy covered it perfectly.
The Chair
Anne and Stuart, you have about a minute to ask your questions and to get some answers before I bring in the Minister.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Q
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Zoe, I am trying to understand one of the points that you made earlier and your example of the young gentleman from Syria who came over here. You said that, under the legislation, even if he is sent out of the country, he will try to get back in, regardless of the legislation, even though he knows the system. Is that solely because he has family members here, or because, no matter what legislation we put in place, people will still—even when they know the system—try to come back in? Will you expand on that, please?
Zoe Gardner: I certainly would not like to say that I know anything about his intentions individually, but I would say that, as a young person and a refugee, if he were to be sent to another country, anybody in those circumstances would seek to be with their loved ones. That is the natural and human thing that we would all do. As Lucy Moreton explained clearly, once you have taken such a long and dangerous journey, and seen things that we in this room have certainly never seen and hope never to, there is no prospect of going back or of giving up so, yes, people will try to make the journey back again. It already happens. It is factored into the price in some of the smuggling operations that we hear about, that if you are turned back by the French coastguard, you get one extra shot free on us, half-price or whatever.
People who have made the journey this far and believe that the UK is the place where they will be safe and their human rights respected will seek to come here. We cannot make them disappear, so—this goes to Anne’s point—the only credible response is meaningful and good-faith international co-operation. We need to engage with the French, step up to say that we will take our fair share and then speak from a position of moral authority to ask others to do the same. That means taking in people who have connections to the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
Q
Zoe Gardner: I am quite confused about that being the aim of the legislation that we have in front of us. The measures that have been put forward in the Bill, as far as I can tell, will only serve to exacerbate and complicate the repeated legal claims that will be made. For example, the split standard of proof in the Bill would apply a different standard of proof to different parts of a person’s asylum claim. That will be challenged and tested in the courts and will take longer. Obviously, the delays of six months will make the system take longer. On the other side, slapping a priority sign on to somebody’s deportation order does not actually make any difference. Again, as Lucy said, that is a matter for having well-resourced court systems and a fair and efficient system, and the Bill just does not do anything to achieve any of that.
The Chair
Apologies, but that brings us to the end of the time allotted to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee. Many questions were asked and our witnesses gave evidence that Members wanted to listen to.
Examination of Witness
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby gave evidence .
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Dave Kirby, the assistant chief constable of Derbyshire police. Dave is joining us virtually. We have until 3.15 pm. Will the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: Good afternoon. My name is Dave Kirby, assistant chief constable with responsibility for crime and criminal justice in Derbyshire Constabulary.
Stuart Anderson
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: Specifically in relation to the clause 45 defence?
Stuart Anderson
Yes.
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: If I can start with the background, what we find—forgive me if I tread over ground that you have already been over—is that the defence can be abused either way and there might be ways to alleviate that. We find instances where people who have a genuine claim to be a victim are admitting principal offences—cannabis cultivation or similar—in order to protect the people who exploit them. It tends to have the effect of limiting an investigation, including limiting the examination of telephones or other digital devices that might show us a broader conspiracy, for example. Again, that is because they are still under that control. We see that in an organised way, which I will come to.
Similarly, we see people we believe are genuinely committing offences, such as the organisers of those cannabis growers or people who are in some way managing them, using the defence—some people might use the phrase “Get out of jail free”—to avoid prosecution. In either case, we have seen a high level of organisation, which it is important to point out. I cannot go into the tactical detail in a public forum, but we can see a level of control that goes beyond one organised crime group, for example. Then we see people who are genuinely being exploited perhaps admitting offences and being prosecuted, or being bailed or released under investigation and then simply going round the cycle.
There are two important points around how the legislation currently sits. One is that the defence can be raised at any time, which makes life quite difficult for investigators because they have the original investigation to consider and then they have the secondary, parallel investigation that is required around status. That has to be conducted even if a person has not claimed to be a victim of modern slavery, because that defence could be brought in at any time. I understand that people might initially be hesitant to do that, given that they are being exploited, so it could be problematic to change. However, a second area of interest is that there is no duty for people claiming to be victims to co-operate with the parallel investigation around their status; that is difficult for investigators because there are quite often a few lines of inquiry, with some exceptions.
Stuart Anderson
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: I would be hesitant to make that statement. There could be benefits for victims, with various revisions. I would not want to make that statement directly.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: I think that would assist hugely. The delay can still be there, because people can choose when to bring the defence, and sometimes that is even at trial. But, yes, more speedy decisions from the civil competent authorities would be helpful, because investigators—we all know that resources are very stretched in every force area—could then focus on the areas they really need to.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: At a national level, we have had some quite good interaction and support from Albania and other countries, including Lithuania—in fact, my own force in Derbyshire has had a joint investigation with the Lithuanian authorities around forced labour exploitation. So I would say that the support is good; in general, it is conducted in conjunction with Europol or the National Crime Agency. Given the complexities in achieving that level of co-operation, it tends to be for our higher level investigations, where we have mapped organised criminality working at an international level, as opposed to the day in, day out criminality and exploitation that we uncover.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: I think what you are getting at is correct. The reason is that some of these people are under a huge amount of duress, including their families being threatened. Their families remain in Albania and other countries, so they cannot protect them, and violence is often used by these groups. If people are told not to claim that they are a victim and to go through the criminal justice process, and then at some point change their minds for whatever reason, I think that needs to be allowed and not counted against them. The difficulty is, of course, those who would exploit the system and raise a defence at a late stage in order to cause complications for the prosecution and who are in fact criminals, sometimes at a fairly high level. That is where the police and other agencies always need to be cognisant that that defence can be raised and to run those parallel investigations.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
That turns the presumption of innocent until proven guilty on its head. Do you think that that is the most helpful way to go forward and, if so, are there other circumstances in which we should not offer support to people because we do not believe them, before they have had the opportunity to prove otherwise? If you do not think that it is helpful, how would you amend the legislation to be more helpful, while recognising that we do not know whether people are victims of slavery at the point at which they are arrested?
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: There are a few areas there. First, the existing legislation does not apply to a lot of crime types in any event—some of the more serious crime types that you mentioned, such as kidnapping and manslaughter, and lots of offences included in the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and firearms legislation, so some of that is there already. I do not think that it is right to say that policing is turning the presumption of innocent until proven guilty on its head. What I would say is that, where we already have information and intelligence in relation to individuals and their place within a criminal hierarchy, at that point it may be appropriate to turn that presumption on its head.
To illustrate, there is a recent case in Derbyshire where an Albanian gang has been dismantled only in the last couple of weeks. There have been 24 arrests, and I think 12 of those people were Albanians, running cannabis growers and other types of criminality in the region. More than one of those people claimed to be victims, but we had a covert investigation behind us that showed their level of control, their ability to communicate, the resources that they had and various things that clearly went against that claim. Absent that information and intelligence, I do not think that we would say, “We don’t believe this person,” in the first instance. An investigator should, and in all investigations does, go into that situation with an open mind. This person could be a victim or could, in fact, be a criminal. They start at that point, not on one side or the other.
The other part of your question was about what we do to make things easier for investigators to understand the true position. I think that, again, that would be some sort of duty to co-operate, because it is quite difficult if somebody claims to be a victim and then, for example, refuses to provide a phone passcode, and so on. Perhaps a duty there would assist us. I mentioned whether a person should have to declare straightaway, because often there are delays, but I think that a lot of genuine victims would suffer that way.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: Absolutely. I cannot give you names right now. That perhaps would not be appropriate, but in various areas of criminality we have seen that, and again it is for various reasons. One reason that I have alluded to already is to hamper prosecutions, as a tactic. Quite often we can get around that as investigators because we have been looking at the various areas that would prove or disprove a person’s status throughout, but sometimes the defence is raised in order to obtain access, we believe, to other services that we would of course want to provide to genuine victims, such as access to housing and potentially some assistance in securing visas and so on.
We do see those things. I can only say that in some cases we have proved that those people are not victims—for example, through covert activity that was already in place because it was a part of larger operations or because of things such as telecoms investigations and so on, sharing that work. There is a lot of technical detail in how it is done, but we have detected people exploiting the system for those two reasons: benefits and to avoid prosecution.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: By “sequential”, do you mean repeated?
Tom Pursglove
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: Okay, I am trying to understand where you are going with the question. I am sorry, do you mean if somebody makes a claim and is referred, and then does so again following a criminal justice process? Or have I misunderstood your question?
Tom Pursglove
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: We see victims being referred into the system and then disappearing from it and turning up somewhere else, and then being referred into the system again, and so on. That is an indication, of course, that the control that these criminal gangs have has remained in place and they continue to be controlled, coerced and taken out of that process. Again, in general terms, the speedier the decision that is made in terms of a conclusive grounds decision and the support put in place in a substantive way, the less likely we are to see that because this would be an alternative for people who otherwise are in some sort of a holding pattern, waiting for decisions to be made, perhaps in temporary accommodation and so on. So, for me, the measures that are most effective are those that are going to cement those decisions the quickest and provide real support to those individuals—[Inaudible]—so they can be taken out of that coercive group of organised crime groups.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: Can you repeat the question? I had an issue with the connection. I apologise.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: The ability of gangs to bring people across the channel is a really important part of how many of those gangs work, particularly when we talk about foreign national offenders and foreign national organised crime. Again, at the risk of being boring talking about west Balkan criminality, I think it is a good way to illustrate that. West Balkan criminality, Albanian criminality, which is really what we are talking about, has taken more of a foothold since around 2017 in the UK, partly because of a real crackdown in Albania around cannabis cultivation. There needs to be a business model to support that. The gang members themselves do not want to spend long hours in uncomfortable and dangerous cannabis grows, for example, with the risk of being caught. Why would they want to do that? Similarly, if the business model is to exploit people for sexual practices then there need to be people to exploit. The ability to bring people into the country across the channel is hugely important for them.
Of course, there are other rackets such as labour exploitation and so on that have been talked about many times. Focusing on those two, they need people who can be exploited. British citizens form part of that, but people from comparatively poor areas who have comparatively few opportunities are much easier to exploit. In fact, many of those people do not initially believe they are victims—they believe that they are entering into a business deal. “You do this for this long, and then we will fly you back, or there will be some sort of benefit”. Sometimes that is the case. I would suggest that the conditions those people are living in are appalling and that the deal is a terrible one, but for some of them that is a better deal than they had where they came from.
Forgive me, that is a bit of a long answer. The point is that without the ability to bring foreign nationals in-country, those very well-organised criminal gangs—in my experience, many of them are far better organised than our own high-level criminality—would struggle to prosper in the way they currently are.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: At the moment, there is a heightened threat from people from those areas. That is what we are seeing most of in terms of foreign national offenders in Derbyshire and the east midlands, and I am fairly confident that is also the pattern elsewhere. To illustrate, we used to see Vietnamese organised criminals involved in cannabis growing, sex trafficking and other issues, but more often than not we now see Albanians in control, potentially exploiting those Vietnamese people, or, if not, working together. Some alleged groups are so well-organised and disciplined that they are able to effectively out-perform other criminal gangs. That is the threat we are seeing most in terms of foreign national criminality.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: It is happening very regularly. However, we are uncovering victims very regularly, so in their cases that is a very positive thing. Forgive me, could you repeat the last part of the question?
Bambos Charalambous
How often is it occurring? How much of a problem do you see it as being?
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: I think it is occurring a lot, but whether I would classify it as a problem or not is another issue. When it is being used genuinely for victims in some of the most terrible circumstances imaginable, I would not classify that as a problem. However, the abuse is real; it is actually organised and, in some cases, quite systematic.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: From a domestic point of view, we would look at things like if they have access to communications, do they have their own phone or not? Have they got an evident network of contacts or friends? Have they got control of their own finances? Have they got control of their own documents? Are they able to come and go, or are they locked into a premises, for example? There are not many people within the sex-trafficking area of exploitation who are there voluntarily, of course, so we look at all of those factors.
Really, we are looking at someone’s freedoms; their access to resources, including money, telephones, that kind of thing; and whether they have a normal pattern of life, a normal pattern of life for a criminal, or if they are very much restricted in what they can do. That is one of the ways we can identify people as victims. We would also conduct more detailed work around finances. For example, if benefits are being claimed, who are they being collected by? Which accounts are they being paid into? Are we seeing the same account more than once, which might show an element of organisation and coercion? Those kinds of things.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: Again, I think it is really important that victims are allowed to make that claim at any point. I say that because of the coercion that exists, including threats to family members and so on. If somebody is arrested for whatever offence and know that they are a victim, they dare not claim to be so because their bosses say, “Don’t do that.” They know that if they plead guilty, and indicate that they will do so, the investigation is likely to be stopped short, saving further investigation into the organised crime group. The person is told to toe that line because of the threat to their family. It is difficult to say that they must declare early in those circumstances.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Assistant Chief Constable Dave Kirby: No, it does not, and again, it is down to the skill, knowledge and understanding of the investigators and other agencies to spot the signs and be alive to the fact that they are not just investigating whatever criminality is reported; they are also investigating the status of those involved.
The Chair
If there are no further questions, I thank our witness for his evidence. We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of witnesses
Councillor Roger Gough and Councillor Rachael Robathan gave evidence.
Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Councillor Roger Gough, from Kent County Council, who is joining us virtually, and Councillor Rachael Robathan, from Westminster City Council, who is here in person. We have until 4pm. Would the witnesses introduce themselves for the record?
Councillor Roger Gough: I am Roger Gough. I am the leader of Kent County Council. I also chair the South-East Strategic Partnership for Migration.
Councillor Rachael Robathan: I am Rachael Robathan, I am leader of Westminster City Council.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Councillor Rachael Robathan: Just to give a current picture; we have 638 Afghan refugees who have come in as part of the current settlement in one hotel on the Edgware Road. We have a further 589 refugees who were in Westminster prior to that, spread across five hotels. Our experience is that clearly there is a lot of pressure on local services in terms of identifying health, educational and other support needs. There is not always the advance warning that local authorities would wish to have in terms of knowing about the placements before they arrive. Clearly, as much notice as we can be given from the Home Office, Clearsprings or whoever is placing the asylum seekers is very much to our advantage so that we can prepare and know what we are dealing with.
The other thing to stress is that there are particularly significant issues that arise. For example, over a third of the current Afghan refugees placed in Westminster are children and of those 10% are not with their parents or guardians, and have not travelled with them, so there is an immediate safeguarding issue, which the local authority needs to step in and deal with. While there is funding for the people placed in the hotels, there are undoubtedly significant pressures and concerns about how we support other people. It is unclear how long those refugees will be staying in those hotels. We are working on three months, but it could be longer than that, or it could be less. Those are the main things.
The current Afghan refugee settlement has been more co-ordinated than previous asylum-seeker placements, because there has been more of a joined-up approach. Westminster has a lot of tourist hotels in the centre of our city, which currently are not as full as hopefully they otherwise would be, so in areas where there is an availability of hotels there tends to be a disproportionate placement of asylum seekers, without necessarily the recognition of the pressure that that puts on the surrounding area.
Councillor Roger Gough: As you indicated in your question, clearly we have a very specific set of circumstances in Kent which relate to the Channel crossings and in particular to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Taking asylum overall first, most of the adult and accompanied child asylum seekers who arrive in Kent do not spend very long in Kent. There has been an exception to that for the last year, which is the use of the Napier Barracks near Folkestone, which has been a source of some challenge and controversy throughout its period of use. Most adult asylum seekers are rapidly moved on and dispersed. For us, the big issue has been unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. As you may know, we have twice in the last year had to suspend full operation of our statutory duties. Between August and, I think, early December last year and again between June and earlier this month, we did not collect young people from the port because our services at that point were put under extreme pressure.
To give an idea of what that means, there was great pressure on accommodation capacity since, this year in particular, we started to see more younger young people––under-16s––than we had in previous years. That certainly put pressure on fostering placements. For the slightly older young people, there was also pressure on some of the accommodation that they were placed in. That meant that young people were being placed outside the county, which clearly has significant impact in terms of oversight, safeguarding and so on. You must then add to that the fact that case loads and the pressure on our social work teams were reaching levels that we viewed as unsafe. Those are the sort of pressures that we were seeing in that area, and we have been working with the Home Office to try to make that a more manageable situation.
Turning to some of the wider areas, adult asylum dispersal, with the significant exception of Napier Barracks, has not been a factor for us very much in recent years. In terms of resettlement schemes, Kent, along with other parts of the south-east, played a full role in the Syrian scheme and is now looking to do so to the greatest possible extent with the Afghan scheme. We have three hotels in Kent that are being applied to Afghan families who are arriving.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Councillor Roger Gough: Historically, resources in the sense of money have been an issue for us. That has changed in the last year and a bit. Historically, we carried a loss, if you like: a difference between what we received from the various grants—chiefly Home Office grants—and what we spent of between £1.5 million and £2.5 million a year. In the summer of last year, there was a significant increase in the rates paid by the Home Office, particularly targeted on those of us in authorities with large numbers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. As part of the launch of the latest version of the national transfer scheme, there were some further enhancements to rates including some things on the care leavers area. That has made a real difference to us financially, so the point that I have made constantly is that when we speak about pressure and the areas in which Kent is feeling the impact, it is to do with the capacity of our services to respond. It has not been a case of financial resources this year or last, but historically it was.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Councillor Rachael Robathan: As Councillor Gough mentioned, it is not currently so much around the financial support; it is more to do with the wider pressure on services across the piece. For example, at the moment, we in Westminster, like Kent, have more than our allocated number of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, which represents a significant responsibility because of the length of time that they are likely to be in receipt of services. There is a very significant pressure there, but it is more the wider pressure on overall services.
At the moment, we have 638 Afghan refugees in one hotel on the Edgware Road. We are having to put significant resources into trying to understand exactly who is there and what their needs are—all that information we need to gather in order to be able to look after those people safely while they are here. There is also the question of uncertainty. We do not know how long they will be within the borough and in need of our services. There are issues around education. Do we provide education within the hotel for those children? Clearly, if they were to go into our schools, that is disruption for the school and for the children themselves, as well as for the other children in that school.
So there are a number of other issues that need to be taken into account so that we can look after the children properly. That is why there needs to be more planning on where the asylum seekers are placed, and full co-ordination between the Government and local authorities on this.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Councillor Rachael Robathan: Yes, I think there should be a balanced approach to the whole process. Recognition needs to be made of the services and the housing accommodation that is available in different areas. Clearly, in inner-city areas there is more pressure. For example, the current Afghan refugees that we are seeing tend to have larger families, so there is more of a need for four-bedroom or even five-bedroom properties, which are under more pressure in an inner-city area than in other areas. Some balance needs to be made. Absolutely, in terms of dispersing and further placement, that needs to be balanced.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Councillor Roger Gough: I agree with that. What we have to remember is that there are different schemes for different groups of asylum seekers and others being resettled. The rhetoric that is always applied by central Government and the authorities is a place-based approach. Many of us would say that in practice that does not always work out.
When it comes to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, in Kent we have been vociferous that the scheme should be mandatory. At the moment, the Government are still very much committed to a voluntary scheme. We will have to see how that works out. The Government are seeking to make it work, but we have a view on that.
On adult asylum seekers, part of the difficulty is that you have a very different mechanism being applied and very different responsibilities for the authorities or areas that are taking part. For instance, the south-east is massively under-represented in terms of adult asylum seekers within its population by comparison with, say, the west midlands or the north-west. The problem is not so much that the authorities are unwilling to step up to the plate. It is much more to do with the cost and availability of housing and developing the infrastructure. To some extent, once you have established the infrastructure, it can support more arrivals; it is getting it started that can be the issue. That has generated a slightly vicious circle, in terms of where you get concentrations of asylum seekers. That is something that the Home Office and groups such as the regional migration partnerships were working on over the last couple of years. It was quite a major strand of work prior to the pandemic striking. There is very much a variation.
The other key point, which fits in with what Councillor Robathan has just mentioned, is engagement with local authorities. Many of us would say that the resettlement scheme—what started as the Syrian scheme—has been a great model of very effective engagement with local authorities, and that has been reflected in the fact that authorities across the country have played their part in it. Not all schemes work quite as well.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Councillor Roger Gough: Clearly, it is not welcome that we have another element of this particular picture in a part of the country that very visibly experiences large numbers of arrivals. In a sense, having a presence of this kind in east Kent is not ideal, and we have always been clear—both Kent County Council and our colleagues in the local district council, Folkestone and Hythe—that this is a decision taken by the Home Office, not by the local authorities, and is not something we were in support of.
That said, I think that a great deal of work has been undertaken to seek to address some of the problems that produced the real crisis in and around Napier Barracks in the early part of this year, where we saw some disorder and a significant covid outbreak. Significant steps have been taken on that, although there are still concerns about that facility.
Paul Howell
Q
Councillor Rachael Robathan: Yes, there are certainly some things that we would welcome, although it would be good to see some more detail when the secondary legislation comes forward. Just to back up slightly, a further issue that we have in Westminster, as many of you will be aware, is the significant number of rough sleepers. Our latest count was 171, which is actually fewer than there have been previously. We worked very closely with Government on the Everyone In programme and so on last year, which was very successful, but we still have 70 in a bridging hotel within Westminster, so there is a significant issue around rough sleeping.
Over half of those people have no recourse to public funds. All of the asylum seekers in Westminster have come through the sanctioned route, so they would be in category 1 under this Bill, but one of the concerns for us would be if there is more clarity, if you like, in terms of no recourse to public funds for category 2, whether some of those people who would have no recourse to public funds might slip into rough sleeping. There is always a draw to the centre of Westminster: it is known that an aggressive beggar can make up to £500, or sometimes more, on our streets in Westminster, so if people find themselves on the street, there is an economic pull into the centre. That could lead to increasing numbers within Westminster.
Speaking very specifically about Westminster, the issue is that we then have an issue with tented accommodation, and the point about tented accommodation—I have had a number of meetings with the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice about this—is that there is a very high bar for the police or others to be able to gain entry to the tents. Not only is it difficult to enforce against those who would be illegally there but, much more importantly, it is very difficult to address issues around trafficked women and other people who are on the streets and need support and help, because we are unable to deliver that. That is a concern.
One of the things that we would welcome—I think this has come through in what both Councillor Gough and I have said—is a more organised approach to the way asylum seekers are looked after and accommodated. More planning around the process would help. I think we have also both said that the Afghan resettlement has been much better in terms of being able to have planning and co-ordination with local authorities, so that is something we would welcome.
Also in Westminster, I welcome the measures around modern slavery, but also the greater sanctions to stop people coming back into the country if they have been convicted of criminal activity. Once again, we have people on the streets in Westminster who engage in criminal activity to earn money. That activity is not at a very high level, but they are still things that have a real impact on our residents’ lives. We would welcome the moves around electronic travel authorisation and other measures to make re-entry into the country more difficult for those people who are here to commit criminal activity.
Councillor Roger Gough: I would endorse what Councillor Robathan has said; I agree with all those points. There are a couple of specifics from our side. One slightly begs the question as to how effective the measures will be, ultimately, because others looking at the Bill can judge that better than me. The basic principle of seeking to promote safe and orderly routes at the expense of those that involve things like the small boat routes would be very welcome. There is no doubt, and it has been much emphasised, that that route is very dangerous. It creates a degree of political tension because it is so visible. It is something that we very much wish to avoid. Those issues come home to those of us who are border authorities, particularly in the case of the small boats in areas such as Kent. The measures to try to shift the balance between the two ways in which people get here would in principle be very welcome.
The second area I want to touch on relates to age assessment. Broadly, the direction there seems to me to be a favourable one. The attempt to create a national body, not to carry out or provide support to local authorities, unless it is requested, so much as to provide some consistency and regularity to a very time-consuming process that can wrap up huge amounts of time from very qualified social workers and which often has no very obvious end to it because it is relatively loosely guided, is welcome. Establishing best practice as well as providing support for local authorities, many of which will be less experienced in this area than authorities such as mine, would be very welcome.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Councillor Roger Gough: We are slightly betwixt and between on that. I apologise if I give an answer that may not be quite as definite as you would like. I shall explain why. If we take this year and last year, the very specific pressures that we have been experiencing were rapid increases in the numbers of young people coming into our care, the end result of which was that social work case loads rose far above recommended levels, particularly for the specialist teams dealing with those cases. We also had reception centres that, particularly with the first wave of big pressure last year, were filling rapidly. That was the point at which placing young people in other accommodation was difficult because of the circumstances of the pandemic.
Just to be clear, it is perhaps worth saying that when we talk about unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, historically, these have been adolescent males. Indeed, if you look at last year’s figures, we have very few indeed who were under the age––or stated age––of 16. There was something of a shift in the early part of this year where, from memory, about a fifth of those arriving were of stated age under 16. That tended to push you more towards foster accommodation rather than the semi-independent and other forms of accommodation that we would provide for the 16 and 17-year-olds. That has meant that through the pressures on fostering, and to some extent on other forms of accommodation, we had to place more young people outside the county, and we were certainly heading into that sort of territory at the time when we were closing our doors again in June. That was the biggest area of concern.
One thing that is worth noting, too, and it has a longer lag on it, is care leavers: those who come into our care, or indeed the care of any authority, under the age of 18—they are taken in as children in care—then become care leavers. Councillor Robathan referred to that. Under the changes to legislation that took place three or four years ago, we have a responsibility for them through to the age of 25. While at the moment, we have around 300 under-18s in our care, we have over 1,000 care leavers. In fact, our care leaver service is more ex unaccompanied asylum-seeking children than it is ex Kent children in care. As you can imagine, that generates a number of specific pressures, too. I hope that answers your question. The only reason for my hesitancy at the start was that we have just come out of the period when we were not taking young people into our care, and therefore some of the very large numbers of arrivals that we saw a few weeks ago, of whom typically 10% to 15% would probably be unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, were not having a very direct effect on us at that point. But clearly if those numbers were to continue, we would potentially be in a different situation.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Councillor Roger Gough: First, there is a big variety of views in Kent, as I think there is anywhere. My inbox, my postbag, tells me that about all the issues that are raised, but as I mentioned in my earlier responses, the very visible sense of large numbers of arrivals on the coast has had an effect within the county, and therefore that has made the issue a pressing one. As I say, from a service delivery point of view, for us the most pressing element of it has been to do with the children.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Councillor Roger Gough: On the first question, it is a demand and I cannot quantify it at this moment, but I can give you perhaps some indications. It is a demand on social worker time, so you will tend to see that a typical age assessment involves two experienced social workers, who will carry out interviews. If you just take everything going smoothly, if I could put it that way, that would involve a couple of half-day interviews followed by extensive paperwork, research and then later stages of the process. In practice, and this goes back to my earlier comments about age assessment, there are a number of ways in which the process may well be less smooth running than that. But you need experienced social workers, and one of the areas in which we have worked with the Home Office has been through their support for us in backfilling posts so that experienced social workers can take that role on.
On safeguarding, clearly there is a significant concern—it is quite hard to specify the full details of it—where you have adults in what one would take to be a young person’s space. Clearly, you will have a challenge over those who are, if you like, on the cusp. What happens—this ties in, perhaps, to your third question—is that we have had historically quite large numbers of young people being put through by the Home Office where doubts have been raised by Border Force regarding their age. There are some of whom they would say—interestingly, recent court findings have helped with this process a bit—“Look, this person is definitely, in our view, out of the reasonable range to be considered a child,” and they would be into the adult part of the process.
That can sometimes come back. For instance, where asylum seekers have been placed in hotels elsewhere, disputes about age assessment then come back as an issue for the new local authority. I know of a number of places across the south-east where that has happened, but in our case, there are a number of cases where any local authority, I think, would take the view that, where it is very hard to establish—again, the guidance around this is relatively loose—that a young person is definitely out of that age range, there is precious little point in pursuing that further.
That still leaves you with a material number. At one point, at the height of things, around half the young people who were arriving arrived with doubts raised about them by the Home Office. We would then probably in practice seriously investigate, because it was considered viable to do so, only a portion of those, but they would very often go into cases where the age dispute would be pushed to the point of saying that this was indeed an adult.
Councillor Rachael Robathan: As Councillor Gough said, this is very time consuming. As he stated, almost all of the UASC are late-teen boys, and it can be very difficult at the best of times to tell someone’s age, so it involves a huge amount of time on the part of the local authority. There is a very clear safeguarding issue, because once someone has been accepted as UAS they are put into a child setting—schools and other child settings—where there is a very clear safeguarding issue. That is something that we are all very conscious of, clearly.
The other point, as we said earlier, is that there is an ongoing responsibility to these young people, because the responsibility to support them carries on until they are 25, so if you have someone who presents as a 16-year-old, let us say, that means that you have almost 10 years during which you will support that young person. In terms of ensuring that there is the best use of public funds, which we all know are always very stretched, we need to ensure that the people coming into the system are the ones who really need that support, and who are legitimately there.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Councillor Rachael Robathan: Anything that moves towards a uniform process will greatly help. At the moment, involving the local authorities and putting the responsibility on them is very difficult for what are very often stretched institutions. Having a uniform, joined-up process would be very welcome.
Councillor Roger Gough: Already when you see changes in, for instance, what the courts have found about what is a reasonable basis on which a challenge can be presented by Border Force, as we have seen recently, that has made a huge difference. The proportion of young people coming to us age disputed is significantly lower than it was before that.
When you get changes in the process, it can make a material difference. Authorities like ours are at least experienced in this area, even if we are in the eye of the storm. As dispersal happens, or when, as I mentioned earlier, those who have been placed as adults launch a challenge within their own authority, issues may arise for an authority that is not nearly as well set up to deal with them as we are.
To pick up on the point that Councillor Robathan made, it is worth emphasising what a difference going into the children’s system or the adult system makes. As we have both said, first there are children in care and then there is the care leaver process, all of which, quite properly in their own way, have particular requirements for children’s services departments in authorities. The process around adult dispersal clearly still makes demands on council services, but in the first instance it is a housing-related issue, from which a number of other things follow. It is not quite the same as building in what can be a seven, eight or 10 year process of somebody being part of the children’s services operations of the council.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Councillor Roger Gough: Sorry, could you just run your last point by me again?
Stuart C. McDonald
It just strikes me that a lot of the pressure around these decisions, and perhaps even a degree of cynicism about where a number of age claims fall, arises from the fact that UASC leave, as I understand it, takes young people up to 17 and a half. If UASC leave carried on until 19, 20 or 21 there would be much less pressure, or motivation—if you are cynical about it—to make a claim that you were 15, 16 or 17 than there is now. Would that be a different way to try to go about fixing this?
Councillor Roger Gough: I need to think about this one, but I suspect my answer will probably be that where the pressure arises is not so much on the immigration side of things as in respect of the children’s services obligations. As long as a young person is identified as being of a particular age that, under the current rules, makes them a child in care for the council, that is where the issues for councils arise. As has been mentioned, that takes those involved through to the age of 25 as care leavers. The answer almost certainly is that it is Children Act responsibilities that matter in this case. As you say, there is normally UAS leave to remain, which will then usually transfer over into a five-year leave to remain. In a sense, the age issues tie into Children Act responsibilities.
Stuart C. McDonald
Okay, I will give that some further thought.
Councillor Roger Gough: And so will I.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Councillor Roger Gough: I am certainly more supportive of something that is there to support local authorities and provide more of a framework and a structure, rather than completely taking the process over—I do not think that that is necessarily what would be envisaged. In short, going back to the two points you have posited, you are quite right that safeguarding arguments would cut both ways. What all of us are asking is simply, how do we find a process that is as robust as it can be and that does not have a hugely distorting effect on local authority children’s services departments in terms of their time, their resources and their officers’ commitment?
In terms of the function that this body could have, there is a suggestion that it could support, and take decisions with, authorities who wish it. But the key thing in many ways is that it provides more of a framework within what, at present, is a relatively hazy area of activity. To the degree that you can do that, I think you would make local authorities’ lives easier and better, and they would hopefully provide better services in this area than would otherwise be the case.
Councillor Rachael Robathan: I would largely agree. In terms of your first point, about moving the age higher, I would be wary of introducing a hurdle or age bar that was different from that for other young people in our care. I would be quite wary about introducing a parallel process that has different criteria. I suspect that you might just push the problem forward a few years; then you would have a 19-year-old, but are they really 19 or actually a 22-year-old who is presenting as a 19-year-old? That might move the issue around, rather than addressing it.
I agree with what Councillor Gough said: having a national process that helps local authorities in determining age would be a support. It is not determining the shape of the services that local authorities then deliver; it is basically saying, “This young person qualifies on this age basis to access your services.”
Stuart C. McDonald
We will have to see what the placeholder clauses in the Bill are replaced with, but thank you both very much.
The Chair
If there are no more questions, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witness
Tony Smith gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear evidence from Tony Smith, from Fortinus Global Ltd, who is joining us virtually. We have until 4.30 pm. Could the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Tony Smith: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Tony Smith. I am now an independent international border management consultant, but I am probably better known as a former director general of UK Border Force, with 40 years’ experience of working in the Home Office in immigration and border applications.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Tony Smith: I think there is a broad consensus that the system is broken. I spent a great many years working in the areas of immigration enforcement, border control or immigration control, and asylum. I think what has happened recently has been a new method of gaining entry to the UK. This channel crossing was not an issue in my time. I retired in 2013, and at that time most of our energies were devoted to securing the port of Calais and preventing illegal migrants from concealing themselves in vehicles, to reduce that route.
In some respects, we have been victims of our own success, in that the smugglers will not give up; they constantly try new methods to get around our controls. This method has been used only in the last two or three years; they have found a gap in our defences. I think, therefore, the Bill is right to try to distinguish those asylum seekers that enter in this way—coming across the English channel in small vessels and claiming asylum on arrival—many of whom have spent a good deal of time in another safe third country, from those that are being evacuated by the UNHCR or through the Afghan programme. I think the Bill does that. It does attempt to distinguish the method of entry by redefining article 31 of the refugee convention, and to distinguish those people that are immediately fearing persecution from those that are not, so that we can get back some form of control of that part of our border, which at the moment I fear we have lost.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Tony Smith: Yes, but as I say, I worked in senior positions in the immigration service when we had our really big asylum influx, which was in 2001. I am afraid corporate memory in the Home Office is not all that it might be, but at that time we were on the cusp of introducing the juxtaposed controls in northern France, because over 100,000 came in 2001 and the Government of the day saw it as a priority to reduce asylum intake from France. The effect of the juxtaposed controls was that by moving the UK border to Calais, it was not possible to claim asylum in the UK, because the applicants were not within the jurisdiction, so people were originally coming on forged passports—initially by air and then by ferry—and claiming asylum. Once we introduced those measures, they resorted to concealment in vehicles. We were then able to establish an agreement with our friends in France that we would have a British control zone in France, which would enable us to conduct our own searches in the UK zone. Subsequently, I was involved in a lot of the berthside checks to prevent people pervading through the fences and getting on to the vessels berthside.
We did a lot of work to secure that part of the border and in collaboration with our colleagues in France. That worked in terms of the targets, which were to reduce asylum intake via these methods, coupled with other measures that were taken, such as the third country unit to return people to safe third countries. We had the detained fast track system for manifestly unfounded cases. A lot of these things were tried previously and did work to an extent. As I say, the maritime environment is an extraordinarily complex one, as the Committee will no doubt be hearing, in terms of the complexities of international law and what we can do in our domestic law to manage that. I do think the attempt is a bold one to make this distinction, because I think we are conflating two different issues here, in terms of people who are travelling across between two safe third countries, and those that are genuinely in need of resettlement—of whom the numbers far outweigh the levels that the western world is prepared to take, I am afraid.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Tony Smith: After the first signs of Brexit, we did have an APPG, more on freight rather than people, about what we were going to do about the border with France. I participated in that with some French officials and a number of MPs. The ending of free movement is in itself a significant challenge for that border. There were certainly some overtures from French politicians that they wanted not just to retain the juxtaposed controls but to work with us on joint enforcement measures because they really did not want international organised crime groups working in the Hauts-de-France region. Nor did they want large numbers of irregular migrants, shall we say, who are already in the Schengen zone––as you know, there are no borders in the Schengen zone––effectively migrating into the Hauts-de-France in the hope of being able to get across to the UK.
I did think there was an element of goodwill there, in terms of continuing to work with them, and we have seen some of that. We have persuaded the French police to conduct checks on the beaches and to prevent people boarding small vessels to get across. The difficulty we have is that once they are seaborne, the French position is that they will not intervene because they see this as a search-and-rescue operation, which is covered by international conventions. The migrants do not want to be rescued by the French police or coastguard because they would be taken back to France. They want to be rescued by the UK Border Force. For the UK Border Force, our primary mission at sea ought to be the preservation of life on both sides. Once we bring people aboard a Border Force vessel, they are within our jurisdiction, they can claim asylum and that just fuels the business model that the human smugglers are exploiting.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Tony Smith: I think it is highly dangerous. I am in touch with former colleagues from the Australian Border Force, which is often held up as a model for pushbacks. That was an entirely different model from the one that we are proposing. These are dangerous waterways and very vulnerable vessels. I fear for the worst. We have already had drownings. They are not as well reported as they should be but we have had them. We do not know how many, of course, because bodies have not always been retrieved. We will certainly see the smugglers resort to tactics, as we saw in Australia, such as vessels literally being holed so that they sink and lifejackets being thrown overboard in the trust, hope and expectation that those on board will then be rescued, which we have an international duty to undertake.
The only real way out of this is to come to an accommodation with the French Government, which I have been advocating for some time. There is provision under article 98 of the UN convention on the law of the sea for countries to establish regional arrangements, so it is possible, with political agreement with France, that we could have joint patrols on the English channel. We could have British officers on their vessels and they could put French officers on our vessels, but the premise would be that if you are returned to either side, there is no risk of refoulement because both countries are signatories to the 1951 refugee convention and you would get a full and fair asylum hearing on either side. I do think that is possible, but there is a reluctance on the part of the French Government to go down that road at the moment because they have significant immigration problems of their own. They cannot control their own southern border because they are part of the Schengen group and there is a significant lobby in France saying, “Why would we stop people crossing to the UK when we have plenty of irregular migrants already coming into France?”
Anne McLaughlin
Q
You talked about Australia, which I was going to bring up. I am sure I read recently that Australia also criminalised those who rescued people who were seeking asylum and arriving by boat, but made the exception that if the vessel was not seaworthy they would not be criminalised. I think that is what you referred to when you talked about the traffickers putting holes in the boats so that they became dangerous. That sort of thing assists traffickers now that they know what to do. First, would you caution the UK against making that caveat and perhaps urge it to drop the pushback thing altogether? Would you caution against the criminalisation of people who rescue people at sea?
Tony Smith: We could spend a lot of time talking about the Australian model, which we do not have, but you are talking about a much, much longer stretch of water there. The Australian Border Force—I was down there helping it to set up—took the view that its maritime response was significantly different from ours. The vessels it deployed are significantly different from the UK Border Force cutters. The cutter fleet that we have in the Home Office are legacy Customs cutters. They are not designed to bring people ashore or to process people. They were even processing people on some of the Australian vessels to determine whether they were admissible to the asylum system before they brought them ashore. In the end, they invested in vessels of their own. They could then move the individuals from the unseaworthy vessels that they were encountering into their own vessels that they had purchased and escort them back to Indonesian waters. There was a significant investment by the Australian Government in doing that, which did work, but trying to compare that with what we see on the English channel is a different question.
Yes, of course we should preserve life, and I think the French should do that, too. There is an obligation on both sides of the channel for us to work together to find a way to stop human smugglers. The current model simply demands, “You pay €5,000 to me and I will put you in an unseaworthy vessel, and I really don’t care whether you drown or not because I have got my money.” I am afraid that is the way the mind of the human smuggler operates. They are getting the upper hand, we are seeing numbers going up and we will see more drownings. It is difficult to lay this at the door of the UK Border Force, who have a lot of other pressures on their resources at the moment.
We need to find a way, if we can, of getting common sense to prevail on a joint strategy with France. We already have a significant number of bilateral treaties with the French that have survived Brexit and that would enable us to fix this problem, but I do not think we have been able to find anybody in a senior position in the French Government who would go that far.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
Tony Smith: I would dispute those figures. We are probably about fifth in Europe in terms of asylum intake, but you are right that other countries have more asylum applications every year than we have. That is not necessarily because those numbers have been invited by the EU to go and live there. It is because they are unable to control their own external frontier. Because of the Schengen arrangement, asylum seekers can choose where they would like to go. Many drift north to Scandinavia, Germany, Holland or France, where they would rather be than in some of the southern or eastern European states.
The EU has its own difficulties in determining the allocation of asylum seekers across the Schengen zone because they do not agree among themselves about how they should be distributed. The bigger question is not necessarily a European one but a global one. No doubt you will hear evidence from experts on this. The need for international resettlement is a huge problem. We have seen it in Afghanistan; we have climate change; and we have migratory pressures coming up from South America to the US border. People are going to continue to move in great numbers over the next 20 or 30 years. The question is how the western world is going to cope with that.
I am quite a big fan of the refugee resettlement programme. UNHCR has been going out to western countries for some years saying, “We have 80 million people displaced, and 40 million in different countries in our camps already. These are refugees who have already fled war zones whom we would like you to take.” Even though we were taking only about 5,000 or so, we are still third highest in the world, so we are not really getting to grips with the global challenge of resettling refugees through the resettlement route. It has picked up a bit since Afghanistan, and we are doing more. There is certainly evidence that we are trying to do more, and I think we could become global leaders on refugee resettlement programmes, but it is going to be difficult politically for anyone to sell that when we are seeing uncontrolled migration across the English channel.
It is finding the balance. How can we help to contribute to genuine resettlement for genuine refugees, but at the same time take back control of our borders, which is clearly the Government’s stated intent?
Tom Pursglove
Q
Tony Smith: I do think that. It is absolutely important in all this. While I would not defend the turn back strategy, I can understand why the Government are looking at those kinds of measures to stop the boats. It must be extremely frustrating not to be able to do anything about the ever-increasing numbers, particularly when a succession of Home Secretaries have come in saying that that was what they would do. A number of my successors—civil servants—have given evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, saying that they were going to make the route unviable. I am afraid it is not within their gift to make the route unviable within the current frameworks. One would hope that the new legislation would change things. It certainly changes the dynamic. We can now say, “We know that you arrived by this route. We know that you are not immediately fleeing persecution.”
I am not a big fan of the criminal justice system for migrants. It has not really worked. I am a fan of it for smugglers and facilitators, but putting migrants in prison is not necessarily going to be the answer and will lead to more challenges. The question is how we disrupt the smugglers and break that business model. The only way is to start seeing people going back to France. Then people will see that there is no point putting their life at risk in a small dinghy. There will be no point in more and more of them spreading up to Calais because that business model is broken. The big difficulty for the Government is how to persuade the French that we ought to have a policy like that and negotiate an agreement, and how to counterbalance that with the other problem of significant numbers of people around the world seeking resettlement. How are we going to contribute to responding to that?
Tom Pursglove
Q
Tony Smith: Without a doubt. I support the investment of resources in France, and that is something that we have been doing for a long time now. The French could legitimately say, “Actually, why would you not help us to contribute to border security?” Let us not pretend that the French operational arms, including the police aux frontières, the douanes, the various coastal agencies—I used to talk to them regularly when I was in the job—are not supportive of preventing criminality at an operational level.
We can be quite pleased with the work that we have done to at least try to disrupt the smuggling gangs. Quite a few have been prosecuted on the French side, albeit, sadly, more the middle men rather than the big fish who are behind human smuggling gangs. You will hear from other witnesses more qualified than me to tell you about that level 3 criminality, but it is really difficult. How do we disrupt the business model? It is about deterring people from coming. We owe a duty under the 1951 refugee convention to give refugee status to those who are genuinely in need, but I am not sure that it is the same duty for those who are arriving in this way, from a fellow original signatory to that convention, than those coming through evacuation processes such as we have seen recently in Kabul.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Tony Smith: We lived through this before. We had something called the new asylum model when I was in the UK Border Agency, before taking the top job in the Border Force. Previously, I was regional director for UKBA London and the south-east, which meant that my teams were the ones who were processing asylum arrivals coming into the country. I was actually responsible for removals.
Yes, we did have targets in the Home Office in those days for enforcement. It was part of my mission to ensure that those who did not qualify to stay, either because they had arrived under safe third country rules, or they were coming on a manifestly unfounded route, were sent back. The trouble is we have seen a good deal of judicial overreach by the European Court of Justice, and significant interpretations and European directives, which kind of hindered those arrangements on returns. We have now got to a point where we are not really returning anybody who is coming across on these boats, and people notice that. If we do not start returning people, the numbers will continue to rise. We need to find a way of segmenting those applicants who we know have a genuine claim for asylum in this country from those who have probably been in Europe for a long time and may have had applications for asylum rejected—they have had a notice de quitter from Schengen, sometimes two or three notices—who are not genuine asylum seekers but who would just like to come to live here. That is not effective border control.
It is going to be really, really difficult, but I applaud the authors of the Bill, because it finally gets to grips with the difficulty of the way we have interpreted the 1951 refugee convention and put up what I think is the right interpretation of it in not conflating two different arguments, which is human smuggling across the English channel by criminal gangs, putting lives at risk, and the genuine need to resettle refugees from different parts of the world.
Jonathan Gullis
Q
Tony Smith: That is a great question. It is called the pull factor. A number of books have been written by people probably better qualified than I am that talk about what that pull factor is. I think there are number of reasons why people would quite like to live in the UK rather than in mainland Europe. Personally, I think the main one is communities. We have a significantly diverse range of communities across the UK where people can feel comfortable in terms of getting the support they need. We are generous—I would not say very generous—in our treatment of asylum seekers. We have hosted conferences in places like Hungary and Croatia—countries where, if you were to ask asylum seekers, they would probably say that you do not get a very good deal from the Government who are supposed to be protecting your welfare, whereas you will get that in the UK; you will also get good legal representation and a very full hearing. These are all things that we should be very proud of, but I think inevitably it does mean that more people want to come to the UK.
The other element is language. English is the second language for many, many people from different parts of the world, which means that this is still—you might not believe it—a very desirable place to come and live. People are prepared to pay a good deal of money to get here on the basis that not only would they have a better life if they came here, but their broader family would have a better life. It is a genuine aspiration for a lot of people.
That is the nature of immigration and border controls. There will be a dividing line. You are going to create legislation and a set of rules. You are going to get people in front of you who do not want any border at all and who think we should let everybody in. You are going to get other people here who want to build a fortress around Britain. That has always been the case, but in 40 years at the Home Office—I was one of those civil servants who stayed in the Department; I did not bounce around Whitehall like they do nowadays—I never once worked for any Government who said that they were prepared to approach a fully open border and free movement across our borders. In fact, the vast majority have sought to tighten up our immigration and borders system, or at least to make it firmer but fairer.
We cannot lose sight of the firmness bit. There will be a need to arrest people, and there will be a need to deport people. That does not sit well, does it? It does not feel nice, but if you are going to have an effective border control, you have to be able to enforce your laws. At the moment, there is a feeling that with this particular cohort, we are not really doing any enforcement at all.
Jonathan Gullis
Q
The Chair
Mr Smith, if you could hold your answer to that question, I am going to try to bring in Paul Howell as well.
Paul Howell
Q
Tony Smith: I particularly welcome the distinction between those people who are entering the country from safe third countries, with the new interpretation of article 31 where we can actually test whether they face an immediate fear of persecution in the circumstances under which we find them, and those who are genuinely fleeing persecution coming through refugee resettlement routes. I think that is the part that I favour the most.
The other thing we will have to consider is whether we will have to establish proper arrangements for the reception of people coming via this route. The facilities in Tug Haven—I do not know whether the Committee has been there—are appalling. We have a marquee there and we have Border Force officers changing nappies and ordering pizzas because we simply do not have the infrastructure to cope with these numbers. Other countries at least provide sensible, safe accommodation. You are going to hear lots of evidence about the circumstances at Napier Barracks. There is a real problem in the Home Office right now about being able to manage the proper reception of these people, whether or not we allow them to stay.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
The Chair
Sorry, Stuart, but I am going to break in here so that we can get an answer. Mr Smith, you have 30 seconds.
Tony Smith: The Dublin convention never worked. It certainly did not work with France even when we were in the EU. In fact, we were in the EU when some of the boats started coming. They still would not take anybody back because it relied on a flawed policy framework. I stand by what I say about the criminal justice system, because we have tried this many times before and people do not fear prison. What they fear is not achieving their ultimate ambition, which is to get settlement in the UK. That is where we need to focus our minds.
The Chair
I am afraid that brings us to the end of the allotted time for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witness on behalf of the Committee and we move on to our next witness.
Examination of Witness
Rob Jones gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear oral evidence from Rob Jones, director of threat leadership at the National Crime Agency. What a great job title. We have until 5.15 pm. Will the witness please introduce himself for the record?
Rob Jones: My name is Robert Jones. I am one of the operational directors at the National Crime Agency. I tackle all the serious organised crime threats and my particular interest in this is that I tackle organised immigration crime as one of the national priority threats that the agency deals with.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rob Jones: Obviously, there is a lot of interest in the small boats business model. I will talk about the whole route first and then focus on small boats. For some time, we have operated with our international liaison network and international partners to try to deal upstream from the UK with smuggling gangs that are targeting the UK for profit. That is a big part of what we do. That has involved targeting people who use high-risk methods of clandestine entry, where they pack people into concealments in lorries and move them overland from as far afield as Turkey, typically via an overland route.
For a variety of reasons, beginning in 2018 over the Christmas period, we have seen a movement towards the use of the small boats business model to execute clandestine entry into the UK. That has been driven by a number of factors. Obviously, during the period of lockdown when we had a long period of benign weather, almost perfect conditions and the traffic through the Schengen area and traditional border crossings was supressed, we saw those same smuggling gangs recognising an opportunity and beginning to exploit the small boats model.
Our stated intent is to disrupt as much of this as far away from the UK as possible. That means operating in a range of different environments, which we do. We also work very closely with French, Belgian and German authorities to try to disrupt smuggling gangs that are much closer to home. The emphasis, particularly post exit and particularly because of small boats, on that relationship in the near continent is ever more important. The centre of gravity for small boats is not in the UK; it is in France, Germany, Belgium and further afield.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rob Jones: When we can identify crime groups in the UK, we target them and we use a range of investigative tactics to bring them to justice and take them through the criminal justice system. A big part of what we do is intelligence collection, where we share intelligence about known smuggling gangs with overseas partners. We do that very effectively with the French through a joint unit that we set up; we also work with German and Belgian partners in a similar bilateral way. Crucially, if we have lead intelligence that a boat is being supplied to a smuggling gang, an engine is being supplied to a smuggling gang, or smugglers are moving migrants to lay-up points where they are then going to be involved in small boats crossing, we pass on that intelligence as quickly as possible for action to prevent that crossing from happening. The stated intent for all of this is to prevent loss of life. Our biggest concern is a mass casualty event in the English channel, so everything we do is driven by that article 2 responsibility.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rob Jones: We work closely with national policing and we are one of the first responders for dealing with modern slavery, so we proactively investigate controllers and traffickers who keep people in debt bondage in the UK, and we bring them to justice through the criminal justice system. Through our liaison network, we also try to disrupt that threat further afield. That work has led to some powerful results through Project Aidant, where we worked with policing partners to look at things thematically. You talked about sexual exploitation, and with that, forced labour and all the areas that form the modern slavery threat, and we operate against them to try to disrupt them. That involves encountering victims, setting up reception centres and dealing with the victims of trafficking as well as with the perpetrators who keep them in debt bondage.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rob Jones: Some victims disclose relatively quickly. We recognise that others will not and that there are some people who, because of their level of vulnerability, need safeguarding and will need time before they can talk about their experiences. What I would say about the legislation and proposed changes is that we now have a national system for recognising the victim engrained. I do not see any of this changing that. First responders have become very good at recognising a victim, and we have significantly improved the picture nationally with national policing. In the victim-suspect paradigm, what are you dealing with? The intent is always to recognise the victim as quickly as possible. I recognise that it takes some time and is not straightforward.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rob Jones: A range of different scenarios. Many of these people are in debt bondage and there is leverage on their families, or they have already committed to working in an area that might be illegal, such as cannabis cultivation. It is a complex area, but we have a lot of experience of dealing with it and we deal with victims very carefully to ensure that we get the safeguarding right and whatever intelligence dividend we can.
You mentioned small boats in the context of modern slavery, so to deal with that really quickly, it does not really lend itself to the typical exploitation model. That said, we have seen some evidence of some nationalities coming through on small boats where there are some signs of that business model being used. I say it does not lend itself to that business model because these people are coming pretty much straight into the asylum system and to first responders. Traffickers do not like that; they do not want it. They would prefer those individuals to arrive in a truly clandestine fashion, so that they are not met by first responders and debriefed.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rob Jones: Potentially. I am not saying that it does not happen at all, but that business model does not lend itself to trafficking as much as it does to organised immigration crime.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rob Jones: This is a really difficult area. In the practical application of those provisions, it is really important that the level of oversight we have now is maintained. The other side of that coin is that you need to ensure that the defences available to people involved as victims in modern slavery are not abused. We see both sides of this. Our tactical advisers and expert witnesses disprove false claims from people claiming to be the victims of slavery and support legitimate claims. It is really important that the system maintains its credibility by having some appropriate tension and challenge without undermining victims.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rob Jones: It is recognising victims, understanding what is in front of you and making sure that you are consistent in applying safeguarding where it is needed.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rob Jones: This is inherently challenging: 150 km of coastline and it is not a canalised control point, so it is not like juxtaposed controls. The level of ambition required to tackle this is similar to that required to set up juxtaposed controls. The Le Touquet agreement set up what was then an unprecedented system for joint controls over immigration, and indeed customs. Where we find ourselves now is that we work really closely with the French on meeting that challenge.
Ultimately, it is for French law enforcement to deal with those departures and, from our perspective, our intent is to make sure that the disruption of departures is as far away from beaches as possible. That means that smuggling gangs are disrupted away from beaches and that the French do not have to chase migrants on beaches. That is not the best way to do this. It is an intelligence-led, planned response. That is the aspiration of the relationship with the French, which we build on every day with colleagues in the Clandestine Threat Command from immigration enforcement. Dealing with people who are leaving a border that is not controlled in the way that a typical border would have been controlled is inherently challenging. Those controls need to push back inland from the border, so that there is an intelligence-led proactive response. The French are working very closely with us to try to achieve that.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rob Jones: We are, absolutely. We have very positive relationships with those countries. The supply of boats to northern France and of engines in the infrastructure that supports these crossings is something that those partners can help us with.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Rob Jones: We know that that route is more and more attractive to organised crime. That is why we need to break the momentum that is pushing the viability of that route. People who are involved in the facilitation of migrants are also involved in drug trafficking and other serious organised crime. We have seen that polycriminality with HGV companies that will one day smuggle drugs and another day smuggle migrants.
One of the good things about these provisions is that they, to coin a phrase, level up the sentencing for people involved in the facilitation of migrants with that for those who are dealt with for drug trafficking. It cannot be right that, at the moment, if you smuggle 20 kg of class A drugs, you could face a life sentence, but if you conceal 20 people in a false floor in a lorry, which is one of the things that we encounter at the border, it is 14 years. Some of the provisions here, including the life sentence for facilitation, are a useful deterrent that we feel will help with that broader organised crime threat where some of this money is reinvested in other crimes.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Rob Jones: That is another helpful element that has, we hope, a deterrent effect. Criminality linked to the western Balkans, and really determined people who will be deported and then engage in a merry-go-round using false ID cards and clandestine entry to come back to the UK to continue committing crime, is something that we need to deal with. Those provisions would be helpful in that context.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Rob Jones: It is now recognised by organised crime groups as something that can generate a lot of revenue quickly. The previous witness talked about pull and push factors. The UK is a very attractive destination, and people will pay significant amounts of money—thousands of pounds—to smugglers. As we move forward with more pressure—we have seen what has played out with Afghanistan—and with more irregular migrants moving, there is the opportunity for organised crime to capitalise on that. Having a strong deterrent and being able to project our response and deal with organised crime groups upstream is really important to us, because there will be more and more pressure on the system, which inevitably will be exploited by smuggling gangs.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Rob Jones: Absolutely, with the normalisation of clandestine entry, where people are allowed to hide in a crowd. When this problem began, a big day was 100. We are now looking at a big day as being over 700. Within that, you get an increased risk that people will enter the country in a truly clandestine fashion. The more that you can do to offer safe and legal routes, and to disincentivise the business model through deterrents and a range of provisions, the more effective we can be at tackling the organised crime element, because we can then concentrate on the worst groups, which pose the highest risk and will potentially be moving people with a criminal history, whom we are most concerned about.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Rob Jones: There has been some progress. We have been working constantly with the social media companies to get a better response, and to ensure that their platforms are not being used to promote dangerous crossings, and there is progress. We are working in a voluntary environment. We are, in some ways, short of regulation, particularly in relation to this element, but we continue to work with those companies on a day-to-day basis to take material down. That response has improved. It is still not as good as I would like it to be, and we are working to an action plan where we have a common agreement of standards in terms of takedown and our aspiration to prevent adverse outcomes in the English channel, which is ultimately what this is all about. It has got better. It is not as good as it could be. Your point on encryption and some of the closed spaces that we cannot see that are being used to promote these crossings remains an issue for us.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Rob Jones: Obviously, we welcome the Online Safety Bill and its passage. It is a complex area, and only some of this can be dealt with in the Bill. We still require platforms and technology companies to be responsible, because however far regulation takes us, we still need the platforms to understand who is using them and to ensure that they are not being abused by organised crime figures, who are making money out of desperate people.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Rob Jones: This is a shared endeavour. I say that the centre of gravity for the organised crime element of this is in France—that is really important—so building on the partnership with France in order to deal with the issue is really important, and we continue to do that. We are also working with partners across Europe and developing those relationships. The factors that surround this, many of which are touched on in the Bill—safe and legal routes, the deterrents effect and so forth—are all important, because there is no silver bullet here. Because of the pull factors, the incentive for organised crime remains, and that is what we are trying to deal with by tackling the problem upstream. It is a range of all those factors, which need concurrent effort, and you cannot underestimate the need for the French to prevent departures in order to allow space for other measures, such as the organised crime element being tackled, to actually kick in and make a difference.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Rob Jones: I understand the point you make, but in relation to illegal entry, you do need an offence and you do need to be able to deal with it. None of that should create the issues that you describe, if the legislation is applied judicially and proportionately, and with properly trained people. I say that because we still have a position at the moment whereby, in relation to illegal entry, there is a difference between entry and arrival. In a maritime scenario, that is really unhelpful. It is not helpful for the safety of the migrants who could be on a smuggler’s boat, and it is not helpful for law enforcement.
One of the things that the proposal suggests is tidying up the position around arrival and entry for illegal entry, which is quite important. I recognise what you describe, but the NCA would never be involved in uniformed border control, where the mass criminalisation that you describe as a risk is something that would be the net impact of what we do. We are intelligence-led and deal with organised crime. Looking at it from that angle, I can see the benefit of those measures.
Stuart C. McDonald
Sure, but our concern is that that is exactly what the Bill does, and obviously we will hear evidence from UNHCR and various others who have that concern as well. Thank you for your evidence.
Paul Blomfield
Q
You talked about the factors that had led smuggling gangs and others to move from lorry and train crossings to boat crossings. We heard from witnesses earlier that we blocked off the opportunity to board lorries through the fortifications around terminals, which was one of the factors that pushed people to the more desperate route of boats. The Home Office’s own impact assessment of the Bill says that there is a serious risk that these measures could encourage people to attempt even riskier routes. Do you think that is a factor we should bear in mind?
Rob Jones: Displacement, in terms of protecting security measures, is always a potential second-order consequence. Organised crime is flexible, and we will respond to that. In terms of where we are at now with the general maritime threat, this does need dealing with. We are trying to second guess where people will go next. We had a terrible mass casualty event in Purfleet, where people were locked into a fridge box. We have had fatalities in the channel already, so we know just how ruthless some of the individuals involved are. We are trying to second guess where they may go next. We already know that bigger vessels have been used, and some of these tactics we have spoken about are important in dealing with bigger vessels.
I think we have pretty much got to the point now where a lot of the tactics and trade craft used in the eastern Mediterranean and other areas of the world are now being deployed in high-risk clandestine entry to the UK. That risk has already manifested itself. We need to live with it, confront it and deal with it, because it is happening now. With the numbers that we see and some of the vessels that are in the channel, we do need to do something different. It has grown to the point where you now have 50 or 60 people in vessels that are not licensed and that are taped together with plywood floors. That is, unfortunately, going to end one way unless it is disrupted, so it does need a second look.
On the displacement point, yes, it is a risk, but where is it? We are now living with a range of tactical options from smugglers that pretty much covers all of the modes. The riskiest one right now is, unfortunately, the English channel and small boats.
Paul Blomfield
Q
Rob Jones: That would certainly help our efforts, which are always going to be against the subset of the threat of a small number of individuals that are at the higher end of organised crime. That is going to be much more effective if some of those push and pull factors are not there anymore and if the incentivisation of the business model is taken away.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
Rob Jones: Thankfully, that is a policy issue, which I do not need to deal with. It is for others to deal with. I can give you my perspective on the impact of tackling organised crime. In relation to the other factors, it is helpful. No doubt, those considerations are under way, but that question is best asked to others.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
Rob Jones: Concurrent pressure against all of the factors that create a scenario in which thousands of people cross the channel in unsafe boats is absolutely something we need to.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witness for his evidence.
Question put, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Craig Whittaker.)
Nationality and Borders Bill (First sitting)
Tuesday 21st September 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 September 2021 - (21 Sep 2021)
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before we begin, I have a couple of preliminary announcements. I encourage Members to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members emailed their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk. Any doubt about that, please ask the Clerk at the end. We must ensure that Hansard gets the notes. Please ensure that all your mobile phones are switched to silent. I remind Members that tea and coffee are not allowed in Committee. If you want to have coffee, you have to go outside the Committee Room. Date Time Witness Tuesday 21 September Until no later than 11.25 am British Red Cross Tuesday 21 September Until no later than 2.45 pm Immigration Services Union; Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants Tuesday 21 September Until no later than 3.15 pm Derbyshire Police Tuesday 21 September Until no later than 4.00 pm Kent County Council; Westminster Council Tuesday 21 September Until no later than 4.30 pm Fortinus Global Ltd Tuesday 21 September Until no later than 5.15 pm National Crime Agency Thursday 23 September Until no later than 12.15 pm Migration Watch Thursday 23 September Until no later than 12.45 pm The Hon George Brandis QC; High Commissioner for Australia to the United Kingdom Thursday 23 September Until no later than 2.30 pm United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees Thursday 23 September Until no later than 3.15 pm Siobhán Mullally, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons; Dame Sara Thornton, Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner Thursday 23 September Until no later than 4.00 pm Refugee Council; Refugee Action; Women for Refugee Women Thursday 23 September Until no later than 5.00 pm EPCAT; European Network on Statelessness; Immigration Law Practitioners Association
Today, we will consider the programme motion on the amendment paper. We will then consider the motion to enable the reporting of written evidence for publication and the motion to allow us to deliberate in private about our questions before the oral sessions begin. In view of the time available, I would like to take those matters formally. I have discussed it with the Minister and he agrees. I call him to move the programme motion standing in his name, which was discussed yesterday by the Programming Sub-Committee.
Ordered,
That—
1. the Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.25 am on Tuesday 21 September) meet—
(a) at 2.00 pm on Tuesday 21 September;
(b) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 23 September;
(c) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 19 October;
(d) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 21 October;
(e) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 26 October;
(f) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 28 October;
(g) at 9.25 am and 2.00 pm on Tuesday 2 November;
(h) at 11.30 am and 2.00 pm on Thursday 4 November;
2. the Committee shall hear oral evidence in accordance with the following Table:
3. proceedings on consideration of the Bill in Committee shall be taken in the following order: Clauses 1 to 8; Schedule 1; Clauses 9 to 21; Schedule 2; Clauses 22 to 26; Schedule 3; Clauses 27 to 39; Schedule 4; Clauses 40 and 41; Schedule 5; Clauses 42 to 71; new Clauses; new Schedules; remaining proceedings on the Bill;
4. the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 5.00 pm on Thursday 4 November.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
On a point of order, Sir Roger. On the initial list of witnesses there were some Home Office officials. On the present list, there are no Home Office officials, which makes it much harder for the Opposition to scrutinise the Bill. We had certain questions that we wished to pose to Home Office officials. I put it on the record that they were initially on the list of witnesses but are no longer there.
The Chair
That is not strictly a matter for the Chair; it is a matter for the usual channels. That should be discussed between the Government and Opposition Whips. I had better ask for the relevant parties to do that privately, and to have a conversation with you. It is not something, I am afraid, that I can adjudicate, but you have made your point. The opportunity to discuss it was at the Programming Sub-Committee yesterday, where it should properly have been raised. It was not raised on that occasion.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Further to that point of order, Sir Roger. I may have raised it had the Programming Sub-Committee started at the time it was supposed to start. I arrived yesterday a minute before the start time, and the sub-committee had finished its work. I was going to make the point that Government witnesses had disappeared. We have now lost a couple of hours, and the opportunity for other witnesses to give evidence. I wanted to put it on the record that I was disappointed not to be able to make that point yesterday.
The Chair
The sub-committee was quorate when it started yesterday. Members are expected to be there in a timely fashion. I think that I am right in saying that we started on the nose of the time at which we were supposed to start. I take your point, but again it is a matter for the usual channels, not the Chair.
Resolved,
That, subject to the discretion of the Chair, any written evidence received by the Committee shall be reported to the House for publication.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Resolved,
That, at this and any subsequent meeting at which oral evidence is to be heard, the Committee shall sit in private until the witnesses are admitted.—(Tom Pursglove.)
The Chair
We are now sitting in public, and proceedings are being broadcast. Before we start hearing from the witnesses, do any Members wish to make a declaration of interests in connection with this Bill? Then, as a matter of record, there are no declarations of interest.
Good morning, Mr Featonby. We will now hear oral evidence from Jon Featonby, who is the policy and advocacy manager for refugees and asylum at the British Red Cross. Before calling Mr Charalambous to ask the first question, I remind Members that questions should be limited to matters within the scope of the Bill, and that we have to stick to the timings in the programme motion that the Committee has agreed. As such, we have just under one hour for this session, until 11.25 am. Mr Featonby, I have introduced you, but could you please introduce yourself for the record?
Jon Featonby: I am Jon Featonby. I am the policy and advocacy manager for refugees and asylum at the British Red Cross.
The Chair
Thank you very much indeed for taking the trouble and the time to join us this morning.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Jon Featonby: I will start off by saying that as the British Red Cross, we very much welcome this opportunity to give evidence to the Committee today, but the short answer to that question is that we do not think the Bill is going to meet those objectives at all. To build on that a bit, we take that from our role as the largest independent provider of advice and support to refugees and people seeking asylum in the UK. We work with around 30,000 people each year in all four countries of the UK, supporting people throughout the asylum process, from when they first enter it to when they get decisions, and in making decisions about what happens next. Through that work, we see that there are three key elements of an asylum system. First, it must be safe for people to access it; secondly, it must be fair and efficient and make decisions in a timely way and, thirdly, those people who are in the system, while they are in the system, should receive the advice and support they need.
At the moment, there are a number of challenges to that, as shown by the number of people taking dangerous journeys to reach the UK, the increasing backlog in asylum decision making and the length of time people are having to wait for a decision on their application. There are also challenges that local authorities, organisations such as our own and, importantly, people in the system face in terms of the support they receive, whether that is support with accommodation, mental health or other areas. We believe those should have been some of the priorities for both this piece of legislation and the new plan for immigration that runs alongside it.
That work is also informed by the people we work with. We run the VOICES Network, which is a group of people with lived experience of the asylum system. They were among those who gave evidence to the Government during the consultation on the new plan, and when we speak to them about this legislation, one of their key messages, as people who have made that dangerous journey, is that there is nothing in the Bill or in the new plan that would have changed the decisions they made.
We absolutely agree that there are too many people making those dangerous journeys; we want to see a reduction in the number of people making dangerous journeys in small boats across the channel as much as anybody else does, but we do not believe the measures in the Bill will do that.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Jon Featonby: There is no simple answer to that; as the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, there is no silver bullet for many of these challenges. If there were, I am sure some country would already have come up with it. However, there are some key things that the Red Cross believes could be explored further.
The expansion of safe routes for people seeking protection is prime among those things. We welcome the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme announced recently. The UK has a good recent record of providing resettlement places, and we believe that on top of that Afghan resettlement scheme there is the need for a wider global scheme. There is the UK resettlement scheme, the successor to the Syrian resettlement programme, but there is no annual quota for that. On top of that 5,000 commitment for the Afghan scheme we would like to see an additional 5,000 for the global scheme.
We also call for refugee family reunion. One of the core bits of work that the Red Cross does in the UK is support refugees being reunited with their family members. As the new plan for immigration stated, family reunion is currently the largest safe route for people to get to the UK. Over the five years to 2019, 29,000 people arrived in the UK through refugee family reunion, compared with 25,000 through resettlement over the same period.
From what we see in our work supporting families, as much as that reunion is a moment of joy for so many people, there are other families whom the current rules do not allow to reunite. One of the prime examples is that the rules do not cater for adult dependent children. A parent in the UK who has refugee status can sponsor their parent, their partner or spouse and any children under the age of 18 to come and join them, but we see that often there are people whose child may have turned 18 or 19, potentially while they were in the asylum process, who face a difficult decision about whether they leave that child overseas, or just do not bring any of their family to come and join them.
We believe the Bill is an opportunity to expand the rules. One of our key concerns about the Bill, in clause 10 on the differential treatment of refugees, is that there is potential for family reunion to be limited, although the Bill does not quite state how.
Alongside those safe routes, we recognise that the UK cannot alone solve all those issues. However, it has a vital role to play internationally, ensuring that no matter where people are after they have been forced to flee their home, they can access protection systems, whether in the UK, France, Germany or close to the countries from which they first leave.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Jon Featonby: The starting point for the British Red Cross is that people’s protection should be based on their protection needs, and not on how they have entered the UK. Clause 10 provides a power that would move away from that and treat people on the basis of how they arrive in the country. It is difficult to ascertain what some of the impact would be, because clause 10 just creates a power for that to be introduced later in the immigration rules. Certainly, our concern is that the list of the ways in which leave can be differentiated for those people recognised as refugees is an example list and non-exhaustive, and there is therefore scope within the immigration rules to follow for that differentiated treatment to be undertaken in a much wider way.
In terms of the impact of that differentiated treatment, which I am sure falls within the Bill’s aim to deter people from making dangerous journeys, we certainly do not believe that it will do that. From the people we work with, we know it is rare for people making those journeys—even if they have any element of choice over where they are going to end up—to have any clear idea about what their rights and entitlements will be when they arrive, so we do not believe it would deter dangerous journeys.
We also believe there would be negative impacts from some of the ways people’s leave will be differentiated. Some of that concern draws on the evidence from Australia, which has used temporary protection visas, similar to those that clause 10 would allow to be introduced, on and off for the past two decades. One of the key findings is that that has increased the insecurity people feel when they have that protection status. This is a group of people who will have been recognised as refugees by the UK Government, but one way they will be treated differently is that those who have arrived irregularly will only get temporary protection for maybe two and a half years, which will then be extendable at each point.
The lack of security around that has an impact on not only people’s mental health, but their prospects for integration and their ability to get jobs and rebuild their lives. Employers looking at that type of temporary leave are less likely, we believe, to employ that person, compared with somebody who might have indefinite leave to remain, as a refugee arriving under the resettlement programme would have.
I have already mentioned our concerns about the potential impact on family reunion. It is important to note that those people arriving in the UK through family reunion are predominantly women and children; 90% of all family reunion visas currently granted are to women and children. Limiting access to family reunion for the refugee in the UK is taking away a safe route for his—in most cases—wife and children to be able to come and join him. The evidence from Australia was that where that happened, it incentivised and increased the number of dangerous journeys being made by women and children, which is something the British Red Cross believes should absolutely be avoided.
One of the other potential routes for differentiation is giving those people granted refugee status no access to public funds. Most of the refugees we support struggle when they are first granted status, and one of the main groups of people we support across all our services in the UK is people who are destitute, at all stages of the asylum process. Around one third of the people we have supported in our destitution services over the past year are people with refugee status, and often that is because they fall into the gap between Home Office and local authority support when they are first granted status and the Home Office support ends.
Without giving people access to the social security and welfare system, you risk embedding some of that destitution at that point as well. Not only is that bad for those individuals, putting them at great risk, but it puts extra pressures on local authorities. We see that within our services at the moment.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Jon Featonby: The issues with accommodation and the challenges the Home Office faces in providing it are well known and serious, and there is no simple solution to many of them. Some of the problems around the shortage of accommodation were caused by the covid pandemic. We welcome the Home Office’s move at the start of the pandemic not to evict people from asylum accommodation, but that obviously meant that fewer people were moving through the system.
Some of the challenges with the dispersal system and the shortage of housing are also caused by the increasing backlog in asylum decision making. There are now around 70,000 people waiting for an initial decision, the majority of whom have been waiting longer than six months. That includes people from places such as Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq and Eritrea, who will almost certainly go on to get refugee status, but the lack of throughput in the system has created that pressure. Several Members on this Committee represent areas that do great work hosting people through the dispersal system, but we do not think the Bill will do anything to help them.
The accommodation centres in clause 11 are part of the response to that pressure. As you rightly said, the Red Cross has raised concerns around some of the Ministry of Defence sites that have been used over the last year, and their suitability for people seeking asylum. In particular, we were operational in Penally Barracks in south Wales when that was open, and we continue to support people in Napier.
From our experience, we think that the best way to accommodate people while they are in the asylum system is within communities. They can feel a part of those communities and receive the support that they need. It is also beneficial for those communities, in terms of social cohesion. That relates to some of the negative impacts that we have seen, where people have been accommodated in some of the military barracks.
We also have some concerns about the way that clause 11 currently works. Reading the explanatory notes, what seems to be happening is that, rather than the Bill itself setting out the framework for an accommodation centre, it relies on the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. That legislation was passed almost 20 years ago during a very different time: asylum applications were far higher, the length of time that people waited for a decision was far shorter, and far fewer people were then getting positive decisions after going through that system.
The 2002 Act has quite a few concerning aspects, including not allowing children in accommodation centres to access local authority schools. We see that as being quite serious. It may well be that the idea behind the centres, and the Government’s proposed use of the centres, would include families or children being accommodated there, but that is not clear from what is currently in the Bill. The Bill does, however, change the 2002 Act around some of the limits on the length of time that people can stay in one of those accommodation centres. Currently, under the 2002 Act, somebody in an accommodation centre could only be accommodated there for up to six months. The Bill gives the Home Secretary the power to increase that length of time.
It is noteworthy that, in the recent special development order, which was laid before Parliament to extend the use of Napier Barracks by an additional five years, one of the ways in which the Home Office changed the operation of that site was to limit the length of time that somebody could stay there to 90 days. Therefore, we would certainly see that one of the safeguards around the use of accommodation centres would be to limit the length of time that somebody could stay there, rather than extending it.
The Chair
I must offer other Members the opportunity to ask questions. I will come back to you if there is time, Mr Charalambous.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jon Featonby: There are 71 clauses and four schedules in this Bill. As far as we can see, from our reading of the Bill, there is one clause that directly targets people smugglers themselves. That is the clause extending the criminal sentence for somebody convicted of that to a life sentence. We absolutely welcome that tightening of people smuggling. We absolutely believe that one approach that the Government should continue to take is in targeting those people smugglers who take advantage of people trying to seek safety.
Our concern is about the other aspects of the Bill, which seem to be more about trying to deter people from making those dangerous journeys. As I said earlier, we do not believe that those clauses will have that impact.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jon Featonby: It is not clear that they have had any impact. I suppose that you could rightly say that one of the things the Bill does through clause 14 is move the current inadmissibility rules, which are in the immigration rules, into primary legislation. Those have been in force since 1 January, replacing what was the Dublin system, which the UK was part of when it was a member of the European Union.
Since those rules were introduced, 4,500 notices of intent have been issued to individuals. When somebody first arrives in the UK’s asylum process, they are interviewed by a member of the Home Office at the initial stage. Then, if, for whatever reason—there are five potential reasons—the Home Office believes that that person’s asylum claim may be inadmissible in the UK’s asylum system, a notice of intent is issued to that person at that instance. At that point, the person’s asylum claim is still live, but it does not go any further. There are no interviews and it is not substantively considered by the Home Office. The guidance that was introduced by the change in rules then gives the Home Office six months to try to get a return agreement in place, or to look further at that person’s claim to try to work out whether that claim is inadmissible.
What we have not seen since the beginning of this year is a decrease in the number of people making dangerous journeys. It is not apparent to us that it has deterred people. However, because of that in-built six-month delay, it has further increased the delays that people already face while waiting for a decision on their asylum claims.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jon Featonby: We pay tribute to the local authorities that are part of the dispersal scheme. We work very closely alongside them, and the ones that we work with are very proud of the roles that they play. However, we also recognise that the local authorities that support people are under quite a lot of pressure. There are not enough local authorities currently taking part in the dispersal system, and we encourage more to do so and believe that that should be a priority for the Home Office.
One of the problems with the increased delay, whether it is caused by the inadmissibility rules or by wider decision-making delays, is that people are left in limbo in the asylum system longer, unable to work and reliant on the Home Office for support. There is then a negative impact on people who do go on to get refugee status, on their ability to integrate and to stand on their own feet; they are more likely to have to rely on local authority support for a longer period.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Jon Featonby: It is well known, and it was mentioned in the equality impact assessment published at the beginning of the week, that the cost of the asylum system has increased significantly over the last year. While we are not aware of a breakdown of the drivers of that cost, it is likely that a lot of it has been driven by the increased pressure on asylum accommodation, and in particular the increased use of hotels over the last year or so. One of the quickest ways to reduce that cost would be to get people moving through the system much faster again—making those decisions and reducing the pressures on the accommodation system.
Because the Bill will not deter people or reduce the number of people entering the asylum system—if anything, it is just going to increase some of the delays in the system—there is a danger that it will increase the overall cost. It is unknown at the moment what the cost of the accommodation centres might be. A contract notice was issued in August saying that they will potentially accommodate up to 8,000 people, but there is very little known about the cost of that.
Stuart C. McDonald
I know colleagues will have other questions on provisions relating to the asylum system. Does the Red Cross want to speak about the provisions relating to modern slavery or statelessness?
Jon Featonby: One of the roles of the Red Cross in the UK is that we work alongside police forces when they undertake anti-trafficking raids to disrupt situations of exploitation; we are there to work alongside police forces and local authorities to support people at those points. We also support people who have gone through the national referral mechanism and been found to be survivors of modern slavery in terms of what happens next—to support them with their onward journeys.
The Modern Slavery Act 2015 was definitely a landmark change. It has very much changed the way the UK has responded—it has improved it. We know from our work with other Red Cross national societies around the world that the UK is now seen as an international leader through that legislation. We are concerned, though, that this is an immigration Bill that contains a large modern slavery element; there is a danger that part 4 moves away from protection as a first port of call in cases of modern slavery. In particular, when we set up reception centres at anti-trafficking raids, we found that the vast majority of people who are taken out of situations of exploitation do not enter the national referral mechanism. When we monitored 10 reception centres, 170 people were taken out of those situations and only four consented to go into the NRM. Some of the changes to the NRM contained in part 4 of the Bill may raise those barriers.
However, there is also an opportunity in the Bill to improve the treatment of people who come out of the national referral mechanism with a positive conclusive grounds decision. We welcome the commitment in the Bill to offer immigration status to some of the people with positive conclusive grounds decisions. When people get a positive conclusive grounds decision and the support that they received while they were in the NRM ends, one of the challenges that they face is that, if they do not have a secure immigration status, it is very difficult for them to get on with their lives—to make decisions about what happens next. It potentially also means that, if they are unable to work and access local authority support or welfare support, they are at risk of being re-exploited. We have made recommendations in the past that people should get that status.
We feel that those provisions can be strengthened to make it clearer that more people will be able to access that immigration leave. At the moment, if the Home Office believes that somebody would be able to receive protection in their country of nationality, they are not eligible for that grant of leave. Having seen the need in people who have gone through the NRM, we believe that it should pretty much be a universal offer of leave at that point. We would like to see the Bill strengthened in that way. I pay tribute to the work of Lord McColl and Sir Iain Duncan Smith in particular for their campaign around this in recent years.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
The Chair
There are other Members who wish to ask questions, Mr McDonald. If there is time, I am happy to bring you back in. At present I have Jonathon Gullis, Paul Blomfield and Anne McLaughlin who are waiting to speak. Minister, would you like to come in now or wait?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I am happy to come in later.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Q
Jon Featonby: That is one of the reasons why we are concerned about the clause. We come from a different viewpoint in that we believe that people’s rights and entitlements should be based not on how they entered the UK, but on their protection need. People who go through the asylum system and fall into group 2 in clause 10 are people whom the UK has recognised as being in need of international protection, and they have refugee status.
We work with and have conversations with people who have been through the process. Maybe they arrived in the UK on a small boat or through some other irregular means. They tell us that these changes would not have impacted the decisions they made. It is very unlikely that people have a clear idea about what the UK’s asylum system looks like and what their entitlements will be when they are in it or when they go on to get status. Some people have very little choice in the country they end up in. They may well not have started out being involved in the smuggling networks in France. It could have been much closer to the country from which they have fled. The smugglers have much more control over where people end up.
Where somebody feels safe is subjective to the individual. There are many reasons why people in France may be unable to avail themselves of the protection system there. It might be that, because of how they were living in France, they were not aware of how they could claim asylum or the route to do that. It may be that they were treated in some way along that journey that meant they felt unable to avail themselves of protection in France. It is also important to note that the vast majority of people who do make it to France in search of protection stay in France. France receives, generally, at least three times as many asylum applications as the UK.
We do not believe that the differential treatment will deter people, and there are challenges around the differential treatment in clause 10. Stoke is absolutely one of the places in the country that we work with and pay tribute to. Abi Brown, the leader of the council, speaks very eloquently about how proud she is of the council’s role. However, clause 10 will potentially make it harder for those local authorities who support people. If people continue to come to the UK, go through the asylum process and get status and are then unable to reunite with their family members or have insecurities around the length of time they are going to get status, and, crucially, if they are unable to access public funds, that impacts on their integration prospects and ability to support themselves. That may well increase the pressures on local authorities.
Jonathan Gullis
You mention that some people say that they would still choose to make the journey despite the Bill. Those who are willing to make the journey, of which over 70% are 18 to 30-year-old men on their own, have put thousands of pounds into the hands of people smugglers by their own choice. They are willing to keep funding a smuggling entity in order to try to access the UK, because they seem to think the UK is a better deal than mainland France, Italy or Greece, which are obviously all part of the European Union and have the same protections that the UK does—the European convention on human rights and such. Ultimately, does that not show that the system is broken and the legislation is needed? We do need to make sure that illegal economic migrants crossing the channel are treated differently from people from Afghanistan, for example, who have taken the safe and legal route we provided through Operation Pitting.
Jon Featonby: We disagree that they are illegal economic migrants. They are people who have protection needs. Obviously, if they have gone through clause 10 and they fall into that group too, they have gone through the asylum system and it has been found that they are refugees.
We absolutely agree that action needs to be taken to reduce the number of people making dangerous journeys. There are too many people putting their lives at risk crossing the English channel to get here. Our concern is that we do not believe that the provisions within this Bill will deter that. We think the Government would be better off approaching this by increasing some of the safe avenues for people.
Afghanistan is a good case in point. Obviously, we now have the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme alongside the relocation programmes. We have been working with families as they arrive at airports and hotels across the country, and we see their relief and joy. However, that is only ever going to go so far in meeting the needs of the number of people who are likely to be displaced from Afghanistan and other refugee-producing places and situations, and there will always be people who take irregular journeys in order to reach safety. From the point of view of the Red Cross, it it paramount that people are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve because of their protection needs, and that they are helped to rebuild their lives and to enjoy that protection, if they get that in the UK or anywhere else in the world.
Jonathan Gullis
Q
Does it not make sense that we would provide good-quality accommodation? I think Napier Barracks was fantastic accommodation. It provided safety and shelter, had hot running water and sanitation, and provided yoga as well. We have Napier Barracks and others like it that we can use. What do you think about doing what Denmark is doing, which I think is a fantastic idea, and taking people to another country, such as Rwanda, and processing them outside the United Kingdom? That will also help to deter people from making these dangerous journeys.
Jon Featonby: On the point about accommodation, we recognise the pressure that local authorities are under. Part of our concern around the Bill is that there is nothing in it that we think will encourage more local authorities to take part in dispersal, or reduce the number of people entering the asylum system. The number of people claiming asylum in the UK at the moment is not anywhere near the historic highs of the early 2000s. It has gone up slightly over the last couple of years, but it is still lower than at the height of the movement from Syria in 2015 and2016. We do not believe that there are too many people claiming asylum. The UK should be able to deal with the number of applications at the moment.
What we have seen over many years, predating the covid-19 pandemic, is a slow down in the rate of decision making. That leaves more people in the asylum support system for longer periods of time and increases the pressure on asylum accommodation. That is why I again reiterate the point about the focus on decision making and ensuring that the Home Office is resourced to make good-quality, quick decisions as an absolute priority.
The point around accommodation centres is an interesting one. From the people we work with, we certainly believe that Napier has had a negative impact on the people accommodated there. It has not provided the environment that many people who have been through traumatic experiences require. At Penally Barracks, there was a live firing range on site, which was retraumatising for many people.
The Chair
Order. Mr Gullis, this is an opportunity to ask questions not to make speeches. I have to accommodate as many Members as possible. If there is time, I will come back to you later.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Q
Jon Featonby: The start of your question was a very good point, and yet as the Red Cross we are an auxiliary to Government for humanitarian purposes, as other national societies are to their Governments around the world. Regarding the things I have said today, Home Office officials have heard them from me several times before. We enjoy a good relationship with them and I hope they would reflect similarly back to us as well. We use the expertise from supporting people across the UK to reflect back what we see and to help the Home Office to meet some of the challenges it faces.
The precursor to the Bill was the new plan for immigration and the consultation on that. We took part in the formal consultation process and in some conversations with officials around that process. We also take part in frequent stakeholder meetings with the Home Office on a number of different areas, as well as having private dialogue.
Family reunion is one of the key areas for us. When the new plan for immigration was published, we welcomed the commitment to look at changing the rules around family reunion, to allow adults who had arrived through a safe route to sponsor their adult dependent children. We were disappointed then to see in the consultation response that that proposal has not been taken forward, but we continue to have dialogue with the Home Office around it, as well as on a report that we published towards the end of last year, which looked at the family reunion process itself and the safety of it for the family members outside the UK. We welcome the commitment within the consultation response to continue working with us in considering how those recommendations can be followed through.
Also, around the issue of the resettlement programme, we welcome the Afghan scheme, as I said, but we believe that there is more that can be done there and on family reunion, to make sure that more people are able to access safe routes rather than putting their lives at risk by taking desperate journeys.
Paul Blomfield
Q
Jon Featonby: At the moment, there is the Afghan resettlement scheme and the global resettlement scheme, which has an unset number. Family reunion may be potentially negatively impacted by the Bill.
Within the new plan, there is the commitment for the Home Secretary to be able to use an almost ad hoc discretionary power to be able to provide a safe route for people, and we very much welcome that. However, we believe that the Bill is an opportunity to go further, both on existing safe and legal routes, and to explore something like humanitarian visas, which would enable people to apply for asylum from outside the UK as well, because it is obviously noteworthy that the only way that someone can enter the UK asylum system is by being on UK soil.
Paul Blomfield
Q
Jon Featonby: On those elements, the view of the British Red Cross is that it will be quite hard to work out what the impact of some of those clauses will be without further detail about them becoming available. There is already a section 120 notice, which can be issued to people to make sure that they provide evidence as soon as possible within the asylum process, and there is a particular focus at appeal stage.
The Home Office has done great work over recent years in looking at some of the reasons why people do not necessarily provide all of their evidence early on in the process. There are particular groups that quite often will struggle to provide all of their evidence early on. For a woman who has been a victim of sexual, gender-based violence, for example, there are very good reasons and very strong evidence as to why she may not disclose all of the evidence very early on. When someone comes to make a decision on an individual’s asylum claim, a potential result of that individual not having disclosed some of the evidence is an impact on their credibility, and you could end up with people not being given protection even though they are really in need of it.
The Chair
I will call Ms McLaughlin, then the Minister, and then we will see how we are doing for time.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Q
Jon Featonby: As you rightly say, the British Red Cross is part of the Red Cross and Red Crescent global movement of 190 national societies around the world. Working with our international partners gives us that insight into what is happening globally.
We know that 75% of refugees are hosted by countries that border the ones that they fled, and 85% of refugees are hosted by some of the poorest countries in the world, so it is absolutely the case that most people who are displaced from their own countries stay within their regions. Almost everybody we work with wants to be able to return home at some point, which is why they stay as close to their home as they can for as long as possible. One of the other trends we have seen over the past decade is that the situations that produce refugees are lasting for longer, which means that people are living in those other countries for longer. That potentially results in more people looking to move on in order to be able to rebuild their lives.
The UK has about 35,000 to 40,000 asylum applications a year at the moment. Compared with other European countries, that puts us 17th in the number of applications per capita. We are fourth overall for the past year. Germany received four times as many asylum applications as the UK did last year. France received three times as many and Spain received twice as many.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
Jon Featonby: We are aware of that debate going on. I am also aware that the Committee is taking evidence from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees later in the week, which is, compared with the Red Cross, in a far better place to make comments on that.
From our point of view, that debate will probably rage on through the course of the Bill’s passage and after it becomes law, but it is important to remember where the idea of the refugee convention comes from. We can have a debate about article X or article Y of the convention and how this legislation fits or does not fit with them, but the convention was obviously born out of what happened during the second world war and built on international agreements before that. It is largely predicated on the idea that no one country can respond to global displacement on its own. To be able to do that and make sure the people who are displaced receive the protection they need, there needs to be an international framework based on solidarity and co-operation, and that is absolutely what the convention is part of. Obviously, the UK played a key role in its drafting.
One of our concerns about what is in the Bill, particularly around inadmissibility rules and reducing access to the UK’s protection system, is that what the UK says and does matters, so other countries look to the UK and take a lead from it. There is a potential negative impact. If the UK says, “We don’t believe that these people should be claiming asylum here”—not making a decision on their protection needs but just saying, “These people are inadmissible to our rules”—and they get pushed back to France, France could be within its rights to do the same, and you end up with a domino effect.
To return to what is happening in Afghanistan at the moment, one of the international community’s primary objectives should be to make sure that the countries bordering Afghanistan continue to keep their borders open so that the people who need to escape Afghanistan can do so. We saw that with the Syrian crisis and the role that Turkey, Lebanon and Jordan, in particular, played in the region. There is the danger that if countries such as the UK prevent access to their protection system, some of those countries can—almost quite rightly—turn around and say, “Why should we continue to keep our borders open?”
Rather than getting into the ins and outs of the convention, we believe that it is important for the UK to continue to show that leadership by offering protection, whether through the resettlement programmes, which are absolutely among the world’s best, or through continued access to a protection system and the asylum system in the UK.
The Chair
I will now call the Minister. Mr Anderson, if there is time after we hear from the Minister, we will try to fit you in.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Jon Featonby: It should be, and it is right that it is a priority. There are too many people trying to cross the channel. It is well known that it is the busiest shipping lane in the UK. It is not said enough, but tribute should be paid to Border Force and the Royal National Lifeboat Institution because we have not seen huge numbers of lives lost, especially compared with what we have seen in the Mediterranean.
We would certainly say that although people continue to make those journeys, the primary focus should be on ensuring that people’s lives continue to be saved and that the loss of life stays relatively low. However, it comes back to the fact that we do not think the Bill will deter people from putting their lives in the hands of people smugglers or, as we are increasingly seeing, taking to small boats—relying not on people smugglers but on very small and even less seaworthy crafts.
There is no easy way to tackle the problem. There is no one simple solution. However, some of it will come down to the increased provision of safe routes. The more safe routes there are, the less likely people will need to take dangerous journeys. Something that needs to be a part of the UK’s international co-operation, and something that it can play an increasingly important role in, is making sure that people have access to protection systems outside the UK.
It comes back to the point about understanding why people make those journeys in the first place. People do not get on those boats on the French shores lightly—it is clear what the risks are going to be when they are there. Understanding what leads someone to that point is vitally important, and I am not sure that the Bill reflects what people with that lived experience would tell us. Some of that will require continued work with our European partners, in particular, to make sure that people have access to information, as well as to their protection systems, in order to look at the reasons why somebody may not have claimed asylum in France, for example.
A vital point that came up in the equality impact assessment published earlier this week is that when states such as the UK look to put in extra measures to protect their borders and asylum systems, they must ensure that does not lead to inverse reactions, which will just lead to people making more dangerous journeys. That is certainly what we have seen over the last 10 to 15 years. The harder it has been for people to make journeys when one route is cut off, the more people are generally pushed to make more dangerous journeys. We should be dealing with the root causes of why people make those decisions in the first instance.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Jon Featonby: It is largely about the points I have just raised. The explanatory notes to the Bill talk about breaking the business model, and absolutely there are the enforcement procedures regarding the people smugglers themselves. We agree that that should continue to be a priority. However, we need to look at why people turn to people smugglers, and that is because of a lack of other alternatives, whether that is accessing protection systems or those other safe routes.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Jon Featonby: That is a very good point. We believe that the modern slavery response needs not only to provide protection for people coming out of situations of exploitation, but to enable those people to take part in prosecutions to tackle people who are exploiting others, whether in the UK or abroad.
The challenges that we see people quite often face are, first, at times a lack of trust in the police or whoever else it might be, but also—probably more importantly and more pertinent to the Bill—a lack of security about their immigration status. The people we work with, who predominantly do not have a secure immigration status in the UK, are thinking about where they are going to sleep that night, and how they are going to feed themselves and their family, rather than how they are going to help the police through this, or potentially how they will have to recount quite traumatic experiences to support those prosecutions.
That is why we support the measures in the Bill to try to give more people secure immigration status. We think that will make a big difference, but we absolutely encourage the Government to go slightly further to ensure that more people can avail themselves of that protection, which would have a beneficial impact on prosecutions as well.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Jon Featonby: Potentially. Some of it depends on how it is implemented. We would probably like to see some changes to that provision. I touched earlier on the work that the Red Cross does at reception centres to support people when they first leave those situations of exploitation. At that point, people come out, they are in these centres, the Red Cross may well be there, but it is probably the police, local authorities and increasingly immigration enforcement. There are very few opportunities for people to get legal advice at that point around what the NRM entails for them.
The provisions in the Bill on legal aid are welcome, but they are only for those people who have ongoing protection claims. Most people who come out of those situations of exploitation will not necessarily have an ongoing asylum claim. We would welcome the broadening of the provisions in the Bill to make sure that it covers everybody who may be thinking about entering the NRM, so that they are able to get legal advice, whether or not they have an ongoing human rights or asylum claim alongside it.
The Chair
Thank you. This will have to be one final question from Mr Anderson and one final answer.
Stuart Anderson (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)
Q
Jon Featonby: It is very difficult for me to highlight any positives. That is one of the things that we will continue to raise with parliamentarians and the Home Office, because we do not think the Bill meets those challenges. The Bill is an opportunity to meet some of the challenges, particularly around the move-on period for people when they get refugee status, to make sure that the move from Home Office support to local authority support is as smooth as possible. We hope that as the Bill progresses such issues will continue to be debated. We do not believe that the Bill, as currently drafted, will alleviate any of the current pressures that local authorities face.
Stuart Anderson
Q
Jon Featonby: No.
The Chair
I am afraid that brings us effectively to the end of the time allocated for this morning’s sitting. Mr Featonby, the Committee is indebted to you. Thank you very much for joining us. The Committee will meet again this afternoon. The doors will be locked, so Members may leave papers in the room if they wish to do so. You will continue to take oral evidence this afternoon. Please leave promptly and observe social distancing as you go out the exit door.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Nationality and Borders Bill (Third sitting)
Thursday 23rd September 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 September 2021 - (23 Sep 2021)
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Our first witness is unable to join us this morning. The sitting is suspended until our second witness arrives.
Sitting suspended.
Examination of Witness
The Hon. George Brandis QC gave evidence.
The Chair
We shall now take evidence from the Hon. George Brandis QC, high commissioner for Australia to the United Kingdom. We have until 12.45 pm for this session. Good morning, Sir, and thank you for joining us. Could you please identify yourself for the record?
George Brandis: Good morning, Mr Chairman. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is George Brandis and I am the high commissioner for Australia to the United Kingdom.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Q
George Brandis: Yes, I can tell you that. Operation Sovereign Borders was a policy introduced by the Government of Mr Tony Abbott, which was elected in September 2013, and administered under the leadership of the then Minister for Immigration and Border Protection, now the Prime Minister, Scott Morrison.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I gave the Committee a little context. The purpose of Operation Sovereign Borders was to address a problem that had grown increasingly acute in the previous years: the arrival or attempted arrival by boat—almost always ramshackle, small, unsafe boats—across the seas, particularly the Timor sea, to the north-west of Australia, of irregular maritime arrivals. In the years prior to Operation Sovereign Borders coming into effect, there had been more than 50,000 illegal arrivals to the north-western coast of Western Australia in 827 vessels. That is the number of people we know about who made the journey.
We also know that a large number of people who attempted to make that journey drowned. There will never be a reliable figure for what that number was, because we simply do not know how many there were, but because we have counted, sadly, from the corpses, we know of 1,204 people who drowned. Whether the actual number was a multiple of that, or many hundreds more, it is impossible to tell, but certainly more than 1,200 people drowned.
Operation Sovereign Borders was introduced to address that dreadful problem. The implementation phase lasted approximately nine months, during which the flow continued. However, as the policy began to take effect and be effective, that flow dwindled to a point where some nine months later, by July 2014, it had ceased completely. Since then, there has not been a single irregular maritime arrival on Australia’s shores, as far as we can tell.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
George Brandis: Primarily the southern shores of Indonesia.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
George Brandis: It is a great distance. I cannot give you the exact figure, but it is certainly more than 1,000 km.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
George Brandis: They were part of Operation Sovereign Borders. There were three elements to Operation Sovereign Borders: disruption and deterrence activities; turnarounds, where it was safe to turn the vessels around; and offshore processing. I will speak briefly to each of those elements.
With the co-operation of the Indonesian authorities, the people smugglers’ activities were disrupted at the points of embarkation on the southern shores of Indonesia, so it became more difficult for them to publicise and assemble the clientele to embark on these unsafe vessels. Generally, they were run-down fishing vessels.
The turnaround operation, which was conducted in international waters, repelled the vessels and returned them to the Indonesian shore, where it was safe to do so.
Regional processing, through a series of agreements that Australia made with Nauru and New Guinea in particular, meant that people who were not turned around and were taken onboard Australian vessels—they were rescued, in effect, because they could not be safely turned around—were processed offshore in countries where they were not at risk.
It is important to stress that Australia’s obligations under the 1951 refugee convention were complied with at all times, for several reasons. First, Indonesia in particular was a transit country for these people—none of them claimed to have been persecuted by the Indonesian Government. Secondly, the countries to which they were sent for regional processing were safe countries, where they were not exposed to the perils against which the refugee convention protects. Lastly, Australia observed its non-refoulement obligations at all times.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
George Brandis: There was litigation in New Guinea about the agreement between their Government and the Australian Government in relation to a particular processing centre on the New Guinea mainland. It is not my understanding that that affected the other processing centre within New Guinea, on Manus Island.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
George Brandis: I am not in a position to speak in relation to that, but I make the point that that is entirely a matter for the Government of New Guinea. From an Australian point of view, the legal and constitutional validity of the offshore processing arrangements were challenged in the High Court of Australia, which in the Australian system is the equivalent of your Supreme Court. The High Court ruled that under the regional processing agreements that existed between Nauru and Australia, and between New Guinea and Australia, the regional processing centres were not Australian centres; they were in no respect under the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Australia. They were centres operated by the Governments of Nauru and New Guinea respectively.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
George Brandis: I do not think that is correct. I think it would be correct to say that there was a complaint made by people who disagree with the policy to the United Nations Human Rights Council.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
George Brandis: I do not have those figures in front of me. Under the regional processing agreements that Australia entered into with Nauru and New Guinea, the establishment of those centres, which required capital works and so on, was contributed to by Australia.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Q
George Brandis: There were always more in Nauru than in New Guinea. Whether at the maximum point they reached as many as 3,000, I am not sure, but I would not be surprised if it was roughly that figure.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
George Brandis: What happened, as I indicated in the timeline I outlined at the start of my evidence, is that from the introduction of the policy, beginning in September 2013, there was a period during which the effectiveness of the policy was tested by people smugglers. The numbers of people seeking to enter Australia in an irregular fashion continued and then dwindled to nothing by July 2014. Again, I do not have the figures in front of me, but I think it is generally true to say that in the early days of the policy the numbers were greater, obviously, than in subsequent years when the efficacy of the policy was established.
I wonder, Mr McDonald, whether I may make a broader point about this, because I know that this country is seeking to address a problem that has some resemblances but also important differences. The people who put these individuals, groups and families on boats were criminal gangs. People smuggling and people trafficking is a variety of organised crime. Organised crime is a business and, like every other business, it depends upon cash flow. The most important thing that Australia was able to do was drive the people smugglers out of business by depriving them of a product to sell and destroying their cash flow.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
George Brandis: I respectfully disagree with you, Sir, and I say that having been both a member of the National Security Committee of Cabinet throughout that time and, in fact, the Attorney General who wrote the legal advice on the basis of which the policy was founded. With respect, it was not the Australian experience, and it would be artificial and wrong, to isolate one of those three elements—disruption and deterrence activities, pushbacks and offshore processing—as being more effective than the others. Rather, it is the case that they were a suite of policies that, operating together, had the effect of driving the people smugglers out of business.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
George Brandis: Let me get that information for you—I cannot give you a date. It is certainly the case that, from the early days, the need for offshore processing significantly dwindled because of the efficacy of the policy.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
George Brandis: Sir, I am not going to engage in rhetoric. The fact is that most Australians took the view, as did the Government and the Opposition, that the inhumanity was in letting thousands of people drown.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
George Brandis: Sorry to interrupt, but if I have not made this clear already, it is absolutely not the case that one element of this policy was the effective element, and another element was not effective. The policy was a policy suite in which all three elements mattered.
Stuart C. McDonald
You have given your analysis of that. Obviously others disagree.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
George Brandis: No, but because the distances involved are so different. Embarkations from the southern shores of Indonesia, across the Timor sea, were not in dinghies; they were largely in dilapidated wooden fishing boats.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
George Brandis: I remember that decision very well; it was an NSC decision and I remember the debate as if it were yesterday. I am very proud that Australia did that. Sir, let me answer your question in this way. What we have found in Australia—this is both the view of those who have studied the issue and empirically verified by many public opinion surveys—is that there is a very direct correlation between the public’s willingness to accept a big immigration programme, with a big humanitarian and refugee element, and public confidence that the Government are in control of the borders. When the public have that confidence, they back a big immigration programme. When that confidence is eroded, they are less enthusiastic about it.
That sentiment was captured by former Prime Minister Howard in words that became almost a mantra in Australian politics of the day. He said in 2004, “We will always fulfil our humanitarian obligations, but we will decide who comes into this country and the circumstances in which they come.” Australia is a big immigration nation. To give some figures, in the year in which the Syrian refugee programme was at its most ambitious, 2016-17, Australia accepted 21,968 refugees under our various humanitarian programmes. We also accepted, under our other immigration programmes—skilled migration; family reunions—183,608 people. More than 200,000 people came that year, of whom about 10% came under humanitarian and refugee programmes.
The numbers have gone up and down a bit. That was the biggest year because of the Syrian element, which was an additional element to the normal humanitarian and refugee programme. In the most recent year, 2019-20, we accepted 140,366 people—13,171 people under our humanitarian and refugee programme. The numbers over the last several years have fluctuated between more than 13,000 and almost 22,000 per year under our humanitarian and refugee programme. In most of those years that is per capita the most generous humanitarian and refugee programme in the world, second only to Canada.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Q
George Brandis: I do not have the figures in front of me. I am not suggesting that it was not a programme that cost money to implement and administer. It was implemented and administered by foreign Governments: the Governments of Nauru and New Guinea. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of the funding came from Australia. I am not disputing the figure that you give; you have done the research, sir. I do not have the financial figures, but may I take that question on notice and get them to you?
Paul Blomfield
Q
George Brandis: Please do not take from my silence that I am averring that it is right. Certainly, there was a not insignificant cost. I do not dispute that.
Paul Blomfield
Q
George Brandis: No, I do not think that is right. I have a disaggregated year-by-year figure on the offshoring. It certainly is right, as I said to your colleague before, that it was a front-end-loaded sort of policy, in the sense that once the people smugglers’ business had been destroyed and the boats stopped coming, the need for that leg of the policy diminished. But as for the date at which the last of the offshoring was undertaken, I am not in a position to tell you, other than to say that it was in the early part of the policy.
Paul Blomfield
Q
George Brandis: No, I do not.
Paul Blomfield
Q
George Brandis: I am not aware of the report to which you refer. I mean, let’s not beat around the bush here—this was a very controversial policy at the time. It became less controversial with the passage of time, for two reasons. One was that it worked. Secondly, the Opposition changed their position from opposition to the policy to support for it. However, a number of community organisations, universities and various institutions and faculties within universities continued to criticise the policies, which they are perfectly at liberty to do, and a lot of figures were thrown around. I am not familiar with the particular report to which you refer and therefore I cannot verify the data quoted within it.
Paul Blomfield
Q
George Brandis: The Kaldor Centre—
Paul Blomfield
Okay.
George Brandis: The Kaldor Centre is a centre established as an advocacy centre and a research centre to advance the interests of refugees, and it takes a particular point of view. I am not deprecating its statistical or academic rigour at all; I am merely pointing out that it approaches this debate with a particular advocacy point in mind.
The Chair
I am sorry. I said that had to be the last question. I have to try and get everybody in and there are a lot of Members. Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
Q
Your Excellency, looking back in the Australian context, is it reasonable to think, that if you had stood back and done nothing about this challenge the numbers of people crossing or seeking to cross would have increased, and on less seaworthy vessels?
George Brandis: I think that is an absolutely fair inference to draw, because in the years prior to the introduction of the policy, which was in September 2013, the numbers had escalated, so every year there were more than in the previous year. It almost inevitably follows, given that nothing else would have changed, that the number of those vessels that did not make it and the number of passengers who drowned would have escalated, too.
Tom Pursglove
Q
George Brandis: Well, as I have already said in my evidence, there were three legs, or three elements, to this policy and all of them were essential to it. I do not think you can disaggregate one from another.
Tom Pursglove
Q
George Brandis: It is very difficult to answer that question in a general way. The people-smuggling gangs who were the authors and beneficiaries of this activity were located in Indonesia, primarily. That is not to say that they may not have had connections in Australia, but they were primarily groups that operated within Indonesia, and there were many of them. I am not in a position to generalise from that proposition to what extent they had connections in other countries, including Australia.
Tom Pursglove
Q
George Brandis: As is evident from the statistics I quoted before, we accept an unusually large number of humanitarian and refugee immigration applications for a country of our size. We have an ambitious humanitarian and refugee programme, and we seek to process those applications swiftly and efficiently, but we do say, “You’ve got to come in the front door, and not put yourself in the hands of criminals and put yourself and your children at risk of drowning.”
Tom Pursglove
Q
George Brandis: There were logistical challenges, particularly the turn-back operations. It was very challenging for the maritime authorities to do that while at the same time ensuring that nobody’s safety was put at risk. That was one dimension to this, but it is a bit of a different problem because, as one of your colleagues pointed out, here these people come by dinghy. Almost all the people who were trying to come to Australia were coming in decrepit old timber fishing boats, which were much more fragile. That was the difference.
I am not here to instruct or encourage your Parliament on the right policy choice; I am merely here to respond to the questions you have asked me about how a particular set of measures worked for Australia. I have already observed that there are differences as well as similarities in the profile of the problems. However, I would say that undoubtedly the key to this is to put the people smugglers out of business. The way to put the people smugglers out of business is to demonstrate to their potential clientele that they are wasting their money. The way we did that in Australia, and it was a robust policy, was to persuade the potential clientele that, if they came in through the front door as genuine refugees, they would be embraced; but, if they put themselves in the hands of people smugglers, there was no way they would ever end up in Australia.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Q
George Brandis: A lot of work was done with the Governments. I was not directly involved in that work, so I am not in a position to speak with particularity in answer to your question, sir, but they were countries in our region that were willing to enter into regional processing agreements with Australia.
Neil Coyle
Q
George Brandis: I am not aware that there were any from either New Guinea or Nauru. Those two countries were never a locus or genesis of the problem.
The Chair
Order. I am sorry, and I must apologise to colleagues who have not been called, but it is a time-limited session—that is what the Committee voted for—and I have to draw it to a close. Commissioner, the Committee is deeply indebted to you; thank you very much for coming in.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Craig Whittaker.)
Nationality and Borders Bill (Fourth sitting)
Thursday 23rd September 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 23 September 2021 - (23 Sep 2021)
The Chair
We will now hear from Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees representative to the UK, and Elizabeth Ruddick, senior legal associate, both representing UNHCR UK. We have until 2.30 pm for this session. Will you please both introduce yourselves for the record?
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Good afternoon to everyone. My name is Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor. I am the UNHCR representative to the United Kingdom.
Elizabeth Ruddick: Good afternoon. My name is Elizabeth Ruddick. I am a senior protection associate with the UNHCR in the United Kingdom.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Thank you very much for this question, but I would like to start with a short statement, which will also cover that. It is, of course, one of the areas of particular interest and concern to us.
You know, of course, that UNHCR has already published two sets of opinions: one on the policy document and the other on the Bill. I want to start by saying that we actually support the broad intent—the broad aims—of this Bill: combating smuggling networks, having fairer and faster procedures, and facilitating the return of those who are found not to be in need of international protection. However, we believe that the Bill is unlikely to achieve those aims, and may further exacerbate some of the identified issues.
Our concerns revolve around three areas. The first concerns the breach of international law, as the Bill contravenes the UK’s obligations under the 1951 refugee convention. The Bill revolves around the notion that refugees are required to seek asylum in the first safe country they find. To be clear, that principle is not found in the refugee convention, and it is not a requirement in international law. It is also unworkable because it would further increase pressure on those few countries that find themselves at the frontier of a crisis. The risk, of course, is that they would be overwhelmed, and that might impact on both their capacity and their good will to provide protection and solutions.
The Bill, as it stands, will cause significant suffering to people who are guilty of nothing more than seeking asylum in the UK. It makes unauthorised arrival and presence in the UK a crime punishable by up to four years in jail, without the defences that are actually provided for by the 1951 convention. It would also keep refugees in a situation of enforced precarity for up to 10 years, with no access to public welfare unless destitute, and under threat of removal to another country, if that were possible. This is really going to create massive problems not only for these individuals at a personal level, but for their communities, local councils and the NHS.
Lastly, the system as described would exacerbate the current backlog and increase costs by making procedures longer. That will delay the integration of those who are eventually found to be refugees, and will hamper the return of those who are not found to be in need of protection. It will have a number of unintended negative consequences that will impact on the very aims that the Bill purports to pursue.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Absolutely. As I said, there is no requirement in international law that refugees should seek asylum in the first safe country they find. We believe that there will be consequences if countries start reneging on or trying to diminish their responsibilities and commitments under the convention. There is a risk of triggering a race to the bottom. We have to perceive that every time we make it harder or try to discourage refugees from reaching our shores, we are diverting them to another country. It risks creating a chain in which refugees will find it harder and harder to find asylum anywhere. The international system is based on the good-faith application of the commitments that have been freely undertaken by states. When states do not fully embrace those commitments, the result is the erosion of international law. International law is nothing more than a contract between states, and it lives or dies by states’ willingness to comply with it.
Yes, we are very concerned, and we are concerned also because we are frankly in a position of constantly advocating for asylum and doing so with countries that have way more refugees than the UK. The element that has been lost in this discussion is that the UK, by reason of its geographical position and its relative distance from crisis countries, in fact receives a pretty small number of refugees. I am not suggesting that this is something you want, and there are certainly more than you would wish for, but in the big scheme of things it is a relatively small number. This is also true, by the way, of countries around you. The UK has a fairly stable number of asylum seekers in the range of 35,000 per year. France has just under 100,000 per year, with some variations. Germany has around 150,000, and Spain, Greece and Italy all receive more applications than the UK. Of course, I am not even mentioning countries closer to the crisis. Let us not forget that 73% of all refugees and asylum seekers remain in countries neighbouring their own, and that about 85% or 86% remain in developing or middle-income countries. I would like to encourage you to look at this matter in perspective. The channel crisis is certainly a challenge, but I think it has to be looked at in a broader perspective of a global challenge for all countries with respect to displacement.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Turkey at the moment has the largest number of refugees, as you know. We are talking about upward of 4 million or maybe even more. At one stage, Lebanon had one Syrian refugee for every four people; a huge percentage of its population were refugees. If you are talking about Afghanistan, there is a registered population of Afghan refugees of 780,000 in Iran, plus probably 1.5 million—maybe more—who are non-registered. Likewise, Pakistan has, between registered and unregistered, well above 2 million people. It has, I think, 1.4 million registered and maybe quite as many unregistered. So you are talking about numbers that are, frankly, enormous, relative to the numbers who come to Europe and, even more so, to the ones who come to the UK.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: There have been attempts by other countries, and of course the case that comes to mind is Denmark, which has been in the media, particularly in relation to the question of returns of Syrians. But I would like really to focus on the UK, rather than on other countries, if you will allow me. First, obviously there are principles that are applicable across the board. Obviously, we are asking all countries to act in a manner that is consistent with their international obligations. I think that we tend to forget that situations are sometimes different in terms of the practical applications. I know that you had the Australian high commissioner here this morning, even though I did not listen to his presentation. But of course the situation in Australia is very different from the situation in the UK. In any case, I would strongly recommend you not to follow that example, frankly.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Yes and no. Having resettlement schemes and other legal pathways, such as a well-functioning and perhaps slightly more generous family reunion mechanism, will certainly allow certain people to come legally where they might otherwise have been tempted to do so irregularly. However, the reality is that resettlement programmes—even a generous and well-run resettlement programme such as the VPRS—are really a bit of a drop in the bucket. You have to consider that, in any given year, we manage to resettle a fraction of 1% of the refugees who would be in need of resettlement. There is really a vast disproportion. That is why we say that resettlement is extremely valuable, is a life-saving mechanism—and we really commend the UK for its efforts in this sense—but is not an offset for granting asylum.
Bambos Charalambous
I know other colleagues wish to come in, so I will leave my questioning there. Thank you very much.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Thank you for this question, because it allows me actually to address what I believe is generally a bit of a misconception about spontaneous arrivals. Certainly—of course—the UNHCR has a system to identify the most vulnerable, but as I said, we only manage to submit a very small percentage of those we have identified, so the system definitely does not cover the needs. But the individuals who come here should not be regarded necessarily as wealthy people who have the means to come here. Typically, the vast, overwhelming, majority of those who move irregularly do so having gathered all the resources of themselves and their families. Homes are sold. Whole families are literally impoverished to gather the money that is required for somebody to make this trip. One of the reasons these trips can last weeks, months, or occasionally even longer, is that sometimes they have to stop in an intermediate place, such as Libya, to gather more money. We should not think of these people as being privileged and wealthy, and therefore having the luxury of travelling irregularly. The reality is quite different; these are journeys of desperation in most cases.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: I cannot talk about the statement by the Minister about the Boko Haram area, but I can tell you that, first, “middle class” means something different in different countries. Secondly, the people you see applying for refugee status here are not necessarily members of the middle classes. There is a much wider range. I suggest that if someone is truly wealthy, they might be able to come by plane. That is the most expensive kind of irregular journey because it would mean purchasing a passport and a ticket.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Of course.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Thank you very much for that question. Being or not being a refugee has nothing to do with economic status. Refugees can be poor, middle class, or very wealthy. What makes a person a refugee is a well-founded fear of persecution for one of the five reasons established in the convention. Since we are talking about this in the Bill, the manner of a person’s arrival also has no bearing on this whatsoever. A refugee is a refugee is a refugee. If you are a refugee, you are entitled to certain things. That is really the bottom line.
On the criminalisation of those who may be assisting people to move across borders, there is an important difference to be made between those who do so for gain—the smuggler; we all know that there are criminal networks preying on people’s despair, and we commend the Government for their robust action in pursuing these people and bringing them to justice; that is a relief—and those who provide assistance to people in difficulty. They could be organisations rescuing asylum seekers and migrants at sea, for example. That is a completely different kettle of fish, and we definitely believe that it should not be penalised. The difference is between gain and humanitarian purpose.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: I do not. Perhaps Elizabeth does. Otherwise, I can of course let you know
Elizabeth Ruddick: In Canada, there was an attempt to prosecute refugees who had been abandoned by the smugglers and were steering a boat to safety. They were prosecuted for facilitating each other’s safe arrival. That was found to be a violation of the convention, because if you criminalise refugees assisting each other to survive during the course of their journey, you are criminalising seeking asylum.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
My other question involves the raging debates we have here all the time, which has come down to, “Yes, it does”, or, “No, it doesn’t”. People who are refugees seeking protection do not have to seek protection in the first country that they come to. We say that all the time, but we have debates with our colleagues who say, “Yes, they do. If they don’t, they are not refugees.” You say, “No, they don’t.” Will you explain that more?
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: The answer is, unequivocally, no. Refugees are not required to seek asylum in the first country, full stop. The manner of travel has no bearing on refugee status—none at all. That said, it does not translate into an unfettered right for people to choose where they want to seek asylum.
What is important to consider here—it has a bearing on your situation—is that UNHCR encourages countries to enter into agreements that allow them to transfer responsibilities for asylum seekers in a manner that ensures that every individual has access to a fair procedure, to decent and appropriate reception and, if found to be a refugee, a viable integration path. They do so by sharing responsibility in such a way that protection space is expanded rather than decreased.
One of the specifics of your Bill is that it makes extensive use of so-called inadmissibility in a situation in which there is no agreement that would allow the UK to transfer these people to another safe country in which it would make sense for them to be assessed. The UK, as you know, was part of the Dublin scheme, which is not perfect by any means but was at least a mechanism that established certain rules allowing states to share responsibility and to decide who should be assessed where.
At the moment, you do not have any such agreement with the EU, so a bit of a strange situation is realising itself. Since the entry into force of the changes to the initial rules, I understand that about 4,500 individuals have been notified of their possible inadmissibility. Seven of them have been found inadmissible, but I do not think that anyone has been returned to anywhere, because this has simply created a very long queue leading to nowhere. It is fundamental to the good management of the international refugee system that there should be strong collaboration between states. I hope that clarifies things.
Anne McLaughlin
That really does help. I have one more brief question. Would you say that you are an authority on the refugee convention?
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: The UNHCR is the established guardian of the 1951 convention. Our statute is an annex to a General Assembly resolution. The duty of states to collaborate with UNHCR is enshrined in article 35 of the 1951 convention, so yes.
Duncan Baker (North Norfolk) (Con)
When you spoke first, you said that the Bill would not carry out its intentions. To pick up on that, many parts of the Bill have similarities to the Australian model, which was implemented in 2014. As we know, that was very successful —no migrants were crossing after about nine months of that policy coming in. You said that there were differences from the situation that arose in Australia. I get that, there are differences between them and us, but there are also a great deal of similarities. In your eyes, what are the differences that would make this legislation so unsuccessful?
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Let me just take a step back on Australia. The Australian approach was essentially based on offshoring and externalisation, and on turning around the boats. The offshoring and externalisation did not have any impact on the boats, but it did have a terrible, terrible impact on the people who got caught in it. If you read reports of what happened on Nauru and Manus island and so on, there were very high levels of violence, sexual violence against women and children and suicides. Children were found to be the most traumatised that most practitioners had ever seen. Children were essentially withdrawing into themselves and becoming entirely irresponsive to external stimuli. There were also suicides and self-harm. You really need to ask yourselves whether that situation is something you would like to associate your country with, to be entirely frank.
The Chair
I am sorry to interrupt when you are giving such good testimony, but quite a few people want to ask questions and I would like to get them in if I could. We will take Jonathan Gullis, then Paul Blomfield, and then the Minister. Apologies.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Sorry?
Jonathan Gullis
In the constituency I serve, the residents are livid with the situation in the English Channel. We are more than happy to do our fair share on a global perspective—we have seen that with Afghanistan and Syria—but illegal economic migrants crossing the Channel is totally unacceptable. Do you not think that having a system in place that says that if you enter this country illegally, that will have an impact on your application, that will help to deter people and make them understand that it will harm their opportunity to get permanent residency in this country?
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: No, I do not. I think that the reasons why people come are not likely to be affected by what you are saying. Most of the people who arrive here are found to be genuine refugees, not illegal immigrants, by the Government and by your procedures. The fact that they came as they came has got nothing to do with whether or not they are refugees.
The best way of ensuring that the system works is by having a very fast, fair and efficient procedure, because that allows you to move quickly and determine who is a refugee and can stay, and who is not a refugee and needs to be returned, if they have no other legitimate reasons to remain. That can be done if it is done quickly, not if it happens five or 10 years down the line. The Home Office is working now on procedures that will allow it to deliver much faster and, we think, better quality judgments. That would help to deter those who might be trying their luck and at the same time provide protection for those who need proper security.
The Chair
Sorry, Jonathan; can I just bring in Paul Blomfield? Paul, I am then going to have to interrupt you to get the Minister in.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: I will. One of the important elements is that if you have a system, there have to be consequences to that system. It does not make any sense to have a system that determines who is a refugee and who is not, and then the results go nowhere. I know that it is difficult to arrange for returns—there are a number of issues and they need a great deal of partnerships internationally—but it is a fact that if somebody is properly looked at in a proper procedure and then found not in need of international protection, it is a lot easier if that happens closer to the time than after a few years, when they have had time to establish a family and when perhaps the whole question of identification is getting a little more vague. It is a fact that good case management increases the chances of people returning, and it increases the chances of people returning voluntarily, too.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
Q
Rossella Pagliuchi-Lor: Granted, you will never have a silver bullet that solves all of your issues until and unless people no longer feel the need to seek asylum elsewhere. However, as I said, I think that a fast and fair procedure is your best defence, alongside strong agreements with the European Union on the allocation of responsibility for asylum seekers. That is by far the best way of dissuading people who might sometimes be hopping around countries to choose a jurisdiction or who are just giving it a shot—people whom your colleague referred to as illegal immigrants. There are some who could masquerade as asylum seekers; there is no question about that.
The Chair
Order. I am sorry, but that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. On behalf of the Committee, I thank our witnesses for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Siobhán Mullally and Dame Sara Thornton gave evidence.
The Chair
We will now hear from Siobhán Mullally, United Nations Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, and Dame Sara Thornton, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. We have until 3.15 pm, so slightly longer than the last session. Would the witnesses please introduce themselves for the record?
Dame Sara Thornton: Good afternoon. I am Sara Thornton, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner for the United Kingdom.
Siobhán Mullally: Good afternoon. I am Siobhán Mullally, Special Rapporteur on Trafficking in Persons, especially women and children.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: It is not for me to have a view on most of the provisions, but part 4 and its impact on modern slavery is my particular focus. One of my concerns about the Bill is the unintended consequences, in particular of clause 51, on disqualification from protection. That is probably my gravest concern about unintended consequences.
In my view, we currently prosecute far too few traffickers and criminals for those offences, and I am concerned that the Bill could unintentionally undermine that. I say that because in defining the public order exemption, the bar has been set low and the net has been cast wide—whichever phrase you want to use. It has the potential to reduce support for a considerable number of victims of modern slavery through the national referral mechanism, which matters because, if victims are not supported through the national referral mechanism, they are put in a very difficult position in terms of supporting police investigations and prosecutions. That is my concern.
I was trying to be helpful and think what it is about clause 51 that is a particular problem. Clause 51(3) defines the public order exemptions; I have been looking at paragraphs (b) and (f) in particular. Paragraph (b) is where the list of offences is from schedule 4 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. That list was passed by Parliament six years ago for a very different purpose. It was about which offences were excluded from the protection of the statutory defence. The first question I have had is about whether we are actually going to use that list for a very different purpose.
The second issue is clause 51(3)(f), where the definition of a foreign criminal from the UK Borders Act 2007 is used. Again, that is a very low bar because all it requires is for somebody to be sentenced for 12 months, and sentenced not just in the United Kingdom but anywhere in the world. My concern is that it sets quite a low bar. I have been speaking to colleagues in law enforcement and from charities that provide support for witnesses, and their concern is many people who have given witness evidence in the Crown court would be caught by this, and they would not necessarily be provided with support in the NRM. That is my concern. My other suggestion might be considering an amendment saying that if a victim is supporting a police investigation or a prosecution, then perhaps they should be exempted from this provision.
Holly Lynch
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: I do not think it is necessarily incompatible. My main point is that clause 51(3)(b) uses the schedule 4 list of offences passed by Parliament in schedule 4 of the Modern Slavery Act for quite a different purpose. I would hope that somebody has spent some considerable time thinking, “If we use this for a purpose other than that for which it was intended, can we model the consequences?” At the moment, the number of prosecutions is in the hundreds per year. My concern is that if we remove support from victims and witnesses, we will reduce that even more.
Holly Lynch
Q
Siobhán Mullally: Thank you very much for your question. My role as UN special rapporteur on trafficking in persons is to ensure that the highest standards are met in terms of protecting the human rights of victims of trafficking, as well as combating impunity for trafficking in persons by ensuring effective investigations and prosecutions. That is critical to a human rights-based approach because we need to combat impunity, ensure accountability and protect victims of trafficking.
The protection of victims enables us to be effective in investigations and prosecutions. As it stands, with my mandate as UN special rapporteur on trafficking in persons, I have specific concerns around clauses 46 to 51 in particular as not complying with international law, international human rights law and with the state’s positive obligations to identify, assist and protect victims of trafficking without discrimination. That in itself will hinder effective investigations and prosecutions and hinder the goal of combating impunity for trafficking in persons and ensuring accountability.
I have very specific concerns about those provisions in relation to the state’s positive obligations under the European convention on human rights, in particular articles 4 and 6, and under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, as well as very specific concerns in relation to the rights of child victims of trafficking, as protected under the UN convention on the rights of the child and many other human rights instruments.
I can talk a little bit more about those specific concerns, but as it stands I would have concerns that the Bill does not comply with the state’s obligations under international human rights law.
Holly Lynch
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: Last year in 2020, nearly half of the potential victims referred into the NRM were children, but in this part 4 on modern slavery there is only one mention of children. I have some specific suggestions: on clause 53, which is about the granting of limited leave, there were real concerns about the way that the requirement to consider the best interest of a child appears to be ignored. The best interests of a child goes back to the UN convention on the rights of a child; it is in the Children Act 1989, and it is also in the European convention against trafficking, that decisions should be taken in the best interests of the child. Looking at clause 53, and thinking about where there is a positive conclusive grounds decision that the child has been trafficked, and that they were under 17 at the time they were referred into the NRM, there really should be a presumption for the Secretary of State that leave to remain is given in the child’s best interests.
Clause 53 is one example. I am now going out of part 4 into clauses 14 and 15. The equality impact assessment published by the Government last week committed to mitigating the adverse impact on unaccompanied asylum seeking children by exempting them from the inadmissibility process. I do not think that is anywhere in the Bill. I think that it is important that something that has been identified as a problem for children is considered in legislation.
There are two other areas: in clauses 46 and 47, which are about the traffic information notices, there is no comment about whether they would apply to children. It would be really good to have clarity about whether children are going to be given these traffic information notices and asked to respond in a set period. Lastly, I have just covered clause 51 and the exemptions from protection; again, it is not clear whether those would apply to children. I think experts in the rights of children would argue that there are several international legal frameworks that suggest this is not appropriate and not in the children’s best interests.
Holly Lynch
Q
Siobhán Mullally: First and foremost, it is for the best interests of the child to be the primary consideration when addressing the rights of children under all aspects of the legislation. The convention on the rights of the child is almost universally ratified, and that is a core principle of the convention.
To go back to clauses 46 and 47, in particular: with regard to both adult and child victims of trafficking, there is no attention given to the impact of trauma on victims of trafficking. It is well recognised that this can lead to delays in disclosure of information. The impact that the experience of trafficking has on the disclosure of information and the reporting of the harms that have been endured has also been documented in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights—for example, in Elia in Greece, and Essen in Croatia. That is even more heightened with children.
In the recent judgement of V.C.L. and A.N. v. the United Kingdom, the European Court of Human Rights emphasised again that it is a positive obligation on the state to identify and ensure assistance and protection to victims of trafficking. It is not an obligation on the victim to self-identify or report, and certainly not within any specific timeframe. It is a positive obligation on the state. As the European Court of Human Rights said in V.C.L. and A.N. v. the United Kingdom—with regard to the two Vietnamese boys in that case who were in an even more vulnerable situation—because of children’s vulnerability, they have a right to international protection. It is critical that that informs all elements of the Bill. I am picking out those two because they have a specific impact, in terms of recognising the impact of the experience of trauma on a victim of trafficking. It is a core commitment of the United Kingdom to combat the trafficking of persons, and modern slavery, both at home and abroad. It is critical that we see best practices being incorporated here.
Holly Lynch
Thank you very much, I will leave it there, unless there is time at the end.
Paul Blomfield
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: There are two schools of thought on this. Many in the sector will argue that the current, very low bar is appropriate, but I know colleagues in law enforcement think it is too high. The Bill is suggesting that we use the wording in the European convention against trafficking, or reasonable grounds to believe that an individual is a victim of modern slavery and human trafficking. On balance, I think that is appropriate.
Reasonable grounds is a pretty low threshold that people understand. It is more than a hunch or a suspicion, but it is not as much as a balance of probabilities. There needs to be some sort of objective information to base that reasonable grounds decision on. The obvious thing to say is that the guidance given to staff in the competent authority will be key, but it is not an unreasonable proposal—not least because the current legislation in Scotland and Northern Ireland uses the word “is” and, as far as I understand, the competent authority uses the same test across the United Kingdom. I do not think it will make that much difference, and to be consistent with the European convention is a reasonable proposal.
Siobhán Mullally: A concern here would be the possible impact of changing the threshold in terms of potential victims of trafficking accessing support and assistance and in processes of identification. Is it likely to have a negative impact? Is it likely to increase difficulties in identifying victims and referring them in a timely way for assistance and protection? That would be a concern if it is a regressive measure from where we are now; in terms of human rights law, you want to ensure non-regression in the protection of human rights of victims of trafficking.
I have concerns about the impact of that and whether it will increase the difficulty of timely and early identification of victims, because early identification is critical to ensuring effective access to protection. There is a question about how it will be implemented in practice and what the fallout will be in its implementation.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: That links to a comment I made in my correspondence with the Home Secretary. If the penalty for illegally entering the country is increased to four years, we could have a situation where, as a matter of course, if somebody had been prosecuted for that they would not be able to access the NRM. It is a risk that probably exists more on paper than in reality, because most of the time immigration enforcement does not use the law to prosecute; it tends to use administrative processes.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Siobhán Mullally: As I said, clauses 46 and 47 pose serious difficulties with regard to both adults and children in terms of the state’s compliance with international human rights law on the protection of victims, because of the particular difficulties a victim of trafficking may have not only in disclosing information, but even in identifying as a victim of trafficking. It is not the obligation of the victim to self-identify, but we know that where the context is new, where there may be a distrust or lack of familiarity with officials within a state, where there may be language barriers or delays in accessing legal assistance, or where there may be fears of reprisals for the victims or their families, that can lead to delays.
The European Court of Human Rights has repeatedly addressed that in terms of not properly taking account of the delays that can occur, the inconsistencies that may arise and the trauma that is endured by victims. That is not appropriate in terms of ensuring the fullest protection of the rights of victims of trafficking.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: Briefly. Siobhán has explained the issue of trauma, what we know about its impact on the brain, the way it affects memory and the way people recall with inconsistencies. We know that in practice that is very often the case with victims, and until they form trusting relationships you do not get a narrative that starts at the beginning and ends at the end; it is very piecemeal. As people trust and become more open, they might disclose more. That is a really big consideration. If we are not careful, these two clauses disregard that. Secondly, I have come across cases where victims are more able to disclose labour exploitation, for example, but it might take several years for them to disclose the most awful sexual exploitation because they may be embarrassed or ashamed about it. That is a concern. Also, of course, we know that some victims just do not identify as victims. They do not see that the awful things that they have endured mean that they are, in fact, victims.
I have been thinking about whether any amendments could acknowledge this issue about trauma. We have slavery and trafficking care standards, which are all about trauma-informed care. Is there a potential amendment that says that when you are doing this process it has to be done with those sorts of standards and principles in mind?
Similarly, the Bill does not talk at all about how long people might be given to respond to a trafficking information notice. Again, I would be really worried if that were just a matter of a few days. Colleagues have looked at arrangements in some asylum cases. It may be 20 days. I think this might be more complex, so you might think about 30 days. Is it worth thinking about putting in the Bill what sort of time period might be appropriate?
Lastly, colleagues have suggested that you might even want to define in the Bill what might be a good reason for disclosure, because at the moment it is left very much open. It could be open to guidance, but one aspect would be to list—whether it is trauma, mistrust of authority, or a threat from traffickers—all the sorts of reasons that could cause late disclosure, and perhaps, as I say, have them in legislation rather than just relying on guidance.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: I will start with the second first. The earlier witnesses gave evidence about the two-tier approach. The concern would be that that creates vulnerability for people who are in this country in that situation because they have fewer protections, and no recourse to public funds unless they are destitute. I know from my work that people in that situation are driven by desperation to take exploitative work. It is a real concern that it could create vulnerability, which criminals and traffickers would exploit.
On the second point, I referred to material that was in a House of Commons Library report that suggested that when you look at the reasons why people choose or choose not to come to a country, there are many other factors that they consider. There is better evidence that they consider other factors than the nature of the law and the situation when they get there—the policy and practice of the country. My concern would be that you risk making more people vulnerable, because they live lives of precarity anyway, with a hope that this will deter. I completely understand the Government’s position that this is a very dangerous way for people to come to this country and we need to stop it, but I am concerned about the extent to which there is evidence that suggests that it might be effective, given that I think it could increase vulnerability.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Siobhán Mullally: Again, it is disappointing to see that reduction in the recovery period. It is a regressive measure in terms of current standards and protections, so I would have concerns that it is moving backwards the human rights protections of victims of trafficking. There have been previous examples of regressive measures, in terms of attempts to reduce assistance levels to victims of trafficking. Again, it breaches the principle of non-regression in human rights protections, so I would have concerns around that and the longer-term impact, in terms of ensuring effective protection of victims of trafficking and trying to break the cycle of re-trafficking and vulnerability to exploitation.
Dame Sara Thornton: I really welcome the fact that it is going to be in statute, because it was not in statute in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. I acknowledge that the current guidance is 45 days and that this is only 30 days, but 30 days is what is set out in the European convention. The other thing that is worth saying—I do not know whether Members are aware of this—is that the wait from reasonable grounds to conclusive grounds is very, very long. In 2020, the average was 465 days. We have a big debate about 45 days versus 30, but the reality is that when I meet victims and survivors, most of them have a sense of waiting a very, very long time. They are being provided with support, but they feel that their lives are on hold.
I have a couple of other thoughts about the time period. Of course, if people are being supported for a long time, there is some benefit to that, but there is also a disadvantage, particularly when cases are related to criminal proceedings, the courts are waiting for decisions and the system is grinding very slowly. One particular issue might seem very tactical and technical, which maybe it is, but it is important. One of the weaknesses of the current national referral mechanism is that, historically, all the decisions have been taken by the Home Office—the competent authority. I think a lot of the decisions about whether somebody has been trafficked are best taken locally by local safeguarding partners, and I am really pleased to say that the Home Office established a pilot early this year in 10 local authority areas, whereby local safeguarding boards are making those decisions. You have the right people around the table, and they have a much fuller picture of what has been going on.
Those pilots are going very well. One of the things they are able to do is that, when they meet to discuss what has happened to a child, they are able to take both the reasonable grounds and conclusive grounds decisions at the same meeting—you might imagine how that speeds things up. I would not want anything in the legislation to undermine the really good best practice that is currently being developed, which means that decisions about children’s trafficking are being made locally by the people who are best qualified to do them, and it is happening so much more speedily. I would hope that the Bill does not undermine that good practice.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: If it was the case that that meant that people were getting just 30 days’ support, it would have a negative impact. If you think about providing people with counselling and helping with their medical support and legal advice—a whole range of things— 30 days is not very long. I am just saying the reality in the UK at the moment is that it is taking so much longer that the difference between 45 and 30 is less significant.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: The period between the new plan for immigration in March and the publication of the Bill in July was very short. We are aware that groups involved in asylum were much more involved in the consultation process than some of the groups that support victims of slavery and trafficking. It is too late now, but it would have been good to see more involvement of survivor groups particularly, so that people could give their views about what this would mean on a personal level, from that survivor perspective.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: This Bill specifically refers to a minimum of 30 days between the reasonable grounds decision and the conclusive grounds decision, and what I am saying is that, in these pilots, with some cases—not in all cases, but in some cases—the decisions are being taken on the same day, and I would not want that to be undermined. Presumably you would have to say, “Well, today we will make the reasonable grounds decision. We have got to come back after 30 days and make the conclusive grounds decision.” Actually, they are able to do both at the same time.
Of course, it matters a lot for children to get these decisions made, particularly when quite a lot of these cases are cases of child criminal exploitation and there are related proceedings in the courts. So it also helps the courts. As you know, there is an issue with backlogs in courts, so the more those decisions can be made in an effective and efficient fashion, the more that helps the courts, as well as being in the best interests of the child, in my view.
Neil Coyle
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: This is taken from the equality impact assessment, which I think was published on Friday last week and which talked about the Government continuing to mitigate adverse impacts on vulnerable people. One of the examples given is that it says the Government will mitigate the risk of adverse impacts on unaccompanied asylum-seeking children by exempting them from the inadmissibility process, which I think is set out in clauses 14 and 15. So that was a very specific issue referred to in the equality impact assessment. I do not think there is any kind of read-across to the Bill at the moment.
Neil Coyle
Q
Siobhán Mullally: Yes, certainly. I will make a written submission, but those are well-established cases from the European Court of Human Rights: L.E. v. Greece, and S.M. v. Croatia. Then, of course, there is V.C.L. and A.N. v. the United Kingdom—the judgment on that was final earlier this year. They are all quite specifically relevant in terms of clause 51, in particular the implications on non-punishment, victims of trafficking, rights of access to the courts and right to a fair trial. V.C.L. and A.N. v. the United Kingdom found the state to be in violation of articles 4 and 6 of the European convention on human rights, read in conjunction with the Council of Europe’s convention on action against trafficking.
L.E. v. Greece and S.M. v. Croatia are particularly important with regard to recognising the trauma endured by victims of trafficking for purposes of sexual exploitation and the need for that to be taken account of in terms of identification processes, referrals for assistance and protection by the state; and recognising that it is a positive obligation on the state, as stated again in the V.C.L. judgment by the court, to ensure effective protection.
Neil Coyle
Q
Siobhán Mullally: I think that part 4, as it is currently drafted, is not in compliance, as I said, with international law. It is not in compliance with the state’s obligations under the ECHR, the Council of Europe’s convention on action against trafficking or the UN’s protocol to prevent, suppress and punish trafficking in persons, especially women and children—the Palermo protocol.
So I think that that part of the Bill, in particular, raises very serious questions and concerns. In particular, I would point to clause 51 but also to other clauses—clauses 46 to 51. Other provisions in the Bill raise other concerns. I am speaking particularly about those areas, because they raise very specific concerns in relation to my mandate on trafficking in persons, especially women and children.
Holly Lynch
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: This has become quite a topic of discussion in law enforcement. The problem has been that practice has varied from force to force as to whether missing person reports were completed or whether there was a report to immigration enforcement. I know that some interim guidance has been put out by the National Police Chiefs’ Council setting out what needs to happen, but to give you an example from June this year, about 140—I think—Vietnamese migrants who had come across in small boats were put in hotels in a variety of cities across the UK, and within 24 hours they had all disappeared. My view is that that was because they were clearly under the control of traffickers. They got sucked into the asylum system; that would not be the plan of the traffickers. As I say, they were gone in 24 hours. The reason I am aware that there has been some debate is that the forces were all then saying, “What’s going to be our response? What should we be doing in terms of investigating what has happened?”
One of the difficulties, if I may, is that when people go missing in that situation, we have no biometric data on them, so it is very difficult to ever work out whether you have found those people or not, with all the issues of language and difficulty with names and dates of birth. It is a live and current operational issue at the moment.
Holly Lynch
Thank you. Ms Mullally?
Siobhán Mullally: The state has very specific obligations to protect victims and potential victims of trafficking, and there are very specific provisions under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings with regard to missing children, whether those are foreign nationals or not. Internal trafficking is a very serious concern that is often not recognised sufficiently in many jurisdictions, not exclusively the United Kingdom.
A concern was raised previously by the Council of Europe group of experts on action against trafficking, the treaty monitoring body under the convention on action against trafficking, about children going missing in the UK—particularly unaccompanied, separated asylum-seeking children, but also child victims of trafficking internally. Of course, there are very serious obligations on the state to provide protection to all children without discrimination.
One concern with regard to the trafficking context can be that sometimes the child victims and adult victims go outside of the ordinary protection mechanisms and are not treated with the same urgency that they ought to be, but there are very specific obligations on the state to try to respond effectively and in a timely way to prevent that, and to ensure protection.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: Thank you, Minister, and I very much welcome the new staff who are being recruited into the single competent authority, because I have raised the need to speed up decision making with your predecessors on many occasions.
The biggest cause of difficulty, I think, is the increased numbers. Although 2020 was similar to 2019, with about 10,600 referrals into the NRM, that number has doubled in three or four years, so there is substantial pressure. The other thing that is happening, as I mentioned earlier on, is child criminal exploitation and the cases of children. Those decisions need to be made quickly, because there are often related proceedings. Having been to the single competent authority and spoken to the staff, what tends to happen is that all those priorities keep going to the top of the pile and then there are an awful lot of cases in the backlog. On the whole, it has been about increased demand, and the resources just have not been able to keep up with it. So I welcome the fact that there are new staff. It will take a while for them to be trained and to be competent, but that is a good thing.
The second thing, which is identified in a report I published last year, is that one of the difficulties for the decision makers in that competent authority is that they do not always have all the information. They have some information, but they are often having to make decisions on partial information. They might have asked local authorities, they might have asked police forces or they might have asked Border Force. They do not always get the replies and therefore they are having to do the best in difficult circumstances. Staff have been under huge pressure and I hope we can begin to bring those averages down and bring the weight down.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: There are difficulties. Colleagues might be aware that the process is that you have first responders, who are police officers, members of Border Force, immigration enforcement and local authority staff, who have the ability to refer a potential victim into the national referral mechanism. One of the difficulties, and it is constantly reported on, is that the staff who are doing that do not understand how the national referral mechanism works. They do not understand enough to give good advice. So report after report recommends that there needs to be more training of first responders, and the Home Office recently published some more training.
I am getting to the position now where I wonder whether it is a sensible to expect that every police officer should be able to deal with this—every member of Border Force, every member of a local authority—and whether you might want to have specially trained points of contact who deal with it. If you think about it, even though the numbers have been going up, most police officers in the course of a year will never deal with these situations. I do think there is an issue about that, and we need to think very seriously about the model we have for first responders.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Dame Sara Thornton: I think that people who smuggle fellow human beings, or indeed traffic them, are committing a most heinous crime. Think about the 39 people who lost their lives in Essex two years ago. Whether they were smuggled or trafficked is a matter much debated, but the callous way that those criminals treated those victims, in my view, needs the harshest punishment. The only thing I would say is that, as a former police officer, I am on the whole in favour of harsh punishments, but you have life sentence as an option from the Modern Slavery Act 2015 for slavery and trafficking. It has never been used. So there is the point that, I guess, it has a deterrent effect, but there is also an issue about whether, if those powers exist, they really need to be used to be a really effective deterrent.
The Chair
I see no further questioners. I thank the witnesses for their evidence. We will move on to the next panel.
Examination of Witnesses
Lisa Doyle, Mariam Kemple-Hardy, Priscilla Dudhia and Alphonsine Kabagabo gave evidence.
The Chair
Welcome, everybody. We will now hear from Lisa Doyle, executive director of advocacy and engagement at the Refugee Council and Mariam Kemple-Hardy, head of campaigns at Refugee Action, both of whom are appearing in person. We will also hear from Priscilla Dudhia, advocacy co-ordinator at Women for Refugee Women, and Alphonsine Kabagabo, director of Women for Refugee Women, who are both joining us remotely via Zoom. Given that this panel is split between physical and video link contributions, it is especially important that Members direct their questions at specific witnesses to avoid confusion. We have until 4 pm for this session. Please could the witnesses introduce themselves for the record? Can we start with the witnesses who are present in the room?
Lisa Doyle: I am Lisa Doyle, director of advocacy and engagement at Refugee Council.
Mariam Kemple-Hardy: Hi, I am Mariam Kemple-Hardy, head of campaigns at Refugee Action.
Alphonsine Kabagabo: Hi, I am Alphonsine Kabagabo, and I am the director of Women for Refugee Women.
Priscilla Dudhia: Hello, I am Priscilla Dudhia, policy co-ordinator, also from Women for Refugee Women.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Lisa Doyle: In our opinion, it does not meet those aims. Previous witnesses you have heard from in the last few days have also said this. There is little evidence that putting deterrents in place actually stops people arriving in the UK. People are pushed into situations where they seek safety. Research that we have conducted, and that the Home Office conducted a while ago, showed that people often did not have information about the rights and entitlements they would be greeted with in the UK.
Because there are not enough safe and regular routes for people to come to the UK, they are forced to rely on smugglers and others to reach here, and they get different types of information. The deterrents do not work. There is not evidence that they work. Our concern with lots of the provisions in the Bill is that they seek to punish or disadvantage or make vulnerable people even more vulnerable, rather than giving them the protection they need.
Mariam Kemple-Hardy: Thank you very much for having me today. I want to say that I will be giving evidence based not just on the work that Refugee Action do as a service provider. Over July and August we held a series of focus groups with refugees and people in the asylum system to consult with them on what they thought the impact of the legislation would be.
First, at Refugee Action we have really welcomed the warm words of the Government recently in response to the Afghanistan crisis. They have said that they want to give a warm welcome to refugees fleeing that horror, and we welcome that. However, that warm rhetoric is not matched by the harsh reality that we see in this Bill.
As Lisa has said, the Bill is about punishment. It is not about protection. We understand there are two key objectives of this legislation, the first being to make a fairer asylum system and the second being to deter people from making dangerous crossings. We believe the legislation fails on both counts.
When it comes to making a fairer asylum system, what we actually see is this legislation creating a deeply unfair system, where, for the first time ever in UK law, refugees will be judged based on how they enter the country, not on their protection needs.
Secondly, when it comes to deterring dangerous journeys, this legislation is likely, as per the Government’s own equality impact assessment last week, to make people take even more dangerous routes. Far from breaking the business model of people smugglers, this legislation plays into that business model. If you make it harder to enter the country, smugglers can charge more and encourage people to take even more dangerous routes. We are likely to see more people losing their lives as a result of this.
The key disrupter to that business model is providing safe routes to safety, but we do not see anything said about that in this legislation. There is nothing to increase refugee resettlement, nothing to increase access to family reunion and nothing about humanitarian visas. It is all about punishment. It is not about protection.
Alphonsine Kabagabo: Thank you for giving us this opportunity. We will be focusing on the impact of this Bill on women, because we represent that area. We are an organisation that supports women to safety in the UK and defends their rights. As other people have already said, this new Bill will have a great impact on women.
As you know, quite a lot of women in our network have survived gender-based violence. They have been traumatised through being raped, being forced into marriage, being forced into sexual exploitation or through FGM. For them to access a safe route has got to be an option for me, because it is not a choice. It is an issue that they cannot avoid. This Bill makes it even harder for those victims to access safety.
We are also concerned about some of the detail, such as providing evidence when you arrive, as soon as possible. Women who have been traumatised, because they have been violated, raped and all that, cannot provide that evidence straight away. They need time to heal, to be protected, to access mental health support. They need time to understand the system, so that is retraumatising them even more.
We are also very concerned because there is even a clause about being a member of a particular social group, and gender is not one of the groups. That really will absolutely affect some of the women we are fighting for. We were also surprised that the Bill is at odds with the Government policy on violence against women and girls, which proposes to support survivors of gender-based violence. Instead of offering safety and support, this new Bill will actively harm and traumatise women. So, I will say that, but my colleague Priscilla might want to add something. Over to you, Priscilla.
Priscilla Dudhia: That was fantastic—nothing to add.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Lisa Doyle: In terms of the two-tier system, it seems incomprehensible that you would treat somebody differently based on their mode of arrival, not because of their protection needs. You could have a perverse situation with next door neighbours from Afghanistan, with one fortunately finding their way on to the formal resettlement route and the other being forced to take the decision to make a dangerous journey, then, on reaching UK shores, getting a different level of protection and rights than their next door neighbour, even though they are fleeing the same persecution and threats. People’s protection needs are not based on how they travel, how much money they have or what their identity is—in terms of whether men might be more prone to travel or not. People make decisions, when they are forced to rely on smugglers, about who they will prioritise to send to a country, and then hope that they can apply, through refugee family reunion, for others to join them afterwards. Having differential treatment based on mode of arrival seems grossly unfair.
Mariam Kemple-Hardy: I agree with everything Lisa has just said. Afghanistan is a really instructive example. In August, the whole world witnessed what it is like when a country enfolds itself in crisis—how chaotic it is. We saw how few and how precious those places on those planes were.
It is fantastic that the Government have committed to taking in 20,000 refugees from Afghanistan over the next two years, but we know that that is a drop in the ocean. We saw people clinging to the sides of planes. That is how desperate they are to reach safety. Although we welcome the fact that the Government have said that they will take in 20,000 Afghan refugees, we are very concerned about what will happen to the 20,001st Afghan refugee who arrives after this legislation. That Afghan refugee, as Lisa says, will be fleeing the same horror, but they will be treated as a second class of refugee.
When we spoke to our focus groups, they said that if they were to get this second-class version of refugee protection, their life would be one of “You can’t. You can’t. You can’t.” They said, “Look, this temporary protection is no protection at all.” They thought that, with very unstable immigration status, all the building blocks of rebuilding your life—being able to access a job, to rent somewhere, to send your children to university—would be far, far beyond them. As a result of that, we believe that this whole concept of temporary protection is, as I said, no protection at all. It is a system of punishment, not protection.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Priscilla Dudhia: Without repeating what has already been said, we would like to highlight that, as well as distinguishing between refugees based on their mode of arrival, the Bill also distinguishes between refugees based on the point at which they claim asylum and punishes those who have not claimed asylum “without delay”.
As an organisation that, as Alphonsine highlighted, supports a large network of women who have survived the most horrific cases of sexual and gender-based violence, we are concerned about the fact that women who had survived that violence would be punished by this. We know that women who have experienced that kind of violence have issues in disclosing that.
Those issues are well acknowledged in Home Office policy. That policy talks about the barriers that feelings of shame and guilt can create, the stigma that comes with sexual violence and the fear that some women might have of reprisals from community and family members. That same policy goes on to say that late disclosure should not automatically prejudice a woman’s credibility. In clause 10, we have a direct contravention of that acknowledgement of the very real challenges that women who have fled gender-based violence face in sharing their experiences.
Alongside that, there are other situations in which women might not be able to claim asylum at the earliest opportunity. For instance, many of the women to whom we have spoken in our network had no idea that they could claim refugee protection on the basis of the gender-based violence that they have faced. There are other women who have fled violence and did not intend to stay in the UK for a long time—who came here on a visa, wanting to escape persecution but with the intention of going back—but later discovered that, “Actually, no, there is a grave threat to my safety still, and I need to stay.”
I would like briefly to share the story of one such woman, called Agnes, who is a refugee from a west African country. Agnes fled political persecution. She fled her country—she was in danger—and eventually decided to go to the UK, where her daughter was studying. She was the only family member that she could be with. She wanted to return, but once she was here she realised that political opponents were still being targeted. A lady for whom Agnes was working as an assistant was in prison at the time when Agnes was in the UK, and she realised that it was not safe for her to go back.
Agnes said that she was expecting to go back home quickly, but she could not: “When I realised my visa was going to expire, I went to Croydon to ask what to do to apply for asylum, and that is what I did.” Unfortunately for Agnes, she was locked up in detention, which she found hugely traumatising given her previous experience of incarceration. Her claim was refused at the initial stage and on appeal, and she had to lodge a fresh claim. Today Agnes has refugee status and we are immensely honoured to say that she is part of our team at Women for Refugee Women, where she works as a detention campaign spokesperson. I say all this to highlight that there may be legitimate reasons why vulnerable women are not able to claim right away, and we do not think that it is acceptable to be punishing them.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Lisa Doyle: At the Refugee Council we are really concerned about having large-scale accommodation centres set up where people are kept away from communities that, should they get refugee status, they would want to be able to integrate into, so they will have little contact with friends, neighbours and volunteers. Those kinds of things are a real worry. The dispersal policy as it works now is that people are housed within communities. There are little details about the accommodation centres, and we are aware that the Home Office has started to tender out for those, but a lot of the detail on that is privileged to those who want to bid. We want to know who would be put into those centres. Napier Barracks is a really good case of looking at suitability for people. We know that with covid there were particular risks, and independent inspectorates showed that parts of Napier were not fit for human habitation.
In terms of vulnerability, the Home Office has alluded to the fact that it would not necessarily put vulnerable people into large-scale accommodation centres, but it does not have a very good track record of identifying vulnerable people at an early stage. Many people were removed from Napier because of their vulnerabilities, because non-governmental organisations and charities took legal cases against the Home Office and then the Home Office removed them. The safeguards are not there. If people are outside communities, there is not oversight and that will really damage people’s chances to integrate and rebuild their lives should they get refugee status.
Mariam Kemple-Hardy: The first thing to say is that asylum accommodation has been in crisis for years. In the last 12 months, five of our clients have had the ceilings where they live fall on them. The two-year-old toddler of one of our clients was hospitalised because their head was split open. We have had whole families having to live in just one room. We have had people stuck in hotels for years. There is a crisis of accommodation. However, what we see in the Bill is that it doubles down on that injustice that we see.
When it comes to accommodation centres, we are against them on a point of principle and also because of the practice at Napier and Penally Barracks over the last 12 months. When it comes to the point of principle, as Lisa says, the idea of segregating part of our society and othering them is something that we disagree with. It takes people away from the communities that they want to integrate into; it takes them away from the healthcare that they may need to access—they are very traumatised people who have particular mental health and physical needs in many instances; and it takes them away from opportunities to get education and so on. On a point of principle, we are very much against that practice. However, in terms of actual practice, over the last year in Napier and Penally Barracks, we have seen appalling situations where people have tried to take their own lives. We saw, at the height of the pandemic, people being forced to live with 28 other strangers in dormitories. In Napier Barracks, there was an outbreak when 197 people tested positive for covid-19. Traumatised people in Penally Barracks were next to an active firing range. In terms of the way this has been put into practice, we are deeply concerned about the plans.
I want to make two quick final points about the how the legislation is currently drafted. First, the legislation would give the Home Secretary the ability to extend the maximum amount of time that someone can be in an accommodation centre. At the moment, the maximum is six months. The Bill does not say how long someone could be in the accommodation centre—arguably, it could be unlimited.
Secondly, the Bill also allows people in those conditions to be put under residence conditions, such as being told that they were not able to leave that accommodation for a certain period of time during a day. We are seeing the potential for unlimited de facto detention as a result of the Bill. Someone in our focus group said, “Let’s be honest; it’s not a camp, it’s a prison. Let’s call a spade a spade”. This is not something that we want to see in our refugee protection system.
The Chair
I am terribly sorry to our witnesses on Zoom, but I would like to get some more questions in, if that is okay. I call Jonathan Gullis.
Jonathan Gullis
Q
Mariam Kemple-Hardy: I heard the UNHCR give comprehensive evidence earlier, and I think the points that they made about the need or not to apply for asylum in the first safe country of entry were clear and unequivocal. In addition, I do not think it is up to me, you or anyone else to decide what is safe for someone.
I will give you an example of someone we spoke to. They are from South America, and they fled to the UK, but they had to take a flight to Spain first before moving to the UK. Many of us in the room would say that Spain is a safe country, but that individual was fleeing gang violence, and the gang had extensive networks in Spain, so it was absolutely not a safe country for him. He is deeply concerned about the impact the legislation could have on his claim for asylum in the UK.
Jonathan Gullis
Q
Mariam Kemple-Hardy: First, the number of safe routes to this country is vanishingly small. As I said, it is shocking that there is not a word in the legislation that actually increases safe routes to safety. There is nothing about family reunion, refugee resettlement and so on.
However, on the issue of channel crossings—thank you for raising it—we at Refugee Action do not want to see people crossing the channel. It is dangerous and we do not want to see it at all. However, we notice that the rhetoric around this particular debate often focuses on the question of how we can keep people out, not how we can keep people safe. If we were to ask the question, “How do we keep people safe?”, there are very clear policy solutions. As I say, it is about family reunion, refugee resettlement and so on, but there is nothing at all in the legislation—nothing—to increase safe routes.
Jonathan Gullis
Q
Mariam Kemple-Hardy: As I said earlier, the evidence is clear that if you make it harder and harder to enter a country, that does not break the business model of the people smugglers. As the Government’s own equality impact assessment stated last week, it actually plays into that business model, because you enable them to charge higher prices and people are more likely to go by much riskier routes. In terms of being a deterrent, that is not going to be effective. The most radical way to disrupt this business model is to focus on how we keep people safe, and that is about increasing access to safe routes. In terms of offshoring, I am not sure if Lisa wanted to add anything.
The Chair
I am ever so sorry, but owing to the shortness of time, rather than go to another member of the panel, I would like to get someone to ask a question. I would like to give Alphonsine and Priscilla their first go at answering. I call Robert Goodwill.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Alphonsine Kabagabo: We certainly welcome a system that will let more women in and will give them the choice to be brought to safety in a safe way—we absolutely welcome that—but that is what we do not see. We do not see those opportunities being available today. We do not see the opportunities being available for the women we work with to reach a safe country in a safe way—even for men, although I do not have those figures. We have women who crossed the Sahara to come here, seeking safety. I will let my colleague add to that.
As someone who has experienced being a refugee, when I was stuck, I would have taken any route. When I was in Rwanda during the genocide, I would have taken any route to get to safety. No one offered me that safe route. The Belgians and the French came to rescue expatriates, not Rwandan people. That is the problem. The problem is that those routes are not available to us.
Mr Goodwill
Q
Priscilla Dudhia: As my colleagues have already said, the way to deter these gangs and so on is to create more safe and legal routes—to expand the global resettlement scheme; to set a number; to prioritise women who have survived sexual and gender-based violence; to expand family reunification laws, but is also to look towards other routes. My connection cut out for a bit earlier, so apologies if I am repeating what has already been said. We strongly urge the Government to explore humanitarian visas. Right now, there is no asylum visa. We think that all that would minimise the risk of people taking dangerous journeys. As Alphonsine has already highlighted, safe and legal routes are not available to everyone, unfortunately. We must not shut the door on vulnerable women who cannot avail themselves of the routes for reasons that are entirely beyond their control.
Looking to the situation in Afghanistan, for instance, the two-tier system would lead to immense cruelty and absurd results. You could have a female Afghan journalist who is really vulnerable and gets on the resettlement scheme, and then female Afghan journalist B, who is just as vulnerable, but for whatever reasons cannot access the resettlement scheme and has to quickly uproot herself from danger. We have heard reports from civil society organisations about Afghan women being targeted. Because of the way she has journeyed—because of the irregular route she has taken—she is punished. Yes, we need to create routes, but we cannot punish women like that. What is our asylum system if those are the consequences that ensue for vulnerable women?
The Chair
Thank you. I would like to bring in a representative from the SNP now, because they are yet to ask any questions.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
Lisa Doyle: Certainly by expanding the safe routes that we have been talking about. A question was asked earlier about women and children. If the Government are serious about prioritising vulnerable women and children, the proposals to limit family reunion rights will run counter to that, because 90% of people who join people on family reunion are women and children.
We have an issue with decision making being too slow. At the Home Affairs Committee yesterday, the Home Office said that the average waiting time is a year now. We all want quick, efficient and accurate decisions, which would mean that anyone entering the UK would have their claim assessed quickly, and that would flow through the system and reduce the pressure on asylum accommodation. Putting more decision makers into the Home Office would certainly help. Improvements in the quality of accommodation and an expansion of safe routes would be a good investment for Britain to play its role in the international protection system.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
Mariam Kemple-Hardy: Sure. I am afraid I cannot speak about resignation syndrome. However, on mental health, I have mentioned that there are a few crises in the asylum system, but one of them is definitely a mental health crisis. When we work with and speak to refugees in the asylum system right now, they talk about the impact of the system—not just the accommodation, but the system overall. One person, who has been waiting almost three years for a decision on her claim, said, “It has destroyed me psychologically as a person.”
We have a system in which people are left in limbo for years. While they are waiting, they are not allowed to work—in effect, they are banned from working. They have to live on £5.69 a day—effectively, state-sponsored poverty. People tell us that they feel that they have lost all purpose. They feel that their experience of the asylum system is almost like a mental war, a complete retraumatising. These people have made it here, trying to seek safety, after going through a very traumatic process.
As I said, however, this legislation will only double down on that injustice. It will build an additional six months’ wait into the process, if someone is inadmissible. If their claim is deemed inadmissible and they have to wait six months to see if the Government will support them, it is unlikely that they will. Then, after six months, they enter the asylum system.
We would like to see policies in legislation that are sensible and humane. For example—I will say one final thing on the right to work—you mentioned how much money the legislation might cost the Home Office. Actually, those sensible policies we believe would save the Home Office a huge amount of money and would really help people in that psychological limbo while they wait for their asylum claim to be processed. If people were given the right to work, we estimate that it would save the Home Office about £100 million per year, and actually 71% of the public fully support giving people seeking asylum the right to work. However, we do not see such policies in this legislation. Instead, we see policies to punish and not to protect.
Paul Howell (Sedgefield) (Con)
Q
How can they be concerned? How do they get that information? I do not see that the information that they are getting about the Bill will be a motivator, because it all seems to be about push—about getting away from where you are—as opposed to any thoughts even about what they will find when they get here. I cannot square that circle—what knowledge refugees actually have about our place when they set off, other than, “It’s a nice place to go to.”
Mariam Kemple-Hardy: Absolutely. I watched those evidence sessions. I heard, I think, Zoe Gardner and Jon Featonby talking about the misinformation that people get as well. Actually, many people have said that they are more likely to get misinformation from, for example, smuggling gangs that are trying to get them to take these dangerous routes, rather than understanding the ins and outs of the most recent legislation in Parliament.
The people we have spoken to in the asylum system are talking about the legislation they are seeing and the asylum system they are experiencing once they are here. Before they left to come here, many people have explained that they knew very little about how to claim asylum in the UK. It was only when they arrived here that they understood what it would mean. As you say, it is all about the push factor. People explained to us, when they needed to leave, they needed to leave—they did not have any time to sit down, to do the research. One person was living in a refugee camp and thought that only four countries in the world would provide asylum.
One thing that the focus group said was that they felt the legislation fundamentally misunderstands the concept of what being a refugee is, as though it is a choice and you can choose where to go and how to get there. For them it was not a choice. It was not a choice to come to the UK, because the UK was where they believed they were going for safety. One person said, “This is where I felt I was going to be welcomed and where I was going to be free,” because they have language ties and family here, and things like that. That is why the UK is the place of the safety for them. They are not shopping around and saying, “Okay, it’s a nice place.” It is the place of safety for them.
The key thing to try to square the circle—I am not sure that I have—is that people have very limited access to information in that chaotic moment of trying to leave, as we saw in Afghanistan. People come here, and many have said—I think it is quite sad, looking at the legislation—that they believed that the UK was a beacon of human rights that would protect them. That is why they are here. They are then devastated to learn of the plans, and by how they have been treated in the asylum system so far. As I say, the plans will simply double down on the injustice that we already see.
Alphonsine Kabagabo: Can I confirm what you just said, Mariam? Some people choose to come here also because of historical connection and the language. If you have been colonised by the UK, you feel safe to come to a country where you have a historical tie. When I was a refugee, I went to Belgium. I speak French, so I felt safe there. If I am in Belgium, I feel that is where I need to be. We need to understand that we are talking about people here, not numbers—people who are trying not only to survive, but to rebuild life, and rebuilding life sometimes means thinking, “Where do I have a chance to rebuild life—not just to be a refugee, but to be a person again?”. That is what I want to emphasise.
Paul Howell
I get that, but my concern is how to get the message back around to the beginning. The refugees who get here and can therefore get messages back to people where they came from—is that not the most efficient method of getting anything true back to those people, as opposed to the noise they get from people smugglers and so on? That message should be that the best way to come is the safe route. If they come across the channel they will run into all sorts of problems, and therefore we want to motivate them to go the safe way, rather than any other way.
The Chair
I am sorry, but I want to get another question in. Neil, do you want to ask your question? That will probably be the last one—both questions can be answered together.
Neil Coyle
Q
Mariam Kemple-Hardy: The first question asked how we can get information to people that they should take the safe routes instead. My very quick and simple answer is that there is a vanishingly small number of safe routes, so that question is completely irrelevant for most people. If you want to know how to help people to take more safe routes, the answer is to create more safe routes. Nothing in the Bill creates more safe routes.
To the second question, we have for a long time been calling for the Government to announce a regular annual global commitment to refugee resettlement. We have been calling for the Government to resettle 10,000 refugees from around the world on an annual basis. We believe that is absolutely possible, and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has said in the past that it is absolutely feasible. We would like to see the Government take the legislation and do what they have set out in their rhetoric by creating safe routes to safety.
There are other different types of routes—I believe the British Red Cross spoke in particular about family reunion—but we would like to see one key thing that the Government could do relatively easily. We previously took in 5,000 Syrian refugees each year. Let us up our ambition, meet the ambitions of global Britain and say, “Yes, we will take in 10,000 refugees from around the world.” It was great to see the announcement of the Afghan resettlement scheme, but that answers only today’s crisis. We want to see a resettlement programme that addresses not only the crisis of today, but the crises of tomorrow.
The Chair
We have a couple of minutes. Do any other witnesses want to say something briefly?
Lisa Doyle: May I just add to that? I agree that resettlement needs expansion. Refugee family reunion is a really good safe route; it is used by tens of thousands of people, 90% of whom are women and children. The Bill seeks to reduce the rights to refugee family reunion, rather than expand them. Priscilla also mentioned a humanitarian visa that would allow people to travel to the UK to claim asylum. They would still have their asylum claim looked at, but they could formally and legally get on a plane and come to the UK—you have to be physically present in the UK to claim asylum, so that would be helpful.
However, no matter how many safe routes are opened, you should not be closing down routes for people who need to enter irregularly. That is in the convention, as was just highlighted very strongly by the UNHCR. There will be categorisations and formal processes and criteria that people will have to meet for all of the safe routes, and not everyone will be covered yet. There will still be people who fall outside of those who have protection needs, and we should honour those.
Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)
Q
Lisa Doyle: We do not want people to drown and die to get here.
Craig Whittaker
Q
Lisa Doyle: We should not be punishing people who feel they are forced to travel irregularly to enter a country. There is a precedent in international law to do that. All the evidence in previous days has said that if you build your walls higher, the people smugglers become more and more sophisticated and have to take—
Craig Whittaker
Q
Lisa Doyle: Of course I would not want to see people drown. What I am saying is that there will always be a need for people to enter countries and to seek safety not on formal safe routes, because formal safe routes are not broad enough to encompass everybody. The reality is that people are desperate. They need to move and they want to rebuild their lives.
The Chair
Thank you. I am afraid that brings us to the end of the time allotted for the Committee to ask questions. I thank our witnesses on behalf of the Committee for their evidence.
Examination of Witnesses
Patricia Durr, Patricia Cabral and Adrian Berry gave evidence.
The Chair
Q
Patricia Durr: Hello. My name is Patricia Durr. I am the chief executive of ECPAT UK. We are a child rights and anti-trafficking charity working directly with child victims and those at risk, and advocating for their rights to protection and care.
Patricia Cabral: Good afternoon. I am Patricia Cabral, the legal policy officer at the European Network on Statelessness. We are a civil society alliance working to protect stateless people, and to reduce statelessness throughout Europe. We have more than 170 members across Europe in 41 countries, including the UK. There are 45 of us in the UK.
Adrian Berry: Hello. I am Adrian Berry, patron of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association. We represent barristers, solicitors and other immigration advisers who work in the field of migration policy to secure just and equitable immigration law and practice.
Holly Lynch
Q
Patricia Durr: Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence to the Committee. One of our concerns has been what little attention has been paid to child victims in consideration of the measures in the Bill. We welcome the focus in the earlier evidence session with Dame Sara Thornton and Siobhán Mullally, and some of the questions from the Committee on that. One of our key concerns is that the measures in part 4 of the Bill will affect all child victims of trafficking, including British national children, who currently form the majority of those who are referred into the national referral mechanism; yet it is being dealt with within an immigration context. For us, consideration of child victims of trafficking and modern slavery is a child protection matter solely.
We are also concerned that the measures in the Bill will be detrimental to unaccompanied children, who we know are at particular risk of exploitation, abuse and trafficking. We know that increasing numbers of children are being identified as victims; yet the barriers are huge. We support some of the stated intentions of providing more support for child victims, but this measure seems to be increasing vulnerability and increasing punishment of children who are already too often criminalised for their own exploitation.
We also think that the Bill is not compatible with the UK’s current obligations towards children, principally the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings and the UN convention on the rights of the child, and that all decisions about children, including that of immigration leave, must be taken with their best interest as the primary consideration. They must not face discrimination due to their immigration status, nor must they be disqualified from protection in the UK. There should be a safeguarding response to all children.
We are concerned about all the clauses in part 4 of the Bill, but we have particular concerns about identification, the conclusive grounds provisions, the recovery period, which will potentially have an impact on child victims, and the disqualification from protection, as well as the leave to remain provision in clause 53. We think there is an opportunity to improve and strengthen that in terms of particular provision for children, whereas there is nothing in there now that meets the international legal standard for children.
Holly Lynch
Q
Patricia Durr: We need to bear in mind that the biggest single form of exploitation of children who are being referred is criminal exploitation, and to a large extent some of that is about increased awareness and better identification of children and young people. We are not sure yet what impact covid may have had on some of that; we know that the numbers of adults went down, maybe as a result of the access into work environments where they are being exploited. There may be some of that, but there is a broad understanding that there is an increase in exploitative behaviour towards children.
Holly Lynch
Q
Patricia Durr: We are really concerned about that, because the definition of the threat to public order is not appropriately drawn. It is so broad that, as you say, a significant number of child victims would potentially be disqualified from that protection. The consequences for children and young people are huge. As we have said, criminal exploitation is the most commonly reported form of modern slavery for potential child victims, and a significant number of those cases are for drug-related offences, including some of the so-called county lines crimes, which may carry custodial sentences of more than 12 months, which this provision brings in. Those children would be disqualified from protection if they were identified on appeal for serving custodial sentences.
We also know that data on arrests of children aged 10 to 17 for drug-related offences show that more children are arrested for possession with intent to supply class A drugs. We are also concerned about the terrorism subsections of clause 51, which will exclude child victims exploited by non-state armed groups from accessing protection. The international legal framework on the use of children in armed conflict defines this form of exploitation as the worst form of child labour, and exclusion of children recruited by armed groups on public order grounds will significantly hinder their ability to be safeguarded from harm and to access support and protection. We draw particular attention to the impact it will have, not only on migrant children. It may include the identification of children domestically, such as those in Northern Ireland who are recruited into paramilitarism.
Holly Lynch
Q
Patricia Durr: Yes. It is a principle set out in international—and also our domestic—law that children should not be punished for their own exploitation and abuse. That non-punishment of trafficked children was recently judged in the European Court of Human Rights. I think Siobhán Mullally mentioned this case of V.C.L. and A.N., two Vietnamese teenagers who were criminalised and not identified as child victims of slavery. Yes, we are very concerned about this clause. We think that child victims should not be included within its remit.
Holly Lynch
Q
Adrian Berry: It is certainly appropriate for people to receive legal advice. The key element in that regard is whether or not people have public funds in order to secure the appropriate advice, and whether there is adequate funding for that. Yes, we would support that at all stages. Of course, it does not correct any of the defects in strengthening the tests for making a reasonable grounds decision or changing a standard of proof in respect of conclusive grounds decisions. What it does do is enable people to assert their rights, so it is a basic jumping-off point.
Holly Lynch
Q
Adrian Berry: Yes, of course. As you know, there is a whole series of notices, including in relation to trafficking, which increasingly assimilate it to the asylum process where you get punished for producing evidence or material after an arbitrary cut-off date. There is no safeguard in the Bill for when that cut-off date is—it could be too soon, before you have had an opportunity to recover, to produce the information and receive support. Legal aid is one way of enabling people to properly frame their case at the earliest possible opportunity. The use of notices throughout the Bill, whether trafficking, asylum or priority removal notices, is a subject of serious concern in terms of procedural fairness and ensuring convention compliance, whether that is the trafficking convention or the refugee convention.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Patricia Cabral: Thank you for the question. Clause 9 proposes to amend and restrict a vital safeguard in British nationality law that was initially introduced with the aim of preventing and reducing childhood statelessness. It is important to note that the UK has international obligations in this area, so the existing safeguard implements those international obligations by enabling a child who was born in the UK and has always been stateless to acquire British citizenship after five years of residing here. We are concerned that the amendment proposed by clause 9 restricts children’s ability to access that safeguard and acquire British citizenship. It is not in line with the UK’s international obligations, and it clearly risks leaving even more children in the UK stateless and in limbo throughout their childhood.
In the last year, we developed a project to understand the issue of childhood statelessness specifically in the UK, so we have gathered some evidence about the barriers these children are facing and who the stateless children in the UK are. Perhaps it would be useful for us to share some of our findings in this area. I will just note that the stateless children in the UK are mainly children who are currently affected by statelessness because their parents belong to a recognised stateless community—for example, the Kuwaiti Bidoon, Rohingya, Palestinian or Kurdish populations—but many of them are also children in care, especially where they have a migrant background. There may be issues with acquiring parental consent if it is required for the child to access nationality, because the documentation may be missing. Children in care are at particular risk of statelessness, because there is a general lack of awareness from local authorities about nationality issues. There may also be children of Roma families or children affected by domestic abuse, trafficking or other forms of exploitation. We are generally talking about children who are already vulnerable and marginalised, and who are also stateless.
We should also bear in mind that clause 9 would amend the provision that applies only to children who were born in the UK and who have lived here for at least five years. We are talking about children who were born here, who grew up here and who really feel that they belong in the UK. They do not know any other country, they feel British and they wonder where else they belong, if not in the UK. We have received some statements from children who grew up in the UK without British nationality, and it really has an impact on them. They describe feelings of alienation, a loss of self-confidence and the challenges to their identity. We have heard from a child who told us that she could not join her class on a trip to France, and she felt that the situation was really insecure and that it was not safe for her to make close friendships. We can only imagine the emotional burdens of this.
We can see how children feel the impact of being stateless, but they really do not understand why they are stateless, and they feel disempowered to change this. That is because the power to change this is really with the UK authorities—for them to grant nationality and a sense of belonging to the UK. Therefore, that starts with simply not amending the existing safeguards that are in line with international law, so clause 9 of the Bill should simply be dropped.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: There are two things to say. First, there is a real problem with the efficacy of this provision. At the moment, you can apply for registration under this route only when you reach the age of five. But at the age of 10, any child, regardless of whether they have a nationality, can apply for registration as a British citizen under a different provision—section 1 of the British Nationality Act 1981. This is a provision on the face of the Bill that is designed to capture children between the ages of five and 10, because you have another route once you reach the age of 10. The question needs to be asked: what is the point of doing that? You have to have some compelling advice about the cohort aged between five and 10 in order to do it, and there is no evidence at all that that particular cohort of people are the subject of concern. There is no data adduced to show that there is any abuse of the current provision in schedule 2 to the British Nationality Act 1981, which deals with stateless children. There is no reason why you would just leave a child stateless between the ages of five and 10, knowing that there is another provision in law once they reach the age of 10. There is no gain by using this provision. On the question of—[Inaudible.]—simply that the provisions become more available.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: Yes. Clauses 1 to 8 are good stuff, as far as they go. They correct—[Inaudible.]—on the grounds of sex discrimination, discrimination on the grounds of illegitimacy, and historical unfairness in relation to people who might have been prejudicially treated in the Windrush scandal. There is not much not to like about that. There are some omissions. They cure prejudices against people who would be British citizens and overseas territory citizens today, but they ignore the people who would be British overseas citizens today. You will know that their concern is directly because they have no ability to come to the UK, but they still have British nationality. So there is more work to do, but so far, so good, and there are some welcome developments in clauses 1 to 8.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: If you apply for a visit visa, you are making a representation that you intend to return to your country of origin. At some point, unless you claim on arrival when you land, you may be declared an illegal entrant under existing provisions. The problem with clauses 37 and 38 is that they criminalise arrival and assisting arrival in the UK. So it is the crime of arrival or assisting arrival, if you want to think about it like that. What that does is that applies to asylum seekers. So you say, “Of course, we are not impeding the efficacy of the refugee convention”. In the explanatory notes the Home Office says that, but in practice it is. If you criminalise arrival, that is precisely what you are doing. You cannot see those provisions separately from clause 12, which prohibits you from claiming asylum in UK territorial waters.
When you fit them all together, you have the criminal offence of arrival: you do not have to have entered the UK, you are still on a vessel. You are in UK territorial waters because you are on your way to the UK and you cannot claim asylum there. However, the maritime enforcement powers, which the Home Office gives itself under schedule 3, allow it not only to board your vessel and not take your asylum claim, but require you to go back to the port from which you came and require you to leave UK territorial waters. If you look at the package—criminal offence, not being able to claim asylum, and power to board your vessel and require you to leave—not only might that put you at risk in your insecure vessel, but it just shuts you out from the refugee convention. It is a full-scale assault on being able to claim territorial asylum in the UK.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: Yes. The whole point of the refugee convention is not about resettlement; it is about people making it to the territory and processing and determining their claims. That is why you have the prohibition on penalties in article 31. It is all about coming to the UK to claim asylum and being a refugee on an irregular route. If you shut that out, all that is left is sur place claims, as they are called, where you are on the territory, as you suggest.
Paul Howell
Q
Patricia Durr: We are waiting for more information about the age assessment, given the placeholder clauses in the Bill. I guess our biggest concern is about children being treated as adults. I know that the Committee has expressed some concern about adults being treated as children, but we need to consider that the greater risk is that children are being pushed into adult systems through inappropriate age assessments. Obviously, it is a concern all round, but that is the greatest concern, I think, because the consequences of the adultification of children who are then also criminalised are huge. In any provision for children and young people in this country, we should have in place very strong, robust safeguarding measures that provide better protection for children and young people there than would be provided for a child in adult provision. That is the way I would consider that.
We are concerned that age assessment should remain within a safeguarding framework and remain with professionals who are skilled in children’s development and care. I think the British Medical Association has given written evidence to the Committee to disavow the idea that there is a scientific method or approach to age assessment. It is obviously about professional judgment by skilled professionals—in this case, social workers—who have a better understanding of child development.
Paul Howell
I agree that it is a difficult one either way—children to adult or adult to children. It is just a question of where the boundaries sit and making sure we get those in the right place.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Adrian Berry: This is an attempt to be prescriptive on the way in which, first, the Home Office and, secondly, judges will assess credibility in a range of situations in relation to claims on human rights grounds and asylum claims. It is not the first time that we have had credibility clauses put into Bills to tell judges what their job is and how to approach witness evidence. Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 tried to do that, and now we see a range of these provisions spattered across the Bill. The problem is that they always set early cut-off dates for providing evidence and then say, “Well, if you provide the evidence late, you’re penalised on credibility.” But the obvious question is this: what is the instrumental connection? If the evidence is good and proves that you are in need of international protection, why is your credibility damaged? You have done what you are supposed to do, and the UK obligations are engaged.
It attempts, effectively, to usurp the judicial function, to take it away from judges, who are expert at assessing past facts of what has happened in foreign countries, foreign laws and protection risks, and to say, “Well, here we’re going to discipline the task for you, regardless of the merit of the application, and penalise a person who may have difficulty getting evidence, who may be traumatised by their journey to the UK and who may lack funding to get things properly translated or to commission expert reports.” It says to them, “We’re going to penalise you, regardless of the merits of your claim, because we have set an early cut-off date and you haven’t met it.” It is introducing yet one more hurdle. It has not worked before, under the 2004 Act, and it is unlikely to work in this Act.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Adrian Berry: Severe, in fact. If you look at the provision for priority removal notices and expedited appeals, there are some serious concerns. If you introduce a claim for asylum and you provide evidence after the cut-off date given, in a priority removal notice you are given what is called an expedited appeal. That begins in the upper tribunal. Your first punishment is that you lose your right of appeal and hearing in the first-tier tribunal. The second punishment—much more serious—is the return of the ouster clause. It is that the upper tribunal hearing is final; there is no onward appeal to the Court of Appeal. That is something that was first tried in clause 11 of the 2004 asylum and immigration Bill, before it became the 2004 Act. And it is wrong—one first-instance appeal on human rights grounds or asylum grounds in the upper tribunal. Mistakes happen. They need to be corrected. There would be a reason for the Court of Appeal to be available, and thereafter the Supreme Court. And there is no vice in allowing that, because of course the appeal tests, for permission to appeal, are tightly controlled and policed by judges making permission decisions. An expedited appeal leaves you with one shot—no rights of appeal. It has serious implications for the rule of law that the first-instance tribunal decision cannot be reviewed.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Adrian Berry: There are three things. First, there is no need for them. We already have three ways of controlling advocates in court. First, there are case management powers in the tribunal system to regulate conduct of a case. Secondly, under section 29 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, there is a wasted costs and unreasonable costs jurisdiction, which is applied in the tribunals. Thirdly, there is the ability of tribunals and courts to refer practitioners who are considered to have behaved improperly or negligently to their regulatory bodies, such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority. We already have all those constraints.
Adding in charges, which would be paid to the state, rather than being costs between the parties, and making provisions for unreasonable costs orders, is absolutely unnecessary. There is not any evidence in the explanatory notes as to why that needs to be done, because there is no evidence of any deficiencies in the existing three mechanisms that I have outlined. It will chill the ability of other people to take difficult points on behalf of vulnerable people.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Adrian Berry: Maritime enforcement provisions butt up against the United Nations convention on the law of the sea and its article 98 duty of rescue. That is a part of customary international law. If you are at sea as master of a ship and see someone at risk of losing their life because they are in an insecure vessel or are in distress and they ask for assistance, you are obligated to help them. That is the basic position. This provision not only creates powers to allow Home Office vessels to leave UK territorial waters and enter international and foreign waters, but it enables them to stop, board and then divert vessels away from the UK and back to foreign ports.
That creates a situation where there may be a risk to life and limb, because these vessels are often very insecure. Although Home Office staff may not board them, in circling them and trying to press them back, they are making those lives insecure. There may be a question of extraterritorial jurisdiction under the Human Rights Act 1998 for such behaviour. It also risks their lives. It cuts across the duty of rescue, which applies not just to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution or to merchant vessels; it also applies to those very Home Office vessels. They, too, are subject to the duty of rescue, regardless of the fact that they are trying to hustle asylum seekers back out of UK territorial waters.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Adrian Berry: Yes, that is clause 38, which removes the “for gain” provision from assisting an asylum seeker to enter the United Kingdom. That could prejudice a prosecution that is brought on people who are involved in search-and-rescue operations, which is also part of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, by the way. In addition, an asylum seeker who might be piloting an unsecured vessel across the channel could be prosecuted, even though they too are an asylum seeker. There is no article 31—of the refugee convention—defence to that criminal charge, and it would undoubtedly be a penalty, because it would be frustrating the operation of the refugee convention, in terms of the UK’s obligations under that.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Adrian Berry: Judges are not necessarily meant to laugh in court, but the question is: what is the purpose of it? When we were in the European Union and had the common European asylum system, we had a system of common standards, so the refugee qualification directive specified the way in which refugee convention terms were to be applied, because we needed to have common methods and systems throughout the European Union. We have left, as we all know, and the status quo ante ought to apply, where we just apply the refugee convention as determined by our courts and the provisions thereunder.
This specification in primary legislation is unnecessary. These terms are well understood. The only attempt here is to change the settled law, including from the highest judicial courts—the previous judicial House of Lords, now the Supreme Court—and other decisions of binding authorities. We see an attempt to change the standard of proof for the assessment of past facts in refugee cases from “reasonable chance” to “the balance of probability”. That cuts straight across binding authority in this jurisdiction in the case of Karanakaran v. Secretary of State for the Home Department. We see an attempt to revise the definition of “particular social group” so that the two tests are now cumulative rather than the alternative. Again, that cuts across binding authority. It is an attempt to write out the settled view of the courts on the interpretation of the United Kingdom’s international obligation, where the UK courts’ interpretation is consistent with international practice and the terms as defined in the Bill are not.
Bambos Charalambous
Q
Adrian Berry: No, not at all. If you want to end smuggling routes, you have to open safe and legal routes to claim asylum in the UK, which may mean humanitarian corridors. It may mean bringing people to the UK to claim asylum rather than allowing them to be exploited by smugglers and traffickers. It may mean improving and having a fast and fair procedure in the United Kingdom that allows claims to be determined swiftly and robustly. The main reason why there is a smuggling industry is that there are no safe and legal routes, and therefore one can make a profit out of these vulnerable people.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Adrian Berry: I do not think it provides clarity to take away the ability to properly prepare a protection claim. What you need are proper resources and proper funding in order for that claim to be properly advanced, and then you need a robust determination mechanism to assess it. The difficulties relate to gathering evidence, taking witness statements from people who have been traumatised in their home country and traumatised by their journey, and obtaining other evidence in terms of other witnesses of fact and expert evidence in a case. These things take a little bit of time, and the existing procedure creaks even without accelerating the procedures. So long as people are treated with dignity and the resources are available, determinations will be made that are good and do not require challenge. That alone would foreshorten the procedure.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Adrian Berry: Foreign national offenders are a completely separate issue. We are talking about asylum, and the Bill is focused on protection claims in the section that we are concerned with. It is very important not to confuse foreign national offenders with people who are claiming asylum.
Tom Pursglove
To be clear, I am talking about the Bill as a whole.
Adrian Berry: Yes, and the Bill as a whole contains provisions on asylum, not extra removal provisions, so I was talking about the Bill as a whole as well. You already have everything you need. We are almost returning to the stage where immigration Bills happen every couple of years, attempting to address problems that had apparently been solved by earlier immigration Bills. The Home Office has a vast array of powers at its disposal. What is needed is that it properly uses them.
The Chair
Are there any other questions? Mr McDonald, I stopped you on a question. Would you like to carry on?
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Adrian Berry: It is extremely problematic, and not just because it is deprecated in other jurisdictions, but because it makes the judge’s task so much harder—they have to have a split personality. They have to weigh some of the evidence—including the question of whether the person has a refugee convention reason, such as a political opinion or membership of a particular social group—on the balance of probability standard, and then they have to assess the question of what happened in the past on that standard. Then they have to evaluate future risk, which is intimately bound up with how you have been treated in the past, on the lower civil standard of reasonable degree of likelihood.
It is a charter for errors of law creeping into decision making and for onward appeals. It will almost certainly lead to more onward appeals, which will lengthen the process. It will add to costs and uncertainty, and ultimately it will leave people without protection, when there is a commonly understood threshold test, with the reasonable degree of likelihood across the piece, whether it is past facts or future risk, that has applied in this country and other common law jurisdictions and is endorsed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Stuart C. McDonald
Q
Patricia Cabral: Yes, there are a number of issues with statelessness in the UK anyway, but with this Bill we want to focus on clause 9, in particular. Our research shows that children who are brought up stateless in the UK already face a number of significant issues in acquiring British citizenship. There is a lack of legal advice and quality legal support. Legal aid is not always available. There are a number of challenges in evidencing and proving statelessness. There are already all these barriers for children trying to acquire British nationality, which might be the only nationality available to them.
What we are really aiming for today is just to make sure we do not create even more barriers for these children, and that we remove clause 9 to ensure that we do not amend any of the existing safeguards. Paragraph 3 of schedule 2 to the British Nationality Act 1981 is in compliance with international law—the 1961 convention on the rejection of statelessness and the convention on the rights of the child. We simply do not need to touch those safeguards or make this amendment.
Holly Lynch
Q
Patricia Durr: We have talked about how children’s rights are exercised by the provisions in the Bill. A children’s rights impact statement would really have assisted consideration of some of the measures, by setting out which children’s rights are invoked and how they are impacted. It is something the Committee on the Rights of the Child has asked the UK Government to do systematically. It is safe to say that the length of the consultation period was not sufficient.
We were quite surprised that the part 4 provisions are being included in this asylum and immigration Bill, particularly given that there is currently a review of the modern slavery strategy. On the lack of consultation, certainly from our perspective, what implications might there be for child victims of trafficking? Their experience of waiting in limbo, and the lack of provision for leave to remain as recognised child victims of trafficking, rather than through asylum provisions within the immigration rules are certainly a huge concern for the young people we work with, and that would come through very strongly from them. It was that combination: why these provisions in this Bill, and the lack of engagement with children and young people—from our perspective—but also, survivors of trafficking and exploitation more broadly.
Holly Lynch
Q
Patricia Cabral: I think that would be preferable, given that we have got a review of the whole of the modern slavery strategy. What we do not want to risk is the progress that has been made, and the good provisions that have been made, through the UK’s modern slavery strategy, potentially getting rolled back. That is the big concern. What we should be doing is improving things. I would support looking at the provisions around modern slavery and trafficking as safeguarding matters, rather than immigration matters. Obviously, there are enforcement matters related, but there is confusion. I draw the Committee’s attention to the Government’s 2014 review, by Jeremy Oppenheim, which led to revisions of the national referral mechanism to separate immigration decisions from matters of modern slavery. The provisions in part 4 are rolling that back quite considerably.
Tom Pursglove
Q
Adrian Berry: I do not know whether the other witnesses have had experience of age assessment trials—I have. This Committee cannot scrutinise that clause in the Bill, because all you have put in it is a placeholder clause, with the detail said to be coming later on. We are not in a position to scrutinise it, and I cannot tell you what it says, because you had not finished the Bill before publishing.
Age assessment trials are trials; although they take place within a judicial review context, they are full trials with witnesses, and over time the courts have developed a system for case managing those trials. The difficulties that arise would arise in any context. In other words, it is very difficult to tell how old someone is. It is a process that requires expert evidence and the gathering of timelines and the chronologies of people’s journeys, and their explanations. That would take time in any context. Until we see the detail of what you propose, the age assessment provision simply cannot be assessed. We hope you bring forward the actual clause by Report.
Anne McLaughlin
Q
Patricia Durr: We did not submit the FOI, but the response back indicated that that information is not available, so evidence of widespread abuse does not exist as far as we know.
Anne McLaughlin
Perhaps the Minister will get it for us for the next meeting. Thank you very much.
The Chair
If there are no further questions from Members, I thank the witnesses for their evidence. That brings us to the end of our oral evidence sessions. The Committee will meet again after the recess on Tuesday 19 October at 9.25 am to commence line-by-line consideration of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Craig Whittaker.)
Nationality and Borders Bill (Fifth sitting)
Tuesday 19th October 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 October 2021 - (19 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to what will be for some of you the first sitting of a Committee for a very long time, and for others probably the first sitting of a Public Bill Committee. Please switch electronic devices to silent. I am afraid that food and drink are not allowed in the Committee Room, so if any Member feels obliged to get a coffee or something, I am afraid they have to drink it outside in the corridor. Water, of course, is permitted.
Members are encouraged to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering. I shall mainly not be wearing a mask, I am afraid, because my glasses steam up and I need to be able to see my papers. I mean no discourtesy to any Members who feel either inclined or obliged to wear a mask. Hansard will be grateful if Members could email their speaking notes to hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
The format of the Committee Room this morning is slightly changed as a result of the pandemic. It is a sadness to me and to the Clerks that civil servants are now required to sit in the Public Gallery rather than where they would normally sit, along the side. That makes life slightly difficult for parliamentary private secretaries, who may wish to communicate messages from the civil service to the Minister. I gather that that is now done electronically, but if there is a problem please let me know. I hope that the system will work, but we need to know if there is a difficulty.
We are about to commence line-by-line consideration of the Bill. Before we do that, at the risk of teaching granny to suck eggs, I will give a very modest tutorial. I am fully aware that, as Committees have not sat for some time, there will be Members present who have never sat on a Public Bill Committee. Even those who have and, dare I say it, even Chairmen sometimes get things wrong or do not understand what is going on. It is a fairly arcane process. All the papers that are needed, in case you have not already worked this out for yourselves, are on the table in front of me. You are not supposed to walk in front of the Chair, but I will not bite your head off if you suddenly find that you need a paper that you do not have, so feel free to come and get it. I should have said at the start that when I am in the Chair—this may not be the case with Ms McDonagh; it is up to her to decide—if Members wish to remove their jackets they may do so. Given the weather, you may not wish to.
Coming to the selection list, which I hope you all have a copy of, you will note that amendments are grouped by subject of debate, which may or may not be in the order that the Bill dictates. The order is dictated by subject matter, not the sequence in which amendments have been tabled. That is why you will find that the groupings appear to be out of order. The first grouping—amendments 29 and 84—relates to clause 1, so that is pretty straightforward. The second grouping under clause 1 relates not only to clause 1 but to other clauses. If you wish later to move an amendment, only the lead amendment may be moved. Therefore, amendment 29 may be moved, but not amendment 84, and amendment 8 but not the rest of the group. The other amendments may be moved when they are reached in the Bill. The amendments to clause 10 will be debated now but moved formally when we reach clause 10.
I am sure that is as clear as mud, but it will become clear. If Members have doubts about this or any other procedure, please do not hesitate to ask; like the man from the Inland Revenue, we are here to help you.
Not all amendments will be moved. All Government amendments will be moved, but if an Opposition Member wants to move an amendment that does not appear at the start of a group, please tell us. The Clerk will note it and you will be asked to move it at the right point in the Bill.
I hope that is relatively clear. Unlike in proceedings on the Floor of the House, any Member who wishes to speak should indicate as much to the Chair—I do not have second sight. We will try to accommodate you. You may intervene more than once in Committee, whereas only one speech may be made of the Floor of the House.
At the end of clause 1 there will be a stand part debate, offering an opportunity to debate the whole clause, as amended. If I consider that every conceivable thing that can, should or needs to be said about clause 1 has already been said, I shall not permit a stand part debate: that is in my gift, not yours. I always say that you may have one bite of the cherry, but not two. I normally allow a fairly wide-ranging debate on the first group of amendments—Siobhain might take a different view—but please bear it in mind that if you avail yourself of the opportunity I am unlikely to permit a stand part debate: you cannot say the same thing twice.
I shall try to guide you as we go along, but I am probably no less rusty than you. Let us see how we get on.
Clause 1
Historical Inability of Mothers to Transmit Citizenship
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 29 in page 2, line 10, leave out “parents been treated equally” and insert
“mother been treated equally with P’s father”
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to debate amendment 84 page 2, line 14, leave out
“had P’s parents been treated equally”
and insert
“had P’s mother and P’s father been treated equally”
Bambos Charalambous
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger.
I thank colleagues from across the refugee and asylum sector for their considerate and constructive scrutiny of all the proposals made in the Bill’s evidence session in September.
As part of the Opposition’s detailed scrutiny, we will express our serious concerns about the Bill, which we believe does nothing to address the crisis in our broken asylum system and seeks to penalise the most vulnerable people in our society.
I shall first consider the Bill’s impact in addressing historical injustices in British nationality law concerning discrimination, specifically in relation to British overseas territories citizenship. We generally support the proposals in clauses 1 to 5, which seek to close important loopholes.
I pay tribute to the efforts of the British Overseas Territories Citizenship Campaign, which has campaigned tirelessly over many years for the nationality and citizenship equality rights of the children of British overseas territories citizens who have suffered under UK law owing to loopholes that we shall discuss in detail. These people feel a strong connection to the UK and deserve our support.
British nationality law can be complex. Some of the complexity arises from the British history of empire and Commonwealth. In passing the British Nationality Act 1981, Parliament created British citizens and British overseas territories citizenship. In doing so, it abolished citizenship in the UK and colonies—abbreviated to CUKC—which was a unifying citizenship for all persons of the UK and its colonies. This meant that the status of some children had the potential to be changed to overseas citizens, even though they had been born and raised in the UK.
Persons unified by CUKC were therefore separated by the 1981 Act into two groups, but amendments made since mean that the two groups are no longer aligned in British nationality law.
The Bill’s early clauses seek to bring into line the two elements of British nationality—British citizenship and British overseas territories citizenship. For the benefit of those on the Committee, I point out that British overseas territories citizenship is the citizenship of people connected to the territories that the UK has retained. It includes the following territories: Anguilla, Bermuda, the British Antarctic Territory, the British Indian Ocean Territory, the British Virgin Islands, the Cayman Islands, the Falkland Islands, Gibraltar, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and the Turks and Caicos Islands.
Clause 1 would create a registration route for the adult children of British overseas territories citizens and for mothers to acquire British overseas territories citizenship. Before the 1981 Act commenced on 1 January 1983, British nationality law discriminated against women, whose children could not acquire British citizenship through them. The Act removed that discrimination, but did not address the impact of that discrimination prior to the Act. Many people, therefore, would have been born British but for this discrimination and continue to be excluded from British nationality after the passing of the Act.
It is clear that a historical anomaly was created. Changes were made under section 4C of the 1981 Act to rectify the situation of children of British citizens, but no such rectification was made for the children of British overseas territories citizens. Members of the Committee will know that under the 1981 Act a number of cases arise in which an individual who would have qualified for automatic British overseas territories citizenship, British citizenship or the right to register or naturalise as a citizen is unfairly prevented from doing so through no fault of their own, as has been the case with the adult children of British overseas territories citizens.
We need to rectify that injustice. The historical inability of mothers to transmit citizenship should be corrected, and I am glad that is being addressed in the Bill. Clause 1 sets out to correct that and create a registration route for the adult children of British overseas territories citizen mothers to acquire British overseas territories citizenship.
The Opposition generally support the changes proposed in clause 1 to close that important loophole. None the less, our amendment refers to a technical matter in relation to the drafting of clause 1—specifically, that it does not follow the language previously accepted to address the injustice, as used in section 4C of the 1981 Act.
I am sure that the Committee will agree that clarity is crucial in matters of citizenship and nationality law. The language used in clause 1 is not sufficiently clear. I will explain why. For example, the clause introduces proposed new section 17A, subsections (a) and (b) of which include the terms “had P’s parents been treated equally”. As Amnesty International and the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens outline, the difficulty with such wording is that it tells us nothing about the direction in which equality is to be achieved or indeed in what place.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that clarity is absolutely crucial, given the mistrust of the Home Office that often exists because of its high error rate in some citizenship and wider visa decision making processes?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Citizenship, clarity and consistency in the law are essential, which is why we seek to rectify the position. The provisions of one Act cannot be inconsistent with those of another.
The amendment would address the difficulty by inserting the wording,
“had P’s mother been treated equally with P’s father”,
in clause 1. It would clarify the clause and the positive intention behind it. I think that there is broad agreement in the Committee on the need to address the historical inability of mothers to transmit citizenship.
The Chair
Ordinarily, unless the Minister wishes to intervene, we now have a debate in which any Member may take part. At the end of the debate, the Minister exercises his right to respond and the mover of the motion decides whether he wishes to press the amendment to a Division or withdraw it. If it is the latter, I seek the leave of the Committee for him to do so.
Neil Coyle
On a point of order, Sir Roger. Although I have been on a Bill Committee before, I am a bit rusty. We deal with just one amendment first—not the whole of clause 1.
The Chair
That is a very good point, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman makes it. It gives me an opportunity to explain again. You may speak to any of the grouped amendments. In this instance, you may speak to amendments 29 and to 84, although it has not been moved. Any one of the second grouping of amendments—8, 9, 10, 11, 12 and new clause 16—may be spoken to. They may be moved later. I hope that is clear.
Neil Coyle
Thank you, Sir Roger: that is very helpful.
Do we have to declare an interest each time we speak or once per sitting? I want to make it clear and above board that I have received support from the Refugees, Asylum and Migration Policy project. It provides policy support two days a week. I am unsure how often I have to do that in the course of a Bill Committee.
The Chair
We have declared interests during the evidence sessions, and personally I regard that as a declaration of interest. If a Member is in doubt and wants to do a belt-and-braces job on this, they should feel free to declare an interest and cover themselves. That is their responsibility. As far as the Chair is concerned, that job has been done already. If a Member has not declared an interest but wishes to do so, the appropriate moment for it is when they stand to speak.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. I am grateful for your refresher course. We are all rusty and I ask for your forgiveness for the mistakes that I shall undoubtedly make in the days ahead.
I support amendments 29 and 84 and much of what the shadow Minister just said. I welcome the Minister to his new role. I wish him all the best—apart from with large parts of the Bill, unfortunately. He has been thrown in at the deep end, and I dare say his recess was particularly busy. However, I congratulate him on finding time to record an excellent time in the London marathon a couple of weeks ago.
This complex and technical Bill raises profoundly important issues. We are all aware of the huge concerns that have been expressed about large parts of the Bill. I would also like to thank the various organisations that have given evidence in writing, orally or in private briefings or that have drafted the overwhelming majority of the amendments that we have tabled. I thank the Clerks for their help in what is not always a straightforward process in tabling amendments at a time that has been hugely difficult for them as well as for all hon. Members. We do, however, start our line-by-line consideration on a positive note. Even though we have fundamental disagreements with many aspects of the Bill, that is not the case for part 1 where for eight ninths of the time we can have hearty agreement. We just suggest a little probing and tweaking on one or two issues.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
I understand some of what the hon. Gentleman is saying but, by way of clarification, may I point out that there is never any doubt as to who the mother of a child is, but there are occasionally questions over the paternity? Does the wording of the amendment make it easier to define who the father is? Sometimes someone’s parent may not be the biological father. Is the difference between a father, and someone who is married to the mother who may have thought he was the father when the child was born?
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the intervention but I am not sure that I followed every aspect of it. All I can say is that the definition of father in the amendment is exactly the same as the definition that the Government have used. It is not changing that at all. I will explain exactly what the amendment does in a moment.
We are talking about getting rid of the unacceptable discrimination against women and children. A correction, albeit an imperfect one, to the laws of British citizenship that does exactly the same thing has already happened. In clause 5, there is a provision that actually fixes that. However, that correction was not made to British overseas territories citizenship. The Government have already fixed it for British citizenship; the amendment is now trying to fix it for British overseas territories citizenship. In a nutshell, the question we are asking the Government is, “Why are they using slightly different wording this time round compared with last time?” That is the crux of the debate and I will come back to that point.
My amendment would allow people who have suffered injustice to register as British overseas territories citizens. That is good, but two issues arise. The first is cost and we will come to that when we consider the next group of amendments. The second is about the language used and whether it really makes sense. Amendment 29 would challenge the Government on the use of the language to correct the injustice. Slightly surprisingly, the Government have not just copied, or used copy and paste, from the fix used for British citizenship that is found in section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981. Section 4C allows for the correction of injustices by registration if someone missed out on citizenship because citizenship by descent was not provided for mothers “in the same terms” as for fathers or if someone missed out because it could not be acquired because it could not be obtained “in the same terms” for mothers as for fathers.
The Bill, in doing the same job for British overseas territories citizens, uses the terminology
“had P’s parents been treated equally”.
The key questions for the Minister have been pointed out by Amnesty International and the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens in their written submissions. Why are the Government not using the same language as they used to fix the problem for British citizenship? If there is a good reason for not using that language—if there is some sort of problem with the language that was used in the case of British citizenship and the fix used for that—do we not need to go back and fix that fix, as it were? Even assuming that there is a problem and the language used has to be different, why have the Government chosen to use this language, which seems rather clunky and problematic?
Speaking about hypothetical circumstances when parents are treated equally does not make it clear, unlike the section 4C version, whether we are, to coin a phrase, “levelling up” rather than levelling down. P’s parents could be treated equally badly, as well as equally well, so the drafting leaves a lack of clarity about the fact that we want mothers to be treated the same as fathers and not the other way round. The Government like to talk about “levelling up”, so here is a chance for the Minister to do some of that and make what appears on the face of the Bill absolutely clear.
Amendment 29 provides the best wording and addresses all the points in amendment 84. It flags up another place where the issue arises and if we wound back the clock a few days, I would probably copy amendment 29 that the shadow Minister has tabled. I believe it is the best version. I will therefore not press amendment 84 to a Division, but I fully support amendment 29. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
The Chair
Ordinarily, I would take speakers from both sides of the Committee, but if no Government Member wishes to speak at this stage, I will call the hon. Member for Glasgow North East.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I will be brief and echo what my hon. Friend has said. I welcome the Minister to his place and wish him well although I am sorry to say not with this Bill. I thank all the multiple organisations that are concerned by the Bill and supported the moves to make the changes that need to be made.
It might be a moot point but, as my hon. Friend said about amendments 29 and 84, we do not want to be in a situation in which parents are treated equally badly. I suspect that that is not what the clause is about and I hope that the Minister will say that it is fine and we will accept that. However, it is important that we acknowledge that mothers were treated unequally and wrongly. That is because, throughout the centuries, women have been treated systemically badly. Yes, of course things have improved—and this is an improvement—but we have to acknowledge it whenever there has been systemic bias against any group of people, and in this case we are talking about women and mothers. I do not think any member of the Committee would disagree that what has happened is extremely unfair but we must acknowledge it so that we can move forward. Acknowledging a problem draws attention to it. Let us not pretend that we have equality of the sexes and genders. We do not. Every time that that is acknowledged it enables us to move forward and think of other situations in which there is inequality.
We have helpfully been provided with photos of members of the Committee and been given their constituency names but when I saw the photo of the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, I thought he was the right hon. Member for Con, Scarborough and Whitby. I thought, “Where is ‘Con’?” until I realised that it referred to the fact that he is a Conservative. I am learning something new every day.
The right hon. Gentleman was factually correct to say that it is easier for mothers rather than fathers to prove their parentage. That is why I wonder why on earth it was so difficult for women to pass on their nationality to their children. There is no question who the mother is in such cases. I hope the Minister will say that he will change the language to refer to mothers and that the Government will acknowledge the inequalities between men and women and mothers and fathers. Treating parents equally should not mean that they are treated equally badly. I suspect that he does not want to do that and I support most of the provisions in this part of the Bill. That is probably the last time I shall say that today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I start by thanking Opposition colleagues for their warm welcome to me in my new role. It is welcome that, in the early provisions of the Bill, there is broad agreement across the Committee about the need to correct the injustices and to put things right.
I thank the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate, for Halifax, for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Glasgow North East for tabling amendments 29 and 84. They both refer to clause 1, which I am pleased to introduce because it corrects a long-standing anomaly in British nationality law. I appreciate hon. Members’ attention to detail in seeking to make sure that the new provision is clear and in line with the parallel provision in the British Nationality Act 1981 for the children of British citizen mothers. However, I do not think an amendment is needed, as the proposed wording here achieves what is intended. In saying that this provision applies to someone who would have been a citizen had their parents been treated equally, we are talking about a situation where the law applied equally to mothers or fathers, women or men.
The term “parents” is consistent with the wording used in section 23 of the 1981 Act, which determined which citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies became British dependent territories citizens on commencement. One of the three conditions that a person needs to meet to qualify for registration under this clause is that they would have become a British dependent territories citizen under section 23(1)(b) or (c) of that Act. That section refers to a person’s “parent”.
I wish to point out that we will further clarify the points that have been made in the underpinning guidance. I trust that will afford greater comfort because it is clear that the Bill is technical, so plain language will be used in the guidance itself to achieve what members of the Committee seek to achieve.
Neil Coyle
I, too, congratulate the Minister on his new role. If the Minister is saying that this may require further explanation in the guidance, will he agree to review it in more depth before the Bill reaches the Lords if organisations are able to present examples of case studies where the current wording may not meet the Government’s intent?
Tom Pursglove
I will of course be delighted to receive any such examples. I genuinely think that, as with so many cases of immigration law, the underpinning guidance plays an important role in making it clear, in plain English that people can understand, precisely what various aspects of the law entail. I am satisfied with the current wording of the clause.
Stuart C. McDonald
I understand what the Minister says about the wording doing a job in statute, but will he say whether he thinks that the wording used has any implications for British citizenship as opposed to British overseas territories citizenship? Was a problem with the wording recognised and is that the reason why it was not copied across? Or is this Bill a wee bit different and therefore uses different wording?
Tom Pursglove
The short answer, based on my understanding, is no. The connected provision in the Act talks about parents and not the mother and the father, so that is why we think this is the appropriate route to take for BOTCs. I am satisfied that the current wording does what is required so I ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Bambos Charalambous
I have heard what the Minister has said, but we could avoid going down the path of seeking to clarify the current wording if the same wording that was used in the 1981 Act were used here. We do not see what the problem would be. If the wording in the 1981 Act is adequate, why not just repeat it in the Bill? It would provide clarity and stop problems occurring in the future. Our belief is that everyone should be treated equally, and we should not have a separation, which the amendment tries to correct, between British overseas territory citizens and British citizens. Regrettably, we will press the amendment to a vote.
The Chair
Ordinarily, Mr McDonald, I will not ask this question, because I will assume that if you, or any other Member who wishes to move an amendment that has been debated but not yet called, have not notified the Chair, you do not want it to be called. However, because this is the first time, do you wish to press amendment 84 to a Division?
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 8, in clause 1, page 2, line 46, at end insert—
“(7) The Secretary of State must not charge a fee for the processing of applications under this section.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from charging a fee when remedying the historical inability of mothers to transmit British overseas territories citizenship.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 9, in clause 2, page 7, line 30, at end insert—
“(6) The Secretary of State must not charge a fee for the processing of applications under sections 17C, 17D, 17E or 17F.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from charging a fee when remedying the historical inability of unmarried fathers to transmit British overseas territories citizenship.
Amendment 10, in clause 3, page 8, line 18, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must not charge a fee for the processing of applications under this section.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from charging a fee for British citizenship applications by certain British overseas territories citizens.
Amendment 11, in clause 7, page 10, line 25, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must not charge a fee for the processing of applications under this section.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from charging a fee on applications for British citizenship by people who have previously been denied the opportunity to acquire it on account of historical legislative unfairness, an act or omission of a public authority, or exceptional circumstances.
Amendment 12, in clause 7, page 11, line 8, at end insert—
“(5) The Secretary of State must not charge a fee for the processing of applications under this section.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from charging a fee on applications for British overseas territories citizenship by people who have previously been denied the opportunity to acquire it on account of historical legislative unfairness, an act or omission of a public authority, or exceptional circumstances.
New clause 16—Registration as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen: Fees—
“(1) No person may be charged a fee to be registered as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen that is higher than the cost to the Secretary of State of exercising the function of registration.
(2) No child may be charged a fee to be registered as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen if that child is being looked after by a local authority.
(3) No child may be charged a fee to be registered as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen that the child or the child’s parent, guardian or carer is unable to afford.
(4) The Secretary of State must take steps to raise awareness of rights under the British Nationality Act 1981 to be registered as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen among people possessing those rights.”
This new clause would ensure that fees for registering as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen do not exceed cost price. It would also ensure that children being looked after by a local authority are not liable for such fees, and that no child is charged an unaffordable fee. Lastly, it would require the Government to raise awareness of rights to registration.
Stuart C. McDonald
In short, the amendments say to the Government, “Having recognised an injustice and provided people with a right to have it fixed, which is very welcome, you must also ensure that that remedy is accessible to those who have been wronged.” It is about the cost of applications, and about other parts of the procedures that have been put in place. If we acknowledge that these people should have been British citizens automatically, we should not ask them to jump through other hoops. They should not have to pay any fee for an application or for biometrics, or travel hundreds of miles for a citizenship ceremony unless they want to, if that would not have been required of them had the injustice not been done.
It is all about putting the person, so far as is possible, in the position in which they would have been had the injustice not occurred. It is also about making people aware and giving them support, if they need it, to make these new rights a reality, so that we are not just passing laws but making sure they are effective. That can be vital—we know that from the Windrush scandal and the deliberately low-key efforts by the Home Office in the 1980s to advertise registration rights, to avoid a deluge of applications.
Amendment 8 provides that there should be no fee for registration applications under clause 1. As we discussed, that remedies injustices in relation to British overseas territories citizenship for women and their children. Amendments 9 to 12 would do similar in relation to three other clauses that seek to remedy other injustices: clause 2, which corrects injustices whereby people lost out on British overseas territories citizenship because of rules that prevented unmarried fathers from passing on that citizenship; clause 3, which corrects the double injustice faced by some who, having lost out on British overseas territories citizenship, then lost out on entitlement to British citizenship provided for by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002; finally, clause 7, which provides for more general power to remedy injustices by registration as British overseas territories citizens or British citizens.
The Bill recognises that had our laws not been unjust, the people impacted would have been BOTCs or British citizens with no fee and no procedure. It seems only just to rectify that injustice free of charge. In relation to clauses 1 and 2, there are no fees charged for the equivalent fixes to British citizenship law, so it should be the same for British overseas territories citizenship. I was pleased to learn at the weekend, having already tabled the amendments, that back in July the Home Office had apparently written to various nationality experts to confirm that the intention was not to charge for those applications and that the same approach would be taken for applications under clause 3. That is welcome, but it would be useful for the Minister to confirm that is accurate, so that we can hold the Government to account in future, if the Treasury ever tries to force a change of approach.
I still say that Parliament’s intention should be in the Bill, because it is clear from debates around the British Nationality Act 1981 that registration fees for children were never intended to be set at anything more than the cost of processing for the Home Office. Yet a quarter of a century later, the Home Office started ramping up prices relentlessly and now makes massive profits on them. Let us all agree today that the applications should be free and ensure that our successors are aware of that by putting it into law.
Notwithstanding the welcome Home Office letter, that still leaves applications under clause 7, which is the broad discretionary clause. It would be good to have an indication of the Government’s thinking. Let us remember what that clause provides for: it is a general fix for persons who missed out on British citizenship or British overseas territories citizenship because of laws that discriminated between men and women or against children of unmarried couples, or because of acts or omission by public authorities or something exceptional. If a person has been deprived of citizenship because of discriminatory laws or a mistake by a public authority, it is hard to see why they should be charged a fee for fixing that. That is certainly true where citizenship would have been automatic, hence this amendment.
As the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens and Amnesty International argued in their written submissions, fees for registration are undermining access to those procedures. The sum of £1,112 for a child and £1,206 for an adult is a long way beyond the cost—something like £372—to the Home Office of the registration process. It is particularly dangerous to ramp up the fees for applications where success is not guaranteed or certain. Under clause 7, it is not the case that someone simply has to show a date of birth and nationality of a parent and it is easy to know whether the applicant will be successful. In many cases, people will be unsure whether the Secretary of State will regard their circumstances as exceptional. Even if the circumstances are exceptional, as the clause stands, the Secretary of State still has the discretion to say, “no”, because the clause says she “may” register them in those circumstances, rather than “must”.
The lack of certainty of success, coupled with the high fee, risks causing low uptake of the new rights. We are all delighted that the new rights have been put into law, but if someone is not certain that they will be successful and they are putting at risk a huge fee, they will simply not apply and injustices will be left uncorrected.
New clause 16 would enshrine a broader principle that registration for citizenship should not be a profit-making exercise. It is vital to keep in mind the fundamental distinction between naturalisation and registration. It is possible that the root of such problems is the fact that the Home Office has come to treat those things as pretty much the same—they are not; they are very different.
People who naturalise as British citizens, and their families, have made a conscious choice to come to the UK, settle and make this their home country, and seek its citizenship. In contrast, those who register as British citizens—in the overwhelming majority of cases, they are children—did not make those choices. Often, they are British-born kids who are not automatically British at birth. They are allowed to register as British if they lived in the UK for the first 10 years of their lives; if either parent settles and becomes British before the kid turns 18; or if they were stateless at birth and live here for five continuous years. Although the Home Secretary has no discretion over that, the 1981 Act quite rightly retained a discretionary power for the Home Secretary to allow other children to register, including those who came here at an early age and who are, to all intents and purposes, British.
In 1981, Parliament repealed automatic citizenship by birth alone on the basis that birth here did not necessarily mean that someone’s connection to the country was strong enough that this should be their country of citizenship. However, Parliament was careful to put in place protections for children born here to non-British parents, for whom this clearly was or became home, hence their right to register as British citizens. Far from being equivalent to naturalisation as a British citizen—those people have picked the UK to be their home—citizenship through registration should be seen as equivalent to the British citizenship that most people in this room will have automatically enjoyed simply by being born here to British parents.
To make a massive profit from that is as outrageous as demanding that anyone in this room pay for the privilege of being British. Parliament took the view that Britain was the home country for those kids in the same way that it is for everyone in this room. Now, the Home Office is putting that citizenship way beyond the means of many. When he was Home Secretary, the now Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), accepted that that fee was a huge sum of money. The Home Office is undermining Parliament’s intentions: thousands of children cannot access the citizenship that should be theirs because the Home Office now charges that huge sum. When the fees for registration came into force, they were set at something like £30—around £100 in today’s money—simply to cover the cost of administration, and it remained like that for a quarter of a century. Since 2007, however, the Home Office has rapidly ramped up the fee, which now stands at more than £1,000. The application processing cost stands at around £360, so almost £700 of the fee is pure profit for the Home Office.
The impact on kids whose families cannot afford to register them is absolutely profound. Many will grow up unaware that they are not British citizens like their pals. That penny will perhaps not drop until they cannot join a school trip abroad or apply for college, university or a job. Without British citizenship, those children are made subject to immigration control and could feel the full implications of the hostile or compliant environment, meaning that they even run the risk of being refused access to child healthcare, employment and education, social assistance and housing, and of being detained, removed and excluded from their own country altogether. It is important to say that that affects tens of thousands of British-born children, and is surely contrary both to the Government’s duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of children and to the requirement that children’s best interests be a primary consideration in all actions that affect them.
Over the years, the Home Office has made various arguments, a number of which do not stand up to scrutiny, and I will address three of them. First, the Home Office often asserts in such debates, of which we have had several since I turned up in 2015, that the fee reflects the benefits received by the child in being able to register. That is a completely inappropriate argument. On that basis, we all should be charged a fee for our British citizenship, but as it is our right, we are not, and it should be exactly the same for those kids.
Secondly, in what I regard as an even more dreadful argument, the Home Office states that citizenship is not actually necessary for those kids, and that they can instead just apply for leave to remain. Frankly, that is an astonishing argument. If the Home Office said to anyone on the Committee, “We are going to deny you your British citizenship, but don’t worry, you can apply for leave to remain—we might even give you a fee waiver if you’re struggling to afford it”, would any of us be content with that? Absolutely not, particularly given that the leave-to-remain route is the horrendous ten-year route to settlement. To suggest that immigration leave is any sort of equivalent to being recognised as a national is quite simply insulting to those kids.
Thirdly, the Home Office makes the case that people using the immigration and nationality system can fairly be asked to pay a contribution towards its broader costs, so that British taxpayers do not have to. In some circumstances, I accept that that is true. I do not have a problem if the Home Office makes a profit on work visas, perhaps, to subsidise other work that it does, but it is totally unfair to apply that principle to people for whom the UK is home, and who are simply trying to access their right to nationality. These are not migrants choosing to come here to work, study or whatever else; they are, to all intents and purposes, British kids, and it is time that the Home Office supported them in exercising their rights to the British citizenship that reflects that, and stops trying to profit from them and put them off. Let us end this injustice now.
Mr Goodwill
The principle of fees reflecting the cost of delivering the service is a good one that should be applied widely across Government. It is applied, for example, at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency for some of the processes that it carries out for motorists. The Passport Office reflects the cost of issuing a passport in the fee that it charges. In the vast majority of cases, the cost of these services should be reflected in the fee. When I was an immigration Minister, I would scrutinise officials and say, “Why is it so expensive to do this?” They would say, “Well, these are often quite complex cases with quite a lot of paperwork.” We must also bear in mind that there are people who try to obtain British citizenship fraudulently using fake documents. Therefore, the amount of scrutiny that needs to take place reflects that. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that we will continue to apply that principle, so that we do not see profit incentives but merely cost recovery.
Neil Coyle
There is a slight contradiction in what the right hon. Member is claiming, because in the practical, lived reality of examples in my constituency it is at the point that a child discovers that they need to go through the citizenship process in order to access a passport that they discover all the fees that they are obliged to pay. He says that he wants the passport process to reflect only the costs of administering that passport. For the children and families affected by this, in order to get that passport at cost they have to pay thousands of pounds, which is profit for the Home Office.
Mr Goodwill
As I was saying, I would always scrutinise the officials and say, “Does it actually cost this much to apply?” They gave me evidence that this was indeed an expensive operation. As I said, often fake documents are presented, and forensic work needs to be done to ensure that the identity of the person is as stated, and that the documents provided in evidence are correct.
Stuart C. McDonald
The figures that I gave in terms of the cost to the Home Office came from, I think, freedom of information requests, so they have been carefully calculated. It is beyond doubt—I do not think the Home Office disputes this—that it makes something like £700 profit on an application that costs just over £1,000. We are talking about kids, so it is, as the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), said, a huge sum of money.
Mr Goodwill
As I said, I hope that the Minister will reassure us of the principle that was certainly in effect when I was in the Home Office: that this is not an opportunity to make a profit out of these people, but merely to recover the cost.
I believe that the amendments will place a greater burden on taxpayers as a whole for a service that is being provided to these applicants. I am also a little concerned about new clause 16(3), which talks about whether a person can afford the fee. I am not clear whether that means that it should be set at a level that anyone can afford, which in effect would have to be zero, or whether the proposal is for some sort of means testing, which of course would add the cost of getting financial information from the applicant. The cost of the process could end up being greater overall, although if the new clause were accepted the costs for some would be lower than for others.
Stuart C. McDonald
The fundamental point is that a kid’s British citizenship is not a service; it is a right. I am happy to have a discussion about the wording of the new clause, but I understand that the language has been borrowed from elsewhere. The Home Office has fee waiver schemes, for example in the long route to settlement, as the right hon. Member will well know, so it is not something that the Home Office will not understand. It will be able to put in place a scheme that allows people who are generally unable to pay the fee because of their impoverished circumstances not to have to pay it. I am happy to discuss the wording if he accepts the principle.
Mr Goodwill
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I maintain my view that the Government have it right on this occasion: the fees should reflect the cost of delivering those services, and should not fall more widely on taxpayers as a whole. Of course I have a right to a British passport, but that does not mean that I should not pay the fee to ensure that the passport is applied to me, not to somebody who is pretending to be me or trying to impersonate another citizen.
Stuart C. McDonald
To echo the point made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, no big profits are made on passports. Of course, people still have British citizenship even without a passport. A passport is a useful thing to have to prove citizenship in many circumstances. In a way, that could almost be described as a service. I think it is a pretty important one, and it is right that the Home Office does not make a huge profit on it, but the right hon. Member was not charged a fee for his British citizenship. None of us were. It is not a service that has been provided to us; it is a right, and it is a right for these kids as well.
We have had lots of support on these arguments from Conservative MPs over the years. It is very strange that it is a Scottish National party MP who tends to stand up and champion British citizenship. I thought that this would be made for Conservative MPs. Even if folk will not support us today, I encourage them to please go away and think about this, and speak to their colleagues. I think many hon. Members would have sympathy for this cause if they just looked closely.
Mr Goodwill
I completely understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I maintain my position that although it is a right for these people to apply for citizenship, the cost of their doing so, and indeed the cost of ensuring that people who may be fraudulently trying to avail themselves of citizenship, should not fall disproportionately on taxpayers as a whole but on the applicants. As long as the Minister can reassure us that the fees reflect the cost, and that any high fees can be justified by the man hours spent and the time needed to check those applications, the Government should be supported on the wording in the Bill.
Anne McLaughlin
Before I come to what I was going to say, may I respond to the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby as well? He does not need that reassurance, and he does not need to worry about the British taxpayer, because in 2018 the Home Office made profits of £500 million by charging £500 million more than it cost to process fees. He talked about the DVLA. He cannot say that the DVLA never gets fraudulent claims; it builds them into its costs. The Home Office has already built in the cost of checking fraudulent claims, and the profit in 2018 was £500 million for the whole year, so the British taxpayer does not have to worry about that. Who has to worry about it are the people who have to pay the fees, which is what I wanted to talk about.
I will give two examples that I think will illustrate the broader point of the unfair impact on people’s lives when they have to pay fees over and above what it costs to become a British citizen or to be allowed to remain in this country. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East was right to focus on children. After all, children have absolutely no say on what happens in their lives. Throughout all the talk about immigration, particularly asylum for instance, we talk about single men as if they are not vulnerable. I will tell the Committee about two young men who were extremely vulnerable—they are less so now—and how the fees affected their lives, stopped them living their lives, and almost ended one of their lives.
They are not young men now. If they are watching this—I doubt that they will be—I think they will be delighted that I am calling them young men; they are just younger than me. I will not give you the first one’s correct name. He adopted a Scottish name, which I will say is Fraser, even though it is not. Fraser has become part of my family. He calls my mother “Mum”. She taught him to drink whisky and he is eternally grateful for that.
Anne McLaughlin
My mum is even less likely to be watching this, but if she is, I will certainly let the hon. Member know.
Fraser—I must remember to use the adopted name—came from Sudan. His village, where he grew up, was razed to the ground. Everybody fled, and he did not know where the rest of his family were. He assumed that his two brothers, sister, mum and dad had died, but he did not know for sure and he kept hearing rumours over the years. He was helped by the British Red Cross, so he came here as an asylum seeker and then got his refugee status. But he wanted to go back and find out, because he kept hearing rumours that his sister had managed to get away and that his mum might still be alive, although he doubted it. The British Red Cross was doing everything it could to help him, but in order to get back to Sudan he needed a British passport and to be a British citizen. He had got his refugee status, but that took something like six years beyond when he was able to apply for citizenship, because he could not afford the fees. Had he been charged what it actually cost the Home Office, he would have got home a whole lot sooner. I know that nobody in this room would have wanted what happened to him to happen, but I am just explaining what the impact of these extortionate fees can be.
It took Fraser a long time, but he did finally get back with his British passport. Members here will be very proud of me, because I went to his citizenship ceremony and stood to sing “God Save the Queen”. I do not do that terribly often, but I did it for him, because it was so important to him. He went to Sudan to see what had become of his family and he discovered that his sister had fled but had come back. His sister was there, living in very dangerous circumstances, which he was then able to help her with. She has children there; she does not want to leave Sudan, but she wants to be safe and he was able to help her. He discovered that his mum had been very ill for many years. She had not died at the time; she, too, had escaped. She had been very ill for many years but—I am trying to think how to put this—she had clung on, because she just wanted to see him one more time. But she had died two months before he got over there.
As I said, I am not for a second suggesting that anybody here or anybody drafting the legislation would not care about what happened to Fraser, but if he had had easier access, had not had to save up for years because he worked on the minimum wage in various precarious employments, and had been able to get over sooner, he could have been reunited with his family, which is a huge thing for him. He calls my mum “Mum”, because he does not have one in his life.
I will call the second person I want to talk about Matthew. He had leave to remain but had to renew it after three years. He, too, worked on the minimum wage in precarious employment, with a zero-hours contract. How could he save up the £2,000 that he had to pay to renew it? So he buried his head in the sand; he did not save it up—well, he could not possibly have saved it up, to be fair—and then his employer said to him, rightly, “I’m no longer allowed to employ you, because you don’t have leave to remain.” He said, “But I can’t afford to apply for leave to remain,” but of course the employer cannot do anything about that. He was obviously then unemployed, but he has no recourse to public funds, because he does not have any status in the UK, so his housing association is saying to him, “Where’s the rent?” A year has gone by and he has clocked up all sorts of debt. His housing association is saying, “Look, we don’t want to evict you, but we are going to have to.” That is all because he could not afford the fees—fees that were way more than it was costing the Home Office. There was no need to do this to him.
The situation then got really complicated because he discovered something—this fits in with new clause 16 and awareness raising. He did not know that it is possible for the fees to be waived if the person is in certain circumstances, and his case fitted those circumstances; they are not waived as a right, but there is that possibility. He did not know that, so he did not ask. He got a lawyer, who obviously did know it, and asked. The Home Office asked to see his bank statements for the past couple of years, and then said, “No, we are not waiving the fee,” and just left it at that. He came to me, and I asked the Home Office. The Minister there was very helpful and said, “Look, it is because he has been gambling his money away. That is why he can’t pay his fees.”
Neil Coyle
I am a little rusty when it comes to this process, Sir Roger, so thank you for your clarifications. I missed the first evidence session, in which declarations of interest were made, because I was at my brother’s wedding, which was fantastic. For the purposes of formal declaration, as noted in my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I receive support from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project in a policy capacity to support constituents and to work on relevant issues here in Westminster.
I welcome the Minister to his new role and congratulate him on completing the marathon, which of course goes through my constituency—he is welcome back to Bermondsey and Old Southwark any time. He was raising funds for Justice and Care, which could lead to interesting discussions about some aspects of the Bill. [Interruption.] I have not been heckled by technology before—these are interesting interventions. We are clear for take-off I believe.
I shall plough on. The Bill addresses access for a relatively small group, which some will welcome, but I support the amendments. [Interruption.] This is rather distracting.
The Chair
Order. I am terribly sorry, but clearly someone has not fastened their seatbelt. Let us try again, but if it happens again I may have to suspend the sitting for five minutes.
Neil Coyle
I thank colleagues for their kind words about not particularly wanting to hear my contribution and being grateful for the technical problem.
I support the amendments because I believe that the Bill misses an opportunity to address some wider process issues that need reviewing for several reasons. Fundamentally, I come back to the impact of imposing costs on people’s access to their rights and entitlements, given the delays and times involved and the impact on Home Office staff.
Let me give a practical example: the Home Office’s processes take so long and cost so much that businesses in my constituency have moved country as a result. One financial sector firm was trying to recruit someone from Japan. They were told that it would take at least six months to process an application, and that she may not even qualify to work in the UK under the process they were following. They discovered that it was cheaper and faster to up sticks, because of the price, process and times. They chose to move to Frankfurt, and in two weeks they were able to complete the registration and visa process that they could not do over here.
There is a wider problem with how long the process takes. Imposing costs adds to the bureaucratic impact on the Home Offices and the delays. At the end of March 2021, 66,000 people were waiting for initial decisions from the Home Office—the highest figure for over a decade. Of those, 56,000 had been waiting more than six months. I come back to the point that the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby made about accessing a passport. If a child wants to go on a school trip and wants a passport, but cannot get it without going through a process that takes more than six months, how on earth will they go on a school trip? In that circumstance, children are denied the opportunities afforded to their classmates, even if they were born over the river here at St Thomas’ Hospital and sit next to the other children whom they do not have the same rights as. It is iniquitous.
Anne McLaughlin
I just want to share a story. When I was in primary 7, everyone in my class went on a trip to Paris, except me, because my parents were too strict and thought I was too young. At least I understood why. Those children cannot go because of who they are; it is not because of a decision by their parents but because they are deemed not to be equal to their classmates. I know how bad it felt to be told by my mum and dad that I was not going to Paris. It must feel 100 times worse for a child when who they are is in question.
The Chair
Order. We are feeling our way. I do not want to be heavy handed, but interventions are not speeches.
The Chair
It is quite all right. We allow greater flexibility in Committee than we do on the Floor of the House. Nevertheless, an intervention should arise directly from, and be a question to, the Member who has the floor.
Neil Coyle
I am not sure why the hon. Lady’s parents were concerned about Paris in particular, but the point is that they were able to make that choice. In these circumstances, children born and educated in this country who have never lived anywhere else do not have the right to decide whether they can go on a school trip.
Returning to my point about the timeframes involved, the number of people waiting over a year for a decision has risen tenfold since 2010, with 33,000 people in that position in 2020, including 7,000 children, and 2,500 people waiting more than three years. I have at least two examples in my constituency of people waiting over a decade for a Home Office decision on their status. Those people are reliant on local authority emergency support, because the Home Office has shunted the cost to councils rather than get on with the process, make a decision and end the need for more expensive emergency support.
Who carries out the process and what trust is there in the Home Office? We are well aware of the Windrush examples and the denial of entitlements to people who were legally entitled to be in this country and should have had their rights upheld. They should have been respected for their contribution to rebuilding this country, to providing our public services in particular, and to our economy more widely.
The hostile environment has damaged trust in that regard; calling only on casework experience, the Home Office had an officer placed in my council’s “no recourse to public funds” team who took away the driver’s licence of someone who was seeking support from the council, which caused even more complications in getting their situation addressed, adding more time and more delay. In this Bill, the Home Office seems to be adding more complications, process and bureaucracy, rather than addressing where things have gone wrong—and things have gone very badly wrong.
To give one example, my constituent Ade Ronke came to see me when I was first elected in 2015. At that point, her son was three years old and she had been battling for three years to try to get her status resolved. The Home Office had declared that she was in effect a person of bad character because it believed that she had been subject to a criminal prosecution. She had never been arrested, she had never been in court, and the police and courts provided proof that it was not her that the Home Office was referring to, but it took a long time. Her son was 10 years old before that case was resolved. He had grown up for seven years in a family where there was no entitlement to child benefit or housing benefit and no recourse to public funds. Throughout that process, his mother was reliant on a church group for accommodation.
The Home Office could have used the Bill to address the division that has been created between what the Government aspire to do and the faith groups and others who are providing support, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East mentioned. That philanthropic support means that there are many organisations and individuals out there who are aware of the deep disadvantage and even destitution that these Home Office policies cause, which the Bill could have addressed.
There is also an issue about numbers, which perhaps the Minister can address when he speaks. It is unclear whether the Bill will require the Home Office to take on more staff or whether it intends to increase the workload of existing staff. The staff complement has risen in the past 10 years, but productivity has collapsed. We see fewer decisions made and fewer interviews of people going through these cases per calendar month, despite the fact that there are more officers working on those cases, according to Home Office figures.
At a time when nine in 10 crimes in this country go unpunished, we should be doing everything humanly possible across the House to ensure that the Home Office can focus on law and order and its fundamental purpose of keeping our communities safe. That is not happening for my constituency on antisocial behaviour and other crimes, and it would be welcome if the Home Office could return its focus to those issues, rather than adding more bureaucracy, more costs and more time to distract from that fundamental purpose.
Linked with that question, over the past 10 years we have seen a drop in access to legal aid. I know that the Bill’s equality impact assessment suggests there will be an extension to legal aid support in some cases. I hope that the Minister, when he addresses this particular section of the Bill, will confirm that legal aid will be available to those going through citizenship processes.
As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld and all the other places—I thought my constituency had a long name—said, there is also a cost issue, and the Bill misses an opportunity to address that. I support these amendments based on the cost issues alone, because we are one of the most expensive countries in the world in terms of the bureaucracy involved in this. I am proud to be British; I think this is the best country in the world and that London is the best city in the world, but it is also one of the most expensive.
To process citizenship here costs 10 times as much as in many of our neighbours: France and Spain have the lowest, but I appreciate that some on the Government Benches do not like European comparators, so let us look at the United States, as our price is already double theirs. It is also hideously expensive here compared with Canada, which charges only £400 to process citizenship, or other Commonwealth compatriots such as Australia.
I know that some Government Members will be using Australia as an example in later parts of the Bill, but perhaps they could have a look at it here as well, because Australia charges just £153 for an adult citizenship registration process, and Australia does not charge children a bean. There is a direct example within the Commonwealth of a country that has adopted a more progressive system, and perhaps we could learn from that.
Mr Goodwill
Or indeed joining the British Army. I had a constituent whose mother was German and was married to a British citizen, who was in the British Army in Germany at the time. My constituent apparently could not join the British Army. He had to go through the process and pay the citizenship fees to join the British Army.
Neil Coyle
Some people are fortunate enough to find sponsors for these processes, but fundamentally that still leaves the problem in place. The Government said they would review this. Where are they with that? The point I want to make is this: someone who goes to university is more likely to secure a higher income and pay more taxes in the long term, so, if this issue is a deterrent to some people going to university, which I believe it has been in some constituency cases, failure to address the problem will have a long-term economic hit on UK plc.
My final point is on the lived reality of people in these circumstances. They often have no recourse to public funds conditions imposed as well, and the restrictions and limitations of that are devastating. Sadly, I have multiple examples from my constituency.
Mr Musari came to see me in 2015, when I was first elected. He was working in the private sector and renting in the private sector, when he suddenly had a no recourse to public funds condition imposed on him. His wife was pregnant with their third child, Mofe, at the time, so she had stopped working in order to give birth—you cannot really do both at once. The impact of the no recourse to public funds condition was that he was in the process of being evicted, because he was not able to pay his rent, because he could not access benefits and continued support. He became reliant on a church group for accommodation.
He told a group in my constituency—he got up and told this story publicly—that on Christmas day, when he was living through that terrible experience, he woke up in that emergency philanthropic accommodation, in one room with his wife and their three children. They had no private kitchen use. There was no Christmas dinner. Because of their financial circumstances, there were no Christmas presents for the children. He said that that day he felt that Government policies meant that if he took his own life, his children would get more support. He told that story publicly to outline the human impact on him.
His family, of course, ended up becoming reliant on emergency social services support from Southwark Council. That is a massive cost to a council—a colossal cost. London councils are spending £53 million a year on emergency social services for children subject to no recourse to public funds conditions, because the Home Office has imposed that process on them. That is the process we have before us today. It is a massive economic cost. Councils of every political hue are up in arms at how they are being forced to spend money through their noses on emergency services rather than on more affordable, long-term, permanent accommodation. Emergency accommodation provided through social services is the most expensive—more expensive than sending someone to prison or detaining someone in hospital. It is a ridiculously expensive system, but a deliberate choice. The Bill is an opportunity to address those issues, and I fear that it will impose new, and more, costs.
The equality impact assessment says that the Government plan to drop no recourse to public funds conditions for some of those affected by the legislation. I hope the Minister will say more about that. I hope he will agree to do what the Prime Minister has asked, which is to publish the figures on all those subject to no recourse to public funds conditions. I hope he will tell us whether he will agree to a review of the whole system to help people like Mr Musari and all those affected as we go forward.
The Chair
The hon. Gentleman has been entirely in order throughout his remarks. He has quoted from a number of documents. Would he please make sure that paper copies—or electronic copies, preferably—are made available for Hansard? Thank you.
Bambos Charalambous
I will be brief. I entirely support amendment 8 and the associated amendments on fees. The starting point is rectifying the injustice that has been done, and fees should not be a barrier to rectifying that injustice. We support the waiver of fees in those cases, because there has clearly been an anomaly that has disproportionately affected the people in this case. Fees should never be used as a barrier and they will clearly be a barrier in this instance, and that is why we support amendment 8 and the associated amendments in the group. If the intention is to make it easier for people to acquire citizenship, we want to remove barriers, not add them. That is what the amendment would do and that is why we support it.
There has been discussion about the cost of the administration of fees. My hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark has made the point that the Government are meant to be carrying out a review following legal challenges. I hope that we see the fruits of that review before the Bill goes through its parliamentary stages, so that we can have greater certainty. I am sure the Minister will clarify that. We also need to make sure that awareness is raised about the access to rights to citizenship and the impact that the fees will have. For those reasons, we commend the amendments.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Glasgow North East for tabling amendments 8 to 12 and new clause 16, which provides the Committee with the opportunity to consider fees charged in respect of applications for British citizenship and British overseas territories citizenship.
Before I address the specific points in the proposed new measures, I want to provide some background information. Application fees for immigration and nationality applications have been charged for a number of years under powers set out under clause 68 of the Immigration Act 2014, and they play a vital role in our country’s ability to run a sustainable system, reducing the burden on taxpayers. Sitting beneath the 2014 Act are fees orders and fees regulations, which are scrutinised by both Houses before they come into effect; that is an important point. That ensures that there are checks and balances within the system and maintains the coherence of the fees framework. If we were to remove those fees during the passage of the Bill, as the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark suggests, it would undermine the existing legal framework without proper consideration of the sustainability and fairness to the UK taxpayer.
Tom Pursglove
I will, although I know that you wanted us to make good progress, Sir Roger.
Neil Coyle
I want to comment on the point about the burden on taxpayers. First, there is a very significant profit margin—86% profit for some of the processes of the Home Office—so there is no burden there. Secondly, it is quite offensive language to those that are living, working and paying tax here to say that they are a burden, even though they are already contributing economically through national insurance and tax contributions. I find the language unhealthy.
The Chair
Order. The Minister has indicated that we want to make progress, and that is true, but the Minister must not feel under any pressure not to respond to points that have been raised. This is a very important part of the Bill, so please, as a new Minister, feel able to take your time if you need to do so.
Tom Pursglove
Thank you, Sir Roger. I appreciate that. I also appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s strength of feeling on this matter. I was Parliamentary Private Secretary, several years ago, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby who was Immigration Minister, and I learned a lot from him. He got to the nub of the issue of fees. The truth is that there is a level of fee that is set. There is constant parliamentary scrutiny of those fees, as I have described. There is a level of cost associated with that. Any fee level that is incurred over and above that is actually invested into the wider nationality and borders system and helps to pay for the services that are provided.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Minister refers to the contribution of the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. That was a challenge to give a commitment that fees should not be set at a level that does other than reflect cost. I hope the Minister will take advantage of that opportunity. As he is beginning to develop his argument, he is suggesting that fees are set at a higher level in order to reinvest in the Home Office. That is what other people have described and The Times reported in 2019 as profit of quite significant proportion.
Tom Pursglove
I will gladly take away the Committee’s feedback on fees. As I have said, fees are kept under constant review and are subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I have no doubt that members of the Committee, and indeed Members across the House, will want to scrutinise any fees orders and fees regulations that are brought forward, express views on them and, as they see fit, either support them or take issue with them.
To return to the focus of the amendments and the clause, removing these fees during the passage of the Bill would undermine the existing legal framework without proper consideration of sustainability and fairness for the UK taxpayer. It would also reduce clarity in the fees structure by creating an alternative mechanism for controlling fees.
Beginning with amendments 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12, the aim of which is to limit the Secretary of State’s power to charge a fee for applying for British overseas territories citizenship, I can reassure the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East that I am sympathetic to the view that a fee should not be charged in cases where a person missed out on becoming a British citizen automatically due to historical anomalies. The provisions in the Bill are about righting historical wrongs, and I can give the Committee my assurance that we will look carefully at where fees should be waived via the fees regulations. However, as I have outlined, that is not a matter for this Bill and it should be remedied through secondary legislation, in line with other changes to immigration and nationality fees.
Stuart C. McDonald
My understanding, from the briefing I was given at the weekend, is that in July the Home Office sent a letter to nationality experts stating that the intention was not to charge a fee, but the Minister seems to be saying something different; that there will be fee waivers, rather than no fees at all. We are talking about historical injustices here, so can he be a little more clear? Is the intention not to charge a fee for the applications to which amendments 8 to 11 refer?
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Member is always on point in asking pertinent questions. I reiterate the point that the Home Office tends not to charge fees in instances where unfairness or injustice have occurred, and it remains our intention to continue to adopt that approach in relation to the provisions that we are enacting through the Bill. I hope that gives him the reassurance he is seeking.
Neil Coyle
I thank the Minister for giving way. Yesterday we saw Parliament at its finest, and I genuinely think that he is a decent man, but what he is saying today is not what was indicated previously and it does not address what the Court of Appeal has required the Home Office to do. If he is saying that there will be secondary legislation at some point, when is it coming, because we have an opportunity here to address the issue? The Court of Appeal found that the Home Office had failed to assess the best interests of children in setting the fee. To fail to do so again in this legislation will have only one outcome, which is the Government being back in court.
Also, I forgot to mention the case that I was speaking about earlier, so for reference it is R (The Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens) v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Member for that further intervention. Let me just set out the position on the point about child citizenship fees that he raises. I understand the concerns expressed about child citizenship fees. However, this is currently subject to legal challenge in the Supreme Court and the position will be reviewed after the judgments have been received.
Neil Coyle
So when the Government said in February that the issue was being reviewed, was it not being reviewed then? It is extraordinary that many months down the line the Minister is telling us that there will be a review only if they lose the case in the Supreme Court, which will incur further costs of millions of pounds for the taxpayer simply to go through the legal process.
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Member would be surprised if we did not want to review the situation and take into account fully the judgment of the Supreme Court in due course. I think that it is entirely proper that we take a view on this and that the situation should be reviewed in the light of any judicial ruling handed down. This exchange has been very useful, as it has allowed me to address many of the points that I would have picked up at the end of my remarks.
I turn now to subsection (1) of new clause 16, the aim of which is to limit the Secretary of State’s power to charge a fee for applying for British citizenship and British overseas territories citizenship to the cost to the Secretary of State of processing the application. As I have already outlined, imposing such a requirement would cut across the funding and coherence of the whole system and is not a matter for the Bill.
Subsection (2) would prevent the Secretary of State from charging a fee to register as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen if the child is being looked after by a local authority. It is important to remember that any child, irrespective of nationality, who is looked after by their local authority can apply for both limited and indefinite leave to remain without being required to pay application fees.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister is being generous with his time, but I regret that the Home Office appears to have dusted down the same old briefing and he is making the same points that have been made before. He cannot possibly argue that limited leave is some sort of alternative to British citizenship. None of us would accept that; why should these kids?
Tom Pursglove
We would argue that the provision ensures no child in local authority care is unable to access leave. We remain of the view that citizenship is not necessary for any individual to work, live, study or access services within the UK. Subsection (3) would prevent the Secretary of State from charging a fee to be registered as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen that the child or the child’s parent, guardian or carer is unable to afford. That raises similar points to subsection (1) in that imposing such a requirement would cut across the funding and coherence of the whole system and is not a matter for the Bill. Subsection (4) would require the Secretary of State to take steps to raise awareness of rights under the British Nationality Act 1981.
Stuart C. McDonald
I have a quick question on the fee waiver. Why is registration for citizenship just about the only thing where there is no fee waiver scheme at all? There is a fee waiver sometimes for the 10-year route to settlement—as ludicrous a system as that is. Why is there no fee waiver system at all even for folk who cannot remotely afford that?
Tom Pursglove
I am conscious that I want to get through my remarks on this. I will write to the hon. Member on that point.
Neil Coyle
The Minister is being very generous in giving way. Perhaps he will be able to tell us how many applications for a fee waiver were denied by the Home Office in each of the last few years, or perhaps he could furnish us with that detail in another way. My understanding is that it is about 90%.
Tom Pursglove
Again, I do not have the figure to hand, but I will happily take that away and see if I can provide him with a written answer on that point. Information about becoming a British citizen is made available in published guidance on gov.uk and we are committed to ensuring information of this nature is fully accessible for all. I am conscious that we have had quite an extensive debate around fees in general, but I hope what I have said around the provisions in the Bill and the Government’s intentions for handling fees in relation to the nationality measures we are seeking to enact gives comfort to the Committee, and that the hon. Members will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to all Members for taking part and the Minister for his response. There have been two separate issues. First, on the new registration provision in the Bill, he has provided some assurance that because it is correcting historic injustices the broad intention will be hopefully to avoid a fee. We will hold the Government to that and watch very carefully.
I hear what the Minister says about the fact there is a system of statutory instruments being laid—we all come here and say our piece and then the Government sets a fee pretty much regardless. In theory, that is fine. However, the lesson we learned about the citizenship registration of kids is that in 1981 the then Government and Parliament as a whole made it absolutely clear that profits should not be made on that registration, and that was fine for 20 or 25 years. But then along came successive Governments that decided to ramp it up.
On a principle as fundamental as this, I still think there is a strong case for putting it in the Bill. If a new Government want to change the approach in the future, they can do so, but they will first have to introduce primary legislation to do that. I do insist on amendment 8. I will insist even more strongly on new clause 16.
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman asked specifically about fee waivers in relation to nationality, and I have just reflected on that point. My understanding is that, for most people, nationality is a choice and is not needed specifically to live in the UK. That is why we do not tend to offer fee waivers, typically, unless it is to correct a historical injustice. I just wanted to make that point clear.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful, but that is an argument that the Home Office makes every time we have this debate. We have had Westminster Hall debates and so forth, and it is an awful point. This is the point that I have just been making. Imagine if I were to say to the Minister that we are taking British citizenship away from him and that he could get indefinite leave to remain or apply for five years’ leave to remain or two and a half years’ leave to remain. The long route to settlement involves two and a half years, two and a half years, two and a half years and two and a half years. After 10 years, thousands of pounds and all sorts of uncertainty, he would get settlement, but even that is not citizenship. We would laugh at anyone’s suggestion that we would swap our British citizenship for that. That is not a remotely reasonable justification for not having a fee waiver.
It is the Home Office’s official position that British citizenship is somehow equivalent to the long route to settlement. The long route to settlement is a disgrace, but that is another issue. For goodness’ sake, we are talking about something that I would think Conservative and Unionist politicians would think fundamental. A kid’s citizenship is not a commodity or a service. Leave to remain is not an alternative, so that is not an excuse for not having a fee waiver or for having a fee for kids who are in care.
The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby made plenty of points about the importance of being able to subsidise other parts of the system, and I get that for other reasons, but not for this. The figures show that the Home Office is making a huge profit. Making that profit on visa applications means that tens of thousands of kids who should be British citizens are out there struggling to secure leave to remain, with thousands of pounds of fees. They are being denied access and their rights, stability and security. I ask the Minister to take the issue away and think about it again. I also ask Government Members to think about this issue, because it is not party political. As say, I have had lots of support from Conservative MPs in the past. Let us do justice by these kids. In effect, they are British citizens. Let us make them legally British citizens as well.
As I say, new clause 16 is modest. It is not asking for no fees at all; it is asking for no more than cost price. It is asking for a fee waiver, and it is asking to ensure that people have all these rights. I will definitely press amendment 8, and new clause 16, when we reach it, to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
Having listened very carefully to the debate this morning, I am of the view that the matters arising from clause 1 have been thoroughly debated. I therefore do not propose to engage in any stand part debate.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2
Historical inability of unmarried fathers to transmit citizenship
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
There is no need to have a stand part debate on clause 2. There are no amendments to clause 2, but I do not wish to curtail debate if hon. Members have anything they wish to say.
Bambos Charalambous
I have some remarks, which I will try and keep as brief as possible. As outlined in the Committee, opening clauses 1 to 5 seek to close the important loopholes in British nationality law. As we have already heard, British nationality law has discriminated against women and that will be corrected by clause 1 and the Opposition amendments. Clause 2 deals with children born out of wedlock, who have been prevented from deriving nationality from a British father if unmarried. That is another historical injustice and I am glad it is being considered in the Bill.
As Committee members know, before 1 July 2006, children born to British unmarried fathers could not acquire British nationality through their father. Registration provisions have since been introduced to rectify that issue for the children of British citizens through sections 4E and 4I of the British Nationality Act 1981, but that was not changed for children of British overseas territory citizens. Let us pause for a moment to reflect on the impact of the inconsistency: a child has no control over its parents’ choices, yet British overseas territories children, now adults, have been discriminated against because their parents were unmarried. Due to a loophole in British nationality law, those children would not automatically acquire British overseas territory citizenship as the law failed to provide unmarried fathers with the ability to transmit citizenship. Therefore, through no fault of their own and without knowing why, that group of British overseas territories children did not acquire rights as British overseas territories citizens—rights they deserved and should have been entitled to, including, for example, holding a British passport or gaining consular assistance from the UK.
As we know, injustices that relate to nationality and citizenship span generations, and it is right the Government seek through clause 2 to correct the historical inability of unmarried fathers to transmit citizenship. The clause will insert new sections 17B and 17G to the British Nationality Act to provide for registration as British overseas territories citizens for persons born before 1 July 2006 to British overseas territories citizen fathers, where the parents were unmarried at the time of their birth. The provisions provide an entitlement to be registered for those who would have become British overseas territories citizens automatically had their parents been married at the time of their birth and for those who would currently have an entitlement to registration were it not for the fact that their parents were not married at the time of their birth. As the clause creates a registration route for the adult children of unmarried British overseas territories citizen fathers to acquire British overseas territories citizenship, the Opposition welcome and support clause 2. It shows that the adults who have slipped through the cracks in UK nationality law over many years are no longer punished and, instead, are finally placed on an equal footing with mainland UK children born under the same circumstances.
Tom Pursglove
Following clause 1, this clause also seeks to rectify a historical anomaly in British nationality law for people who would have become British overseas territories citizens. The purpose of the clause is to insert a new registration provision for people who, first, would have become BOTCs automatically had their parents been married and, secondly, would currently have an entitlement to registration as a BOTC but for the fact that their parents are not married. That has long been awaited. We are aware of people who would have become British had their parents been married and see citizenship as their birthright.
Nationality and Borders Bill (Sixth sitting)
Tuesday 19th October 2021
(2 years, 6 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 19 October 2021 - (19 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
There may be a vote in the Chamber this afternoon. If there is a Division, we will suspend for 15 minutes.
Clause 2
Historical inability of unmarried fathers to transmit citizenship
Question (this day) again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I will continue my remarks from the point at which I left off. One of the general criteria is that the person has not previously been a British overseas territories citizen. The registration provisions are intended to cover those who missed out on becoming a citizen by virtue of the fact that their parents were not married; they will not benefit those who acquired BOTC status in some other way and subsequently renounced or were deprived of that status.
The provisions created by this clause are detailed, as we need to cater for changes over time to British nationality legislation. It may help if I summarise who is covered by each provision. Proposed new section 17C of the British Nationality Act 1981 will apply to those who would have been entitled to be registered as a BOTC under the 1981 Act if their mother had been married to their natural father at the time of their birth. It allows the Home Secretary to waive the need for parental consent where that would normally be required. A good character requirement must be met if there is one for the provision that the person could have applied under had their parents been married.
Proposed new section 17D of the 1981 Act will apply to those who would automatically have become a British dependent territories citizen or BOTC at birth under the 1981 Act had their mother been married to their natural father at the time of their birth. Both parents must consent to a child under 18 making an application for registration, but this requirement can be waived where one parent has died, or in special circumstances.
Proposed new section 17E is for those who were citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies immediately before the 1981 Act came into force, and who would automatically have become a British dependent territories citizen, and then a BOTC under the 1981 Act, had their mother been married to their natural father at the time of their birth.
Proposed new section 17F covers three groups. The first is those who were British subjects or citizens of the UK and colonies by virtue of birth in a former colony, and who would not have lost that status on that country’s independence if their parents had been married. The second group is those who were British subjects before 1 January 1949 and would have become citizens of the UK and colonies on that date if their parents had been married. This would affect, for example, a person born in Canada whose father was born in Bermuda, and who would have become a citizen of the UK and colonies by descent if their parents were married. The third group are those who did not acquire British subject status, or citizenship of the UK and colonies, but who would have done if their parents were married. For example, this would affect a person born in the USA to a father born in Montserrat.
Clause 2 also sets out when a person registered under these provisions will acquire BOTC by descent or otherwise than by descent. A person who holds that status by descent will not normally be able to pass it on to a child born outside the territories. Our intention here is to give the person the status they would have received had their parents been married. Home Office officials are working with territories to develop the process for these applications. As was the case with clause 1, we think that registration is the right route, rather than automatic acquisition, to allow people to make a conscious choice about acquiring British nationality.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
If a married couple has a child, the assumption is made that the man is the biological father, even though anyone who has seen “The Jeremy Kyle Show” will know that that is not always the case. If a couple is living together when a child is born, will DNA evidence be required in some or any cases, or will it be assumed that the man is the biological father?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that question. I will take it away and write to him on that point.
As I mentioned in relation to clause 1, we will also create a route for people who become BOTCs to additionally become British citizens.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 2 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3
Sections 1 and 2: related British citizenship
Tom Pursglove
I beg to move amendment 59, in clause 3, page 8, line 17, leave out “under this section” and insert “on an application under subsection (1)(a)”.
This amendment means that the requirement in s.4K(3), that a person is registered as a BOTC, only applies to applications under subsection (1)(a). It is not needed for applications under subsection (1)(b), which are made by persons who are already BOTCs, and as previously drafted could have prevented registration of persons naturalised as BOTCs rather than registered.
Tom Pursglove
The amendment remedies a drafting issue. The clause as a whole creates a route to register as a British citizen for people who have registered as a British overseas territories citizen under the new routes introduced by clauses 1 and 2. The British Overseas Territories Act 2002 made BOTCs British citizens as well, so it is right that we allow those who missed out on British overseas territories citizenship to become British citizens as well. However, we also want to cover those who have already taken steps to become a British overseas territories citizen, such as through registration or naturalisation in a territory. The amendment introduces the wording of section 4K(3). As that section is currently worded, it means that only those who have been registered as a BOTC can register as British citizens using this clause. The amendment will mean that people who have naturalised as a BOTC will also qualify.
More broadly, on clause stand part, this is an important change aimed at giving British citizenship to those who become British overseas territories citizens under the provisions introduced by clauses 1 and 2. As we have heard, two groups missed out on becoming BOTCs because of anomalies in British nationality law: people born to BOTC mothers before 1983, and people born to unmarried fathers before 1 July 2006. Clauses 1 and 2 will correct this, giving them the opportunity to acquire the BOTC status that they should have had.
We also recognise, however, that changes to the law in 2002 mean that they should also have become British citizens. Under the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, on 21 May 2002 all British overseas territories citizens who had that citizenship by connection with a “qualifying territory” became British citizens. For children born in a qualifying territory after 21 May 2002, British citizenship is acquired automatically if either parent is a British citizen or settled in that territory. This means that this group have missed out on both BOTC and British citizenship, so we need to create a route for them to acquire both.
We recognise that some people who did not become BOTCs automatically may have already taken steps to acquire that status by applying for registration or naturalisation in a territory. Some may also have applied to become a British citizen under existing provisions, but for those who did not, this clause allows a person who would have become a British citizen, had women and unmarried fathers been able to pass on status at the time of their birth, to register as a British citizen if they are now a BOTC.
Home Office officials are working with territories to develop the process for these applications, including in respect of whether this can be a done as a “one-stop” approach, with a person being able to apply for BOTC and then also opt in to apply to be a British citizen at the same time.
We regularly receive representations on this issue, from individuals and governors, and so understand the strength of feeling. We are aware of families where cousins have different statuses because women and men could not pass on citizenship in the same way, or because a child’s parents did not marry. Those in this position understandably feel that they have been unfairly prevented from holding a status that they should have acquired by birth. It is therefore important that we make this change, and I commend clause 3 to the Committee.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms McDonagh.
Opposition Members will not oppose amendment 59, and I will speak primarily to clause 3 stand part. The clause refers to the creation of the new statutory entitlement for British overseas territories citizens who have been affected by the injustices that we have heard about this morning in relation to clauses 1 and 2 to become citizens by registration. While all those with BOTC status additionally became British citizens in 2002, by virtue of section 3 of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, we know of the loopholes that have existed due to the fact that women could not pass on citizenship, or because their parents were not married, and as a result many were unable to become British citizens under the 2002 Act. I am pleased that the Government are committing to new routes for adult children of British Overseas Territories Citizen parents to be registered as BOTCs and, in turn, as British citizens.
Clauses 1 to 3 would benefit people born to BOTC mothers and BOTC unmarried fathers who could not pass on citizenship to their child due to nationality laws at the time of the child’s birth, which, as we have heard this morning, is deeply unfair and is rightly being addressed in this legislation. Clause 3 creates a route to becoming a British citizen for people who registered as a BOTC under the new routes introduced by clauses 1 and 2.
However, we must also discuss the implementation of clauses 1 to 3. Accessibility is all-important and while we welcome the changes made to British nationality law outlined earlier today, I have concerns about rights being inaccessible, which we have seen time and again in the UK, with devastating consequences. If we take perhaps the clearest and most heartbreaking example of the Windrush scandal—one of the most shocking and contemptible episodes in the UK Government’s history—I am sure colleagues across the Committee will agree that the Windrush generation were treated shamefully after a lifetime of working hard, paying their taxes, bringing up their families and contributing to our society. They were left facing uncertainty about their legal status in the UK and lost access to their homes, jobs and healthcare, through no fault of their own.
As last year’s “Windrush Lessons Learned Review” highlights, changes made to British nationality law in the 1980s
“progressively impinged on the rights and status of the Windrush generation and their children without many of them realising it.”
Therefore, to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past, the rights that are to be established for British overseas territories citizenship must be accessible. The Home Office must provide assurances as to when and how these rights will be made public and widely publicised for those affected. I make the point around accessibility now as we discuss clause 3, and I hope we can return to it later on, as I believe it is very important.
Overall, the Opposition none the less support clause 3 as it provides the framework to tidy up inconsistencies in British nationality law and acknowledges those who have suffered under UK law due to loopholes outlined in clauses 1 and 2.
Amendment 59 agreed to.
Amendment proposed: 10, in clause 3, page 8, line 18, at end insert—
“(4) The Secretary of State must not charge a fee for the processing of applications under this section.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from charging a fee for British citizenship applications by certain British overseas territories citizens.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Question negatived.
Clause 3, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 4
Period for registration of person born outside the British overseas territories
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Pursglove
We have been clear that the nationality provisions within the Bill seek to tackle historical unfairness and inequality in British nationality law. As with earlier clauses, this legislation gives us the opportunity to amend provisions for British overseas territories citizens to mirror the comparable requirements already in place for British citizens.
Section 17(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 provides a registration route for a child whose parent is a BOTC by descent where that parent had been in a territory for a continuous period of three years at some point before the child’s birth. At present, an application to register a child under this route must be made within 12 months of the child’s birth. However, the parallel provision for British citizens, section 3(2) of the 1981 Act, was amended in 2010, replacing the requirement for an application to register a child to be made within 12 months of the child’s birth, with a requirement for the application to be made while the child is a minor.
Clause 4 seeks to amend the BOTC registration route in the same way. Rather than requiring applications to be lodged within 12 months of the birth, the clause would allow an application to be made at any time before the child’s 18th birthday. Consequently, the provision for the Secretary of State to exercise discretion to extend the registration period from 12 months to six years in section 17(4) will be removed as it is no longer needed.
Entitlement remains limited to children with a particular parental and residential connection to the relevant territory. In line with the British citizenship route, we do not propose extending the route to adults. Other adults seeking to become BOTCs, such as by naturalisation, must demonstrate a personal connection with the territory and cannot rely merely on the residence of their parents, and we want to ensure that this amendment remains consistent with other existing provisions. The aim is to ensure fairness across British nationality law, not to create further discrepancies. Clause 4 will bring the provisions for BOTCs in line with those already in place for British citizens.
Bambos Charalambous
Clause 4 also refers to an additional aspect necessary to align British citizenship and British overseas territory citizenship. The clause removes a requirement that applications for registering a child as a BOTC must be made within 12 months of birth, amending section 17(2) of the 1981 Act. As the Committee will know, section 17(2) provides a registration route for a child whose parent is a BOTC by descent and had been in a territory for a continuous period of three years at some point before the child’s birth. At present, an application under this route must be made within 12 months of the child’s birth; however, the same provision for British citizens was extended throughout childhood with the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, which replaced the requirement for the application to be made within 12 months of the child’s birth with a requirement for the application to be made while the child is a minor.
Clause 4 amends the BOTC registration route in the same way, so the same extension from within 12 months of the child’s birth to throughout childhood is applied to BOTCs. The Opposition support this clause and would be interested to know how many people will be affected once clauses 1 to 4 have been implemented.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 4 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 5
Disapplication of historical registration requirements
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Pursglove
This clause seeks to amend British nationality law to remove historical registration requirements and to reflect recent case law. As we have already heard, before 1983 women were unable to pass on British citizenship, and before 1 July 2006 unmarried fathers were unable to pass on citizenship. Under the previous legislation, the British Nationality Act 1948, citizenship could normally only be passed on to one generation of children born outside of the UK and colonies.
However, section 5(1)(b) of the 1948 Act permitted transmission through a father to a further generation if the child was born in a foreign country and their birth was registered within a year at a British consulate. The period could be extended at the Secretary of State’s discretion. An example of this might be where the child’s grandfather was born in the UK and their father was born in the United States of America: the child’s birth could be registered at the British consulate in the United States and they would have become a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies as a result. However, a British mother or unmarried British father could not register their child’s birth at a consulate, because they were unable to pass on citizenship at that time.
There are already measures in place for people to register as a British citizen if they would have been able to acquire that status automatically if women and unmarried fathers had been able to pass on citizenship under the 1948 Act. This clause means that a person will not be prevented from registering under those provisions if the only reason they cannot qualify is that their parent was unable to register their birth at a consulate.
Bambos Charalambous
As we move through part 1 of the Bill, we turn to British citizenship in clause 5. This clause again seeks to correct historical problems in British nationality law concerning discrimination against women. The current statutory language has caused significant problems in implementation. Under the 1948 Act, citizenship could normally only be passed on for one generation to children born outside the UK and colonies, but section 5(1)(b) of the Act permitted it to be passed on to a further generation if the child was born in a foreign country and the birth was registered within a year at a British consulate. The child of the British mother or unmarried British father could not be registered because they were unable to pass on citizenship at the time.
British women, therefore, although able to inherit their fathers’ nationality when born abroad, have historically been denied the right to pass it on to their own children in the same circumstances. Although when it came into force on 1 January 1983 the British Nationality Act 1981 equalised the rights of men and women as regards the nationality of their children, it did nothing to remedy the discrimination against women that had persisted up to that point. That discrimination was demonstrated in the Supreme Court on 9 February 2018, in the Advocate General for Scotland v. Romein. Ms Romein was born in the USA in 1978 and her father was a US citizen. Her mother was born in South Africa to a Scottish mother and a Welsh father, from whom she inherited her British national status. Despite her family’s connections to the United Kingdom on both sides, as a result of the discrimination inherent in British nationality law—specifically, at that time, section 5 of the British Nationality Act 1948—she was unable to pass her British national status on to her own child, despite wishing to do so.
Clause 5 therefore amends eligibility requirements for registration under section 4C and 4I of the British Nationality Act 1981, to disapply the requirements for a birth to have been registered at a British consulate within 12 months. In effect, it will tidy up the language of British nationality legislation to make clear the Supreme Court’s judgment in Ms Romein’s case, which confirmed the right of British women to pass their nationality on to their children born abroad. The Opposition support the clause, which creates no new rights, but rather makes clear the existing rights in UK law. We welcome that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 5 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 6
Citizenship where mother married to someone other than natural father
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Pursglove
Picking up on the earlier question that the shadow Minister asked, I should say that my understanding when it comes to this amendment is that the clause will affect only a small number of people. But it is an area of law out of touch with modern society, so it is right that we should make this change.
The issue is that in British nationality law the mother’s husband is the child’s father, even if she has been separated from him for years and the child is not biologically related to her husband. That can create difficult cases—for example, when a child’s biological father is a British citizen, but their father for nationality purposes is the mother’s estranged non-British husband. The child misses out on British nationality as a result.
Generally, we think it is right that the mother’s husband should be treated as the child’s father for nationality purposes. The common law presumption is that a child born during a period of marriage is the child of the mother’s husband, unless shown otherwise. For nationality purposes, however, there should be certainty about a child’s status, which should not be subject to change at a later date if paternity is disputed. But we need a solution for the child whose father is not the mother’s husband, so that they do not miss out on becoming British through their natural father.
Until now, we have been registering such children as British citizens using the discretion that the Home Secretary has to register any child under the age of 18 under section 3(1) of the 1981 Act. We recognise that those children would have been British automatically were it not for their mother being married to someone else, so we made that a fee-free route last year.
However, the inconsistency has been highlighted by the courts. In the case of K, the court ruled that, although it was a correct interpretation of the legislation for the child not to be a British citizen automatically, the fact that the only remedy was through discretionary legislation was incompatible with the European convention on human rights.
We must take this opportunity to create a specific route for children in this position to be able to acquire British nationality. That is achievable by removing from existing registration provisions the requirement for children of unmarried fathers to have been born before 1 July 2006. People in this position may not see any practical difference, as they can currently make a fee-free application under section 3(1), but the important point is that the provision gives this group a legal entitlement to registration, rather than their having to rely on the exercise of discretion.
We are also using the clause to allow a child of a non-British member of the British armed forces to make an application to register as a British citizen, despite their mother being married to someone other than their biological father at the time of their birth. That will bring them in line with other children whose parents were serving overseas at the time of the birth.
Bambos Charalambous
It is deeply regrettable that British statutory law has long discriminated against children born out of wedlock, preventing British nationality from being derived from a British father if he was not married to the child’s mother. The British Nationality Act 1981, when first passed, did not correct that discrimination relating to British citizenship, but since then there have been various attempts to remove it. Those amendments have created rights to be registered as a British citizen for some of the people affected by that discrimination. However, no corresponding right has been introduced for people who would have become British overseas territory citizens. As we have seen, clause 2 is intended to correct this omission, and the Opposition support it.
However, clause 2 is not sufficient in itself to correct the discrimination relating to British citizenship; indeed, the relevant legislation has led to an anomaly. That anomaly, which is to be corrected by clause 6, which we also support, is that people who would have been born a British citizen but for their father not being married to their mother now have the right to be registered as a British citizen if they were born before 1 July 2006. That applies whether or not the mother was married to someone else at the time of the person’s birth.
However, people born on or after that date, who would similarly have been born a British citizen but were not because their father was not married to their mother, do not have a corresponding right. The courts have declared that discrimination to be incompatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. Clause 6 is intended to correct that injustice, and we therefore support it. It does so only for British citizenship. That is because the correction for British overseas territories citizenship is built into clause 2.
As has been said, our primary concern with clauses 1, 2, 3, 5 and 6 is not with the text or with the fundamental intentions behind them but with the fact that, when commenced, the rights that are to be established must be accessible. There are too many examples of British nationality rights being inaccessible. The Windrush scandal is but one especially painful relevant example.
The following matters are therefore crucial. We would like the Minister to give assurances as to how these rights will be made public and will be sufficiently widely publicised, not least because many of the beneficiaries will be in other territories or countries.
Ministers must equally give assurances that evidential and procedural obstacles will, to the fullest extent practical, be removed or reduced. Biometric registration and overseas and mandatory citizenship ceremonies, for example, must not be prohibitive to the exercise of these rights, as they have been in the past. Biometric registration must not be prohibitively expensive or inaccessible. Ceremonies can be waived, and that should be done where a person wishes to do that, or where a ceremony cannot be offered without undue cost or delay to the person being registered.
Where relevant information is available and can be confirmed by the Home Office or the Passport Office, that should be done. People must not be obstructed by unreasonable demands for evidence. It must be understood that, for some people, there may be considerable obstacles to securing evidence of their rights so many years after the original injustice—for example, due to age, somebody passing away, or separation, including by reason of abuse or violence. The Home Office or Passport Office must be as helpful as possible to facilitate the exercise of these rights.
In conclusion, we support the clause and the intention behind it, but it is of great importance that the Minister also ensures that these rights are fully accessible.
Tom Pursglove
Let me respond briefly to the point that has understandably and rightly been made. As I said in response to earlier clauses, there is a very constructive working relationship between the Home Office and the various overseas territories for which these provisions are relevant, as well as with the various governors. There is good engagement, and we are keen to see this information cascaded.
The point I would strongly make is that we are seeking through the provisions in the Bill to put right past injustices, and we would want this information to be as readily available as possible to people who may find themselves affected. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate has my undertaking that I will take that point away and monitor it very closely to ensure that that happens.
In the discussion on an earlier clause, my right hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby showed an interest in relation to proof of paternity. In relation to this clause, regulations will set out what can be accepted as proof of paternity—first, being named before 10 September 2015 as the child’s father on the birth certificate issued within 12 months of the birth and, in all other cases, any evidence such as DNA test reports, court orders or birth certificates considered by the Secretary of State to establish paternity. I know that my right hon. Friend had an interest in that issue in relation to the earlier clause, but I thought that it would be useful to say something about it here as well.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 6 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7
Citizenship: registration in special cases
Bambos Charalambous
I beg to move amendment 35, in clause 7, page 9, line 36, at end insert—
‘(1A) In section 1 (acquisition by birth or adoption) subsection (5)—
(a) in paragraph (a), for “minor” substitute “person”; and
(b) after paragraph (b), for “that minor shall” substitute “that person or minor (as the case may be) shall”.’
This amendment seeks to bring British nationality law in line with adoption law in England and Wales. In those nations, an adoption order made by a court may be made where a child has reached the age of 18 but is not yet 19. Yet such an adoption order currently only confers British citizenship automatically where the person adopted is under 18 on the day the order is made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 13, in clause 7, page 9, line 40, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to approve applications for British citizenship by people who have previously been denied the opportunity to acquire it on account of historical legislative unfairness, an act or omission of a public authority, or exceptional circumstances.
Amendment 30, in clause 7, page 10, line 25, at end insert—
‘4M Acquisition by registration: equal treatment
(1) Where a person (P) is registered as a British citizen under subsection 4L(1), the Secretary of State must—
(a) ensure that other persons applying to be registered are so registered where the same unfairness, act or omission or circumstances apply unless there are material factors relevant to their applications that were not relevant to P’s application;
(b) amend or make policy or guidance in line with the registration of P;
(c) make that new or amended policy or guidance publicly available; and
(d) take such other steps as may be reasonably necessary to draw attention to that new or amended policy or guidance among other people affected by that same unfairness, act or omission or circumstances.
(2) In each Parliamentary session, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of any historical legislative unfairness on the basis of which any person has been registered under subsection 4L(1) and which remains to be corrected by amendment to the British Nationality Act 1981 or such other legislation as may be required.
(3) The report required by subsection (2) must both explain each case of historical legislative unfairness to which it relates and set out the period within which the Secretary of State intends to make the necessary correction to the British Nationality Act 1981 or other legislation.’
This amendment requires that the Government publicise any change in policy or guidance in order to ensure that there is no unfairness in treatment of British citizens or those who are applying to be registered as British citizens. It also requires the Secretary of State to report and explain any historical legislative unfairness.
Amendment 14, in clause 7, page 10, line 30, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to approve applications for British citizenship by people who have previously been denied the opportunity to acquire it on account of historical legislative unfairness, an act or omission of a public authority, or exceptional circumstances.
Amendment 31, in clause 7, page 11, line 8, at end insert—
‘17I Acquisition by registration: equal treatment
(1) Where a person (P) is registered as a British Overseas Territories citizen under subsection 17H(1), the Secretary of State must—
(a) ensure that other persons applying to be registered are so registered where the same unfairness, act or omission or circumstances apply unless there are material factors relevant to their applications that were not relevant to P’s application;
(b) amend or make policy or guidance in line with the registration of P;
(c) make that new or amended policy or guidance publicly available; and
(d) take such other steps as may be reasonably necessary to draw attention to that new or amended policy or guidance among other people affected by that same unfairness, act or omission or circumstances.
(2) In each Parliamentary session, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report of any historical legislative unfairness on the basis of which any person has been registered and which remains to be corrected by amendment to the British Nationality Act 1981 or such other legislation as may be required.
(3) The report required by subsection (2) must both explain each case of historical legislative unfairness to which it relates and set out the period within which the Secretary of State intends to make the necessary correction to the British Nationality Act 1981 or other legislation.’
This amendment requires that the Government publicise any change in policy or guidance in order to ensure that there is no unfairness in treatment of British Overseas Territories citizens or those who are applying to be registered as British citizens. It also requires the Secretary of State to report and explain any historical legislative unfairness.
Amendment 34, in clause 7, page 11, line 8, at end insert—
‘(4) After section 23 (Citizens of UK and Colonies who are to become British overseas territories citizens at commencement), insert—
“23A Acquisition by registration: special circumstances
(1) If an application is made for a person of full age and capacity (“P”) to be registered as a British Overseas citizen, the Secretary of State may cause P to be registered as such a citizen if, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, P would have been, or would have been able to become, a British Overseas citizen but for—
(a) historical legislative unfairness,
(b) an act or omission of a public authority, or
(c) exceptional circumstances relating to P.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1)(a), “historical legislative unfairness” includes circumstances where P would have become, or would not have ceased to be, a British subject, a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, or a British Overseas citizen, if an Act of Parliament or subordinate legislation (within the meaning of the Interpretation Act 1978) had, for the purposes of determining a person’s nationality status—
(a) treated males and females equally,
(b) treated children of unmarried couples in the same way as children of married couples, or
(c) treated children of couples where the mother was married to someone other than the natural father in the same way as children of couples where the mother was married to the natural father.
(3) In subsection (1)(b), “public authority” means any public authority within the meaning of section 6 of the Human Rights Act 1998, other than a court or tribunal.
(4) In considering whether to grant an application under this section, the Secretary of State may take into account whether the applicant is of good character.”’
This amendment seeks to extend the remedy in Clause 7 to those who would have been British Overseas Citizens but for historical unfairness.
Clause stand part.
Bambos Charalambous
It is the view of the Opposition that British nationality law is out of kilter with adoption law in England and Wales and needs to be rectified. In those countries where an adoption order has been made by a court, it may be made where a child has reached the age of 18 but has not yet reached the age of 19; yet such an adoption order confers British citizenship automatically only where the person adopted is under 18 on the day the order is made. It seems evident to the Opposition that that is a slip that results in unnecessary unfairness.
The adoption law as it stands was enacted some 20 years after the relevant nationality law, and apparently the inconsistency that it created was overlooked. It has never been suggested that the adoption law and British nationality law should be out of step where a court in England and Wales authorises a person to be adopted by a British citizen parent. It is important for every member of the Committee to know that the stated problem is not merely a theoretical one; it generates victims in real life, including a university graduate who was 18 but not yet 19 when she was adopted by her aunt after her mother died of cancer, and who will have no basis on which to enjoy family life in the UK with her new adopted mother once her student status has ended.
We therefore believe that the position needs correcting. The Bill is the right vehicle to make that correction, which is not controversial and which we do not believe should divide Committee members on party lines. The amendment, which should command cross-party support, would bring British nationality law in line with adoption law, so that where our courts make an adoption order in respect of a person who is 18 but not yet 19, and the adoptive parent was a British citizen, British citizenship is conferred automatically on the person adopted. No adoption order may be made in respect of a person who has reached the age of 19, so the proposed amendment affects only those who are 18 but not yet 19 when the adoption order is made.
It is also important to point out that it is no answer to the problem to say that an 18-year-old adopted by a British citizen will be able to apply for registration by an adult as a British citizen at the Secretary of State’s discretion under proposed new section 4L of the British Nationality Act 1981, provided for in clause 7. The problem relates to those persons who should be treated as British citizens automatically from the date of their adoption by a British citizen. Where the only solution is a subsequent application for British citizenship at the Secretary of State’s discretion, there is the risk that such an application may be overlooked, or refused on another basis, such that the intention of Parliament to confer British citizenship on a person adopted by a British citizen will be frustrated. We therefore believe that the sole solution is to make this simple amendment to align British nationality law with adoption law.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms McDonagh. I will speak in support of amendments 13, 14, 30 and 31. I also support amendments 34 and 35. Amendment 35 in particular seems to make perfect sense—although it relates exclusively to England and Wales. I confess that I have not managed to ascertain whether a similar issue arises in relation to either Northern Ireland or Scotland and, depending on what the Minister says in response, that is perhaps something we can all do our homework on before Report stage.
On the other amendments, this brings us back to the point I made when making the case for no fees for introducing applications, or at least restricted fees. These fees put people off from accessing their rights, especially when there is discretion or subjective criteria are used that mean people can have only a limited idea about whether paying a fee and making an application will result in anything positive happening. If they can afford it and if they know that they meet the criteria, people will pay a fee, but this would not necessarily make it easier to see in advance whether they would be able to show historical injustice or exceptional circumstances, or that the fault lay with the public authority.
We have already debated the fee aspect and made the case for lower fees to ensure that people are not put off from seeking to fix injustices that they have suffered. These amendments taken together address the other side of the coin: what can be done to make the criteria more transparent so that people can feel confident with their applications?
Amendments 30 and 31 seek to ensure that both officials and the victims of injustice are aware of how the provisions brought about by clause 7 are being implemented. If a new type of injustice in UK nationality law is discovered, or circumstances are deemed so exceptional that the Secretary of State decides that registration is merited and she grants such an application, she will first need to ensure that policy and guidance are updated so that those processing other similar applications are aware of that fact and people applying in the same circumstances are successful. More than that, she will also be required to take steps to try and ensure that people who might be entitled to register in the same circumstances know that they can do so.
Again, as I said earlier, we know from Windrush how important taking such action to make people aware of their rights can be. In short, people will have a greater understanding of whether their application will be successful and those who meet the criteria set out in policy will apply. Those who are making decisions will be aware that in previous cases similar applications have been granted and those applications will therefore be successful.
Amendments 13 and 14 challenge a Minister to explain why the provisions introduced by clause 7 are expressed entirely as “may” rather than “must”. If a person proves they are a victim of an injustice, which is carefully defined in the clause, then why should the Home Secretary still have a totally unlimited power to refuse registration in any event? Similarly, if a person shows they were denied citizenship because of an act of omission by a public authority or by exceptional circumstances, why should the Home Secretary have a totally unfettered power to say no?
The big fear is that the Secretary of State has the broadest discretion possible regardless of whether a person meets other criteria. Who will make an application, particularly if there is a fee involved? I can see possible flaws in going completely the other way to a situation where it is a requirement and a must, but that would be better than the totally unlimited discretion that is in the Bill right now. I simply challenge a Minister to come up with a better form of this.
Bambos Charalambous
On amendment 30, we want to make sure that the Secretary of State is required to take all reasonable and necessary steps to ensure that the right to registration under clause 7 is made accessible to all its intended beneficiaries. We also want to ensure that historical legislative unfairness is corrected. We do not believe that it is sufficient to rely on that being done ad hoc, subject to the discretion of any particular Secretary of State.
As has been obvious from discussions on previous clauses, several injustices have been identified in British nationality law in our policy and practice over the years. Important provisions in the Bill are necessary to correct some of that, including changes to previous amendments to the British Nationality Act 1981, which only partially corrected a particular injustice.
The Opposition understand and accept that the broad purpose of clause 7 is to provide the means to correct further injustices, and we broadly support its aims. We are concerned, however, about the implementation of the clause, and the amendment serves to address that.
Hon. Members will be aware that clause 7 introduces a new discretion to register adults as British citizens or British overseas territories citizens where that is immediately necessary or appropriate in view of some historical injustice, an act or omission by a public authority, or other exceptional circumstances. As it stands, that provision is welcome and reflects the underlying purpose of all rights of registration under the British Nationality Act 1981 to ensure that citizenship is the right of all persons connected to the UK or the British overseas territories.
However, given that clause 7 relates to historical legislative unfairness, it raises a concern that it may be relied on by Ministers to avoid making necessary future amendments to the 1981 Act, required specifically to correct such injustice. We are deeply concerned, because when such an injustice is identified, Ministers must take the appropriate action to correct it in the Act. It is not enough to rely on the opinion of any particular Minister or group of Ministers. For that reason, we want to insert the following in clause 7:
“Where a person (P) is registered as a British citizen under subsection 4L(1), the Secretary of State must—
(a) ensure that other persons applying to be registered are so registered where the same unfairness, act or omission or circumstances apply unless there are material factors relevant to their applications that were not relevant to P’s application;
(b) amend or make policy or guidance in line with the registration of P;
(c) make that new or amended policy or guidance publicly available; and
(d) take such other steps as may be reasonably necessary to draw attention to that new or amended policy or guidance among other people affected by that same unfairness, act or omission or circumstances.”
Clause 7 must genuinely be given real practical effect—it must not become a mere token statutory provision. Registration requires someone to make a formal application, so the clause will be ineffective if uncertainty over the result of an application, coupled with any cost or other impediment to do so, deters people from making applications. In such circumstances, clause 7 could stand redundant on the statute book because no one to whom it ought to apply knows about it or is sufficiently encouraged or enabled to apply for the discretion to be exercised.
For those reasons, the following matters must, at a minimum, be addressed. It is generally inappropriate, as with registration more generally, for the Secretary of State to charge prohibitive and above-cost fees to prevent people from exercising their rights to British citizenship. The fees are made even more prohibitive if it is not possible to assess in advance that an application will be successful because there are no fixed criteria by which the right to be registered will be assessed.
Ministers should also be pressed to give an assurance that when an individual application is successful, there will be positive action to ensure that other potential applicants are made aware of their equal or similar right to register at their discretion. Under amendment 30, if an unfairness, act or omission by a public authority or exceptional circumstances are identified that make it necessary to exercise discretion, appropriate publicity must be given to it, and there should be a formal updating of public-facing policy. It must be made clear that others in the same circumstances will succeed with their applications to register, if they make them; otherwise, people will continue to be excluded from citizenship in circumstances where it is clearly intended that they should not be.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I will speak in support of the amendment in my name and the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. We also broadly support the Official Opposition’s amendments. I wanted to raise the evidence that the Committee heard from Free Movement and Amnesty International.
Anne McLaughlin
I was speaking in support of all the amendments in the group and will use evidence given to the Committee by Amnesty International and Free Movement before adding a couple of points. The clause introduces the discretionary route for registration as an adult. Discretion can be exercised where, in the Secretary of State’s opinion, that person would have been able to become a British citizen if it were not for a number of things. I want to look first at the exceptional circumstances.
Free Movement’s concern, shared by a number of people, including me, is about the reference to the Secretary of State’s opinion. A future Secretary of State—let us not say the current Secretary of State, because we would not want to personalise this—may hold an opinion generally considered to be disproportionate, unreasonable or ridiculous. They may not be from the current party in government—I am not saying that it is more likely to happen under one particular party—but where does it end? There is nothing to say that their opinion can be curbed. I am wondering what is meant by that reference. How could a legal challenge be mounted against a decision that the Secretary of State is allowed to make based on their opinion? I would like something from the Minister on that.
I turn to historical legislative unfairness, which we have talked about a lot today. It has been defined with specifics. We have talked about the unequal treatment of mothers, children of unmarried couples, and children of mothers married to someone other than their natural father, but the list does not include discrimination on the basis of ethnicity and race. The list is not definitive. Is there scope to consider the role played by such discrimination in terms of historical unfairness? I would like the Minister’s thoughts on that.
On the act or omission by a public authority, it is always useful to say when we think somebody has got it right—and we have said that a number of times today. I want to reiterate that, as Free Movement has said, there have been a number of concerns that local authorities responsible for children who become entitled to British citizenship under their care do not always get the applications made on those children’s behalf. Sometimes that is because there has been a misunderstanding, and at other times it is deemed to be not in the child’s interest at that time and it is not always included in their care plan. By the time they are an adult, it is too late for them to make that decision themselves, so I am quite supportive of measures to deal with that.
I want to talk about a concern that Amnesty has expressed—I am sure the Minister has seen this—which is that clause 7 has to be given real, practical effect, and that the measure will be ineffective if uncertainty over the result of an application, along with the excessive fees that we have talked about, deters people from making applications in the first place. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has made those points.
Amnesty has asked for the following matters to be addressed. First, we have talked about fees at length, but I reiterate that several organisations are very concerned about the fees. Secondly, Amnesty has asked for assurances that where an individual application is successful, the Government will take positive action to ensure that other potential applicants are made aware of their equal or similar right to register at discretion. This means that where an example is identified of, as the Bill says, unfairness, an act or omission by a public authority or exceptional circumstances on which it is right or necessary to exercise the discretion, there should be publicity and awareness raising. We have talked a lot about that, but Amnesty wants to know that that will happen, and that members of the public who could use the legislation to the same positive effect will have that information. Lastly, Amnesty has asked for an assurance that awareness raising will apply equally to British citizenship and British overseas territories citizenship.
Bambos Charalambous
I want to speak to amendment 34, which deals with people who would be British overseas citizens today but for historical unfairness in the law, an act or omission of a public authority or other exceptional circumstances. The Opposition welcome the fact that clause 7 attempts to rectify the position for those who would be British citizens or British overseas territories citizens today but for such an error. However, the clause does nothing for people who would be British overseas citizens today, and that is wrong.
Those who would be BOCs but for such an error should not be excluded from the proposed remedy. They have suffered from historical unfairness, just as those who would be British citizens or BOTCs today have done. Prior to 1983, there was one substantive class of British nationals, citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies. When the British Nationality Act 1981 came into force on 1 January 1983, CUKCs were divided and reclassified into three categories: British citizens, connected to the UK; British dependent territories citizens—now BOTCs—connected to the remaining British overseas territories, such as the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar; and BOCs, connected to the former British colonies.
The Home Office acknowledges that past unfairness in British nationality law includes where men and women were unable to pass on citizenship equally, and where unmarried fathers could not pass on citizenship. The Home Office acknowledges that in the case of people who could be British citizens or BOTCs, but many persons who would be overseas citizens today also suffer from such prejudice. As a result of the British overseas expansion and later decolonisation, there are pockets of BOCs around the world—for example, in Kenya, Malaysia, South Africa and anglophone west Africa, including places such as Sierra Leone. The category of BOC was created under the British Nationality Act, and it gave effect to the fact that BOCs were British nationals and should remain so. The newly created status gave no home or right of abode in the UK or any other remaining British territory.
Although BOCs have no right to come to the UK or a remaining British overseas territory, the status still has real value. It enables a person to seek to use the UK BOC passport, and possession of such a passport enables BOCs to seek UK consular assistance in a third country and to seek residence and permission to work in third countries under local laws. It may be useful where the passport of another nationality that those people hold is considered unreliable, and where their children are born stateless, to benefit from UK laws that reduce statelessness.
BOCs around the world make active use of that status. For example, many persons of Somali heritage born in Aden in Yemen when it was a British colony are reliant on BOC status, as they were, and are, shut out from the Yemeni nationality. Their BOC passports enable them to obtain lawful residence and permission to work in Gulf states, and to secure a visa to study in other countries. The Home Office proposal in clause 7 helps those affected by historical unfairness in British nationality law, an act or omission of a public authority, or exceptional circumstances to become British citizens or BOTCs. However, potential BOCs would also have suffered from such historical unfairness in British nationality law, acts or omissions of public authorities, or other exceptional circumstances. All those classes of British nationals were CUKCs prior to the British Nationality Act 1981, and all suffered from these problems. Clause 7 should therefore be supplemented to provide for registration as a BOC on the same basis as it enables registration as a British citizen or BOTC.
Tom Pursglove
I will deal with each of the amendments proposed, and then I will of course pick up on a number of the points, questions and challenges that have been raised throughout the course of this debate.
I thank the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Halifax for having tabled amendment 35, which would allow a person to become a British citizen automatically following their adoption in the UK if the order was made after the age of 18 but before the age of 19, but the adoption proceedings started before their 18th birthday. I have noted the unusual situation, highlighted by hon. Members, in which newly adopted young people can find themselves as a result of differences between the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and the British Nationality Act 1981. An adopted person can automatically acquire British citizenship, provided they are under 18 on the date the adoption order is made. However, under the 2002 Act, it is possible for an adoption order to be made where someone is already 18 years old but has not yet turned 19.
I am aware of cases in which individuals are affected by those nationality provisions, and I have some sympathy for them. However, I am also conscious that a person aged 18 will normally be capable of making their own life choices. At 18, someone can purchase alcohol, accrue debt, join the Army, or vote in an election. From a legal standpoint, at 18, an individual is fully fledged and can theoretically live independently of other family members. It is therefore consistent that a person aged 18 or over who is seeking to acquire British citizenship should normally do so only on the basis of their personal connections with this country, not those of their new family.
I must consider the wider position of adopted children, and I am satisfied that to extend the nationality rules to cover persons who have attained the majority would move nationality out of step with immigration routes. For example, young people over the age of 18 must meet the requirements of the immigration category they are applying in, and are unable to rely on other family members for a claim to residence. I have sympathy for those young adults who feel that they have lost out, but other routes are available that would allow them to choose whether they wish to naturalise or register as British citizens.
Turning to amendment 13, again I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendment and for drawing attention to clause 7, which we believe is a positive move that will allow the Home Secretary to grant British citizenship to those who have missed out on acquiring it, potentially due to reasons beyond their control. Clause 7 will apply to anyone who
“would have been, or would have been able to become, a British citizen but for—
(a) historical legislative unfairness,
(b) an act or omission of a public authority,”
or their exceptional circumstances. This means that the clause covers not just those who would have become citizens automatically, but those who might have had an entitlement to registration or could have registered or naturalised at the Home Secretary’s discretion. As such, we think it right that the provision remains discretionary, to allow the Home Secretary to take into account the criteria that she might have taken into account at the time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I will have to give some further thought to what the Minister has just said. I take the point about people who would have had to register—therefore, there is still an element of discretion. However, will he look again at the case of those who would have automatically had that citizenship and whether there really should be such broad discretion in cases where people have missed out on citizenship because of historical injustice or exceptional circumstances?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the point that he raises. Broadly speaking, there is a view that the discretionary approach to cases is helpful in ensuring that we can reach the right decision in individual cases and that we are able to take into full account, in general terms, all the relevant factors.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Is it the Minister’s intention that the Government will publish the grounds on which decisions are made with discretionary purposes for each decision, regardless of whether they are successful or not?
Tom Pursglove
I will come back to the point that the hon. Gentleman raises but, as I say, there is a view that taking a discretionary approach to cases is helpful in reaching the correct decisions, and that the circumstances of individual cases are properly taken into account. There is precedent in the British Nationality Act 1981 for applications to be considered on a discretionary basis—for example, naturalisation is a discretionary provision. The law states that the Home Secretary may naturalise a person if she thinks fit and that person meets the statutory requirements. Members will be aware that the Home Office publishes caseworker guidance, which sets out the sorts of circumstances where discretion would normally be exercised, and that is relevant to the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.
Neil Coyle
It is in part, but publishing the full grounds will help to determine whether people seek to take a case or not.
My further question is about the equality impact assessment. As I touched on this morning, the Government are suggesting that they will extend access to legal aid through the Bill. Is the Government’s intention that legal aid will be extended for this specific purpose, regardless of whether people can make a successful claim or not?
Tom Pursglove
Again, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The key point is that through the Bill, we are improving access to justice. Clearly, the improved access to justice offer is very relevant to the one-stop shop proposals that we are taking forward in the Bill and which we will no doubt debate in greater detail when we reach later clauses.
Tom Pursglove
We will no doubt debate this in great detail in due course. As I say, we are putting in place an improved access to justice offer more generally through the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
There is an absolutely fundamental distinction between naturalisation and registration. We are talking about people who would have had an automatic right to citizenship, which is completely different from naturalisation altogether. Again, I am still struggling to understand why there has to be such broad discretion. People have lost their automatic right because of historical injustice, and the danger that has been highlighted by Members is that that will put folk off applying. Will the Minister not even think about some restrictions on the degree of discretion that the Home Secretary has, or at least provide detailed guidance on when she will exercise that in people’s favour?
Tom Pursglove
I want to pick up the points that have been raised by the hon. Members for Bermondsey and for Old Southwark and for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. Clearly, the guidance is a very important element of the immigration system, so that people can understand very clearly what is required and precisely how cases will be handled. I am always in favour of trying to make such matters more transparent and to improve guidance wherever we can, and that is always ongoing work. I take on board the point that has been raised, and I will certainly reflect on it.
As I say, Members will be aware that the Home Office publishes caseworker guidance, which sets out the sorts of circumstances where discretion would normally be exercised. This works, and we intend that published guidance will also be available for the new adult registration route. The fact that the Home Secretary is not obliged to naturalise a person does not therefore impact practically on most applicants. However, we want to maintain the ability to refuse applications from people who might meet the requirements, but are nevertheless unsuitable to become British citizens.
Where registration is set out in legislation as an entitlement, it needs to be more tightly set out so that there is no doubt as to who does and does not benefit. Because of the historical nature of citizenship and the fact that issues can crop up that we might not have been aware of, we need the flexibility to be able to consider someone’s circumstances without being overly prescriptive. Equally, we recognise that people can be affected by a number of circumstances, which may be difficult to set out in detail. We are not making this a discretionary provision in order to refuse deserving people, but to allow us to respond to situations that cannot reasonably be foreseen.
I understand that hon. Members may wish to seek assurance that people who have missed out in the past will be granted citizenship, but we think that this can be achieved through a discretionary route, which will allow us to take into account all the circumstances of a case. That is why we are introducing the various provisions in the Bill in the first place: to right those historical wrongs. We want this to work.
On amendment 30, again, I thank the hon. Members for tabling the amendment. The new adult discretionary registration provision will allow the Home Secretary to grant British citizenship to anyone who would have been, or would have been able to become, a British citizen, but for historical legislative unfairness, an act or omission of a public authority, or the exceptional circumstances in play. I understand hon. Members’ concerns that that power should be used fairly and consistently, which is right.
Each case will be considered on its own merits, taking into account the particular circumstances of that person, including the reasons they were unable to become a British citizen automatically, through registration or through naturalisation. On that basis it would be unnecessary to have a legislative clause that effectively causes us to treat like cases in a similar way, because applications will be decided in line with the legislation and guidance.
I have already mentioned that we intend to publish caseworker guidance setting out when we expect that this power might be used and the sort of circumstances we will take into account. Of course, that is done very transparently and can be seen by hon. Members and by people out there seeking access to those routes. As I think is my colleagues’ intended purpose in proposing the amendment, that will help to maintain consistency in decision making.
However, I am not convinced that that would be helped by a statutory requirement to produce or amend guidance every time a person with different circumstances is registered. There may be concerns about reflecting an individual’s circumstances in published guidance, even if anonymised. We will reflect the overarching principles in guidance and amend as appropriate. Guidance will continue to be published on the gov.UK website. I can also assure hon. Members that work is done within UK Visas and Immigration to ensure consistency of decision making, particularly when a new route is introduced, and I think that that is right and proper.
I do not think we can commit in statute to publicise any grants of citizenship to people in a similar position. As I have said, we will publish guidance setting out the approach we will take and make it available to potential applicants, but it would not be right to impose a statutory requirement to do so. Indeed, some of those registered will be in unique positions and it would not be possible to identify others who might qualify on the same basis.
The reporting obligation set out in the amendment would require the Home Secretary each year to report any historical legislative unfairness that had been identified in registering a person under clause 7 and say how she intends to correct it. Perhaps it would help to clarify that the thinking behind clause 7 is that it can be used to rectify individual situations that may have been created by historical unfairness, rather than having to create specific provisions to cover each scenario.
Neil Coyle
I thought the Minister was one of those who believed in Parliament taking back control, not the Executive having more control, but let me have one more attempt at the legal aid question. This is not just about the circumstances of the individuals involved—we have heard some distressing cases today—but about the costs imposed in particular on councils, which are using emergency services to support people who might otherwise qualify for support. If legal aid were immediately available for everyone affected, those cases could be resolved much more quickly. Given the complexity the Bill is imposing, it seems as if it should be an actual requirement that that support be available. Let me try again: will legal aid be extended to everyone facing these circumstances as a result of this legislation?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and I will visit that in my later remarks, if I may. He is right to say that I think it is right that Parliament took back control. That is a debate we have had on many occasions and no doubt will continue to have in the years ahead. I am a member of the Government, but I still believe very strongly in parliamentary sovereignty and the role of Parliament in decision making.
To clarify, the thinking behind clause 7 is that it can be used to rectify individual situations that may have been created by historical unfairness, rather than having to create specific provisions to cover each scenario, some of which may affect only a very small number of individuals. This is in fact the way we intend to address those situations, and it may not necessarily be appropriate to introduce additional measures to do so. As such, I do not see that specifying such a report in legislation would be helpful. In terms of addressing unfairness, this provision does not give a far-reaching power—it is much narrower than the discretion the Home Secretary has to register a child under section 3(1) of the British Nationality Act 1981. It does, however, reflect our desire to address historical injustices, as is reflected in all of the first eight clauses. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press amendment 30.
I am grateful to hon. Members for tabling amendment 14, which replicates amendment 13 for British overseas territories citizenship. I set out in response to the earlier amendment why we wanted this to be a discretionary provision, rather than creating an obligation to register. The same arguments apply here. Turning to amendment 31, I have set out why we could not accept an earlier amendment, and the same arguments apply here. I hope that hon. Members will not press amendment 31 either. On amendment 34, new clause 12 seeks to create a discretionary adult registration route for a person to become a British overseas citizen.
The Chair
I am sorry for interrupting, but I am not sure that we are actually debating new clause 12 at the moment. As far as I understand it, we are debating amendment 35 to clause 7 and amendments 13, 30, 14, 31 and 34 and clause 7 stand part.
Tom Pursglove
I was referring in passing to new clause 12, Ms McDonagh. British overseas citizenship, or BOC, was created by the 1981 Act. It was created for people connected with former British territories who did not have a close connection with the UK or one of the remaining British overseas territories. This was usually where they were from or connected to—a country that had become independent, but they did not acquire the citizenship of that country. The intention was to avoid making people stateless due to complex histories of independence or countries ceasing to be British protected territories. The intention of the 1981 Act was that everyone who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies immediately before 1 January 1983 would continue to hold some form of British nationality. The then Government anticipated that many who became BOCs would have an additional citizenship or nationality.
British overseas citizenship was intended to be a transitional status, and it was expected that many who held that status would have acquired the nationality of the place where they were born or were living in the 38 years since that legislation was passed. They are able to hold a BOC passport and rely on consular assistance when outside the country of any other nationality that they hold, but are likely to rely on their other citizenship for rights of residence and local travel. Given the 38 years that have passed, we do not anticipate that there can be many people who have missed out on becoming a BOC and have no other citizenship or nationality.
There were provisions for children of CUKC mothers to register under the British Nationality Act 1964 where they would otherwise have been stateless. Since 1983, there have been measures in place to acquire BOC through discretionary registration as a child or for certain people who are stateless. However, it was not the general intention that further people would acquire British overseas citizenship under the 1981 Act other than in those specific circumstances. People who hold only BOC and do not have, and have not voluntarily lost, another citizenship or nationality are able to apply for British citizenship under existing legislation. If a person believes that they missed out on becoming a BOC because of historical unfairness, and that, as a result, they also missed out on being able to become a British citizen, as they have no other nationality and have not done anything that meant that they lost a nationality, there is nothing to stop them applying for that status under the clause. BOC status was introduced to avoid statelessness due to complex histories of independence or countries ceasing to be British protected territories. We do not intend to create a new route to British overseas citizenship.
Neil Coyle
If I heard the Minister correctly, he is suggesting that someone should pursue their rights through the Equality and Human Rights Commission, but that process would take years and could cost millions if the Government were opposing what that individual was seeking. Is it not incumbent on the Government, under the Equality Act 2010, to get things right up front? Would that not save a lot of time and money, and prevent a lot of desperate situations from emerging?
Tom Pursglove
The point that I would make is that we keep evolving circumstances and individual cases under review. It is right that we consider cases individually and properly take account of their individual circumstances. That is why we are arguing strongly that the discretionary means of tackling this is the correct way to do so. I am confident that through the provisions, we will right many historical injustices and wrongs, and that is something we should all welcome.
In the light of the debate that we had about fees, whether or not applications will be free under the clause is an important point. That will be an issue for the appropriate fees regulations in due course. As I set out when dealing with earlier clauses, those regulations will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. I note the views that have been strongly expressed today. Members will have heard what I have said about this previously, and I would be very happy to engage with them in the development of those regulations that we would then bring forward. With that, I would ask hon. Members not to press their amendments.
Bambos Charalambous
I wish to press amendment 35, and all other amendments in my name and in the names of the other Members.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider that schedule 1 be the First schedule to the Bill.
Tom Pursglove
I think it is fair to say that, with all the Blair and Brown documentaries on television at the moment, it is perfect to be thinking about clause IV, for members of the Opposition.
The Chair
I do not wish to interrupt the Minister, but he may find that clause IV was not dealt with in the depth that it should have been.
Tom Pursglove
That is me told.
Clause 7 applies to three routes to British nationality: naturalisation as a British citizen, naturalisation as a British overseas territories citizen and registration as a British citizen for other British nationals. All these routes require a person to have been in the UK or an overseas territory for a continuous period immediately before applying. This is known as the residential qualifying period. These residence requirements exist to allow a person to show that they have a close and ongoing connection with the United Kingdom.
The residential qualifying period is five years, or three years for spouses and civil partners of British citizens or British overseas territories citizens who are applying for naturalisation. During the five-year period, the person must not have been outside the UK for more than 450 days, must not be subject to immigration time restrictions in the UK or a relevant territory, and must have been lawfully resident. There is discretion in the legislation to overlook excess absences and unlawful presence, but the requirement to have been in the UK or territory on the first day of the residential qualifying period is mandatory. There is no discretion in the current law to grant citizenship to someone who does not meet that requirement.
This means that, for example, a person who has lived in the UK for 10 years, but who was absent from the UK at the point five years before making an application because of a global pandemic, would not be able to qualify, despite their long-term connection with the UK. Under the current legislation, their only option would be to wait until they could meet the requirement.
Bambos Charalambous
The clause seeks to enable the Secretary of State to waive requirements for naturalisation as a British citizen under section 6, naturalisation as a British overseas territories citizen under section 18, or registration as a British citizen under section 4 of the British Nationality Act 1981. At present, there is no power to waive the requirement to have been present in the UK at the start of the qualifying period except in relation to applications for naturalisation as British citizens from current or former members of the armed forces, which presents a barrier in otherwise deserving cases.
The immediate necessity for the clause arises from the circumstances of people of the Windrush generation, many of whom were deprived of their rights to register their British citizenship by the Home Office’s failure to ensure that people were aware both of their rights and of the need to exercise them. It has since become necessary to use naturalisation without a fee as a means to put people in the position they should have been in all along as British citizens. However, since some people were wrongly exiled from the UK, the remedy has been inadequate for some people who were only recently able to return.
The main barrier stems from the requirement for naturalisation that a person must be present in the UK at a fixed point five or three years before the date of their application to naturalise. The clause therefore seeks to amend the 1981 Act to allow the Secretary of State to waive the requirement that the individual must have been present in the UK or relevant territory at the start of the qualifying period in the special circumstances of a particular case. The waiver will be introduced in relation to the requirements to naturalise a British citizen under section 6 of the 1981 Act, to naturalise as a British overseas territories citizen under section 18 or to register as a British citizen under section 4.
The clause would not have been necessary had the Windrush scandal not happened in the first place, and we wish to place on the record our concerns that it happened because of the hostile environment that was created by the Home Office. Although we welcome clause 8 and will support it, we wish that it had never been necessary because of the injustice of what happened to all those people.
Stuart C. McDonald
I want to pick up on one thing the shadow Minister mentioned in his speech. He is right that the most profound implications of the clause relate to the correction of wrongs that were done to the Windrush generation, but I slightly disagree with him when he says that it would not have been necessary but for that.
Certain nationality applications always have caused some awkwardness. In the dim and distant past, when I was one of these wicked immigration lawyers, I would have people come to me who were applying to register, and the requirement that they had been in the country five years ago at the start of the residency period would sometimes cause problems. I do not know what I was doing five years ago today, and sometimes it would require a hell of a lot of checking to work it out.
There were the odd occasions where the Home Office kindly returned the applications, because it was going to have to refuse them as the person had perhaps gone abroad for a couple of weeks five years ago. If the Home Office had not done that, it could have just banked the fees and refused the application. The most profound implication is in relation to Windrush, but I think overall that this is a good thing to do anyway and a slightly broader discretion is welcome.
Anne McLaughlin
I want to acknowledge the people who were caught up in the Windrush scandal and their tenacity in hanging on in there and sticking it out. I also want to recognise all the different campaign groups, activists and supporters, friends and families of those who suffered so much because of the scandal. I want to take every chance I get to put that on the record.
I regularly talk about feeling frustrated in this place when I passionately argue the case for something or someone but almost never get anywhere—sitting here today, it is of course always going to be nine Members on the Government side and seven on the Opposition side—but I underestimated the importance that people place on MPs speaking up for them and acknowledging their injustice, and I never will again. I did not think it would make such a difference, but it really does make a huge difference to people. That is why, as the SNP’s immigration spokesperson, I take any opportunity to say that what happened to the people who came here as part of the Windrush generation was utterly wrong. Even the solutions went wrong, and there were delays and complications. This clause, today, is good, but that is only right.
Neil Coyle
Does the hon. Member share my slight disappointment that it does not go further? Other countries bestow naturalisation on citizens, in particular those who worked for health and social care services throughout the covid crisis. We have non-UK nationals who have worked in health and social care services who could have had their service acknowledged by the Government. The Government have chosen not to do that, despite multiple requests from many MPs of different parties.
Anne McLaughlin
I very much agree, because the people we are talking about came here because they were invited. My partner’s family were among them. Thankfully, they were not caught up in this scandal.
We needed people to come here and help rebuild after world war two. People living in the Caribbean were well used to having white people in charge of their country, but what they were not so used to was the racist abuse that would meet them when they reached these shores. They assumed they would be welcome because they were part of the Commonwealth. They fought in our wars. They were invited here. It must have been a huge shock when they got here and somehow that narrative changed.
The narrative is still being used—it is still being used by some people elected to this place—that somehow the gratitude in all of this should be their gratitude to us and that we are somehow doing them some sort of favour. In fact, lots of our wealth was built on the backs of the people we enslaved on those islands. I cannot remember what it is called, but there is such a thing as the collective, inherited trauma that people suffer from. Their descendants were then invited over here to do what we needed done and they were treated the way they were treated, and then they were treated by this Government in the way they were treated in the Windrush scandal.
In the first years, about 5,000 Jamaican nurses came here. We have heard about all of those people from overseas territories who came and supported our health service. Many of them have suffered greatly. Some died during the pandemic, because they put themselves at risk. We needed those 5,000 nurses who came from Jamaica in the first years for our health system, but Jamaica needed them as well. We took them out of the Jamaican health system. We should have been thanking them. We should have been on our knees with gratitude. I do not like the narrative that they are somehow supposed to be grateful to us. So, yes, I would have liked these measures to have gone much further, but I will say that taking away the five-year rule is at least doing something to hold our hands up and say, “We did something wrong, and you don’t deserve to have to wait the five years when you are not the ones at fault.”
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East speaks for the whole House in saying that immigration has made an enormously positive contribution to this country over decades. As elected Members and in our communities across the country, we should continually make mention of that and constantly reflect on it—I am certainly very conscious of it.
Equally, I am conscious of the importance of righting the wrongs of what happened in relation to Windrush. There is an absolute commitment at the Home Office to do just that: follow up on Wendy Williams’s recommendations and make sure that they are delivered. As the SNP spokesman said, the clause has benefit beyond Windrush. I am really pleased that it seems the Committee can come together and support the clause.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 8 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 9
Citizenship: stateless minors
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Pursglove
The clause amends the provision for registering a child as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen when the child was born in the UK or a territory and has been stateless since birth. Although it applies to both British citizenship and BOTC, it addresses an issue specific to the UK, so I am going to talk about British citizenship. However, parallel changes will be made in relation to BOTC.
It may help if I put the issue in the context of all children born in the United Kingdom. Since 1983, a child born in the UK will be a British citizen automatically only if one of their parents is a British citizen, is settled in the United Kingdom or, from 13 January 2010, is a member of the armed forces.
“Settled” is defined in the British Nationality Act 1981 as being ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom and not subject to an immigration time restriction on their stay. That effectively excludes those whose parents only have limited leave to remain or are here illegally. Those exempt from immigration control because of diplomatic service or as members of visiting forces are also not regarded as settled. Any child born in the United Kingdom after 1 January 1983 who was not a British citizen at birth has an entitlement to register as a British citizen if the parent becomes a British citizen or settled in the UK, if the parent joins the armed forces, or if the child lives here for the first 10 years of their life.
In addition, there is provision for children born in the UK who would otherwise be stateless to acquire citizenship. If a child is born in the UK to a parent who is a British overseas territories citizen, British overseas citizen or British subject and would otherwise be stateless, they will acquire the same nationality as the parent. Alternatively, if a child is born in the UK and is, and has always been, stateless, they can apply to be registered as a British citizen before their 22nd birthday based on a period of five years’ residence. Those provisions enable us to meet our obligations under the convention on the reduction of statelessness. That means that if a child is stateless and has had no other citizenship or nationality from birth, they can effectively be registered on reaching the age of five—rather than after the age of 10, like other children born in the UK.
The UK, like many other countries, allows for citizenship to be acquired by descent by a child born abroad to a parent who holds that status by birth. Under most countries’ citizenship laws that happens automatically, but some countries require the parents to register a child’s birth for the child to access citizenship. That is the case for India and Sri Lanka, where a child’s birth needs to be registered at a high commission if they are to be recognised as a citizen.
We are aware that increasing numbers of non-settled parents in the UK are actively deciding not to register their child’s birth at the embassy or high commission, and thus failing to secure their child’s entitlement to their parents’ nationality by descent.
Stuart C. McDonald
The explanatory note just says that there have been cases. This is a very serious change. Can the Minister give us examples of analysis that has been done and the types of circumstances in which such decisions are taking place? Tell us about the scale. I see no evidence of a significant problem, whereas I do see that the clause could cause significant harm.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Member for prompting me on this. I have a fairly lengthy speech on this clause. I will come to those points, and will illustrate them with some specific case studies, which I hope will be of interest to him.
As I was saying, this results in the child remaining stateless from birth and enables them to be registered as a British citizen once they reach the age of five if they meet the other criteria. We have seen a significant increase in applications, from tens per year to thousands. In 2016-17, there were 32 applications to register stateless children on this basis. That increased in 2017-18 to 1,815 applications. This allows individuals, including those who have overstayed or entered illegally, to acquire British citizenship for their child, which can in turn benefit their own immigration status.
We do not think it fair that parents can effectively secure a quicker route to British citizenship by choosing not to register their child’s birth. In doing so, they are depriving their child of a nationality, which is about not only identity and belonging, but being able to acquire a passport or identity document, and the ability to travel overseas, such as to see family. They are also taking advantage of a provision that is intended to protect those who are genuinely stateless.
I will say, for the avoidance of doubt, that the process of birth registration is not impossibly difficult. It is simply a matter of completing a form and supplying supporting information about the parent’s identity, status and residence, and the child’s birth. The fee to register a child’s birth at the Indian high commission in the UK is £19; it is £53 at the Sri Lankan high commission.
In changing this provision, we want to maintain the ability for genuinely stateless children to benefit, but we want to change the registration provisions so that parents cannot effectively choose statelessness for their child and then benefit from these provisions. That is right and proper, and in line with our international obligations.
We think it is right that children who genuinely cannot acquire a nationality should be able to benefit under the stateless provisions of the 1981 Act. This change reflects our expectation that families should take reasonable steps to acquire a nationality for their child. We will set out in guidance the sort of steps that we think are reasonable, and applications will be considered on an individual basis.
The provisions are not intended to negatively impact children of recognised refugees who are unable to approach the authorities of their former country. Hon. Members may argue that it is important for a child to have a nationality. We agree. That is why we are a signatory to, and are committed to, the 1961 convention.
Why are parents choosing not to acquire a nationality for their child when they can, leaving the child without the ability to travel urgently if needed for five years? Let us look at a typical example that addresses the point raised by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East.
Neil Coyle
The Minister refers to a typical example, but I believe that the question put was about the overall number of cases. Will the Minister provide the House with the overall number of cases involved, and specifically the number of cases in which the Government suggest nationality is being deliberately withheld?
Tom Pursglove
Let me talk through the case studies in the first instance, because I think it is useful to set this in context. Child X was born in the UK, which their Indian parents had entered as students. The student route is not one that leads to settlement, so they could not have assumed they would be granted indefinite permission to stay. The college they were studying at had its sponsorship licence revoked, and the parents remained here illegally.
At the time of X’s birth, both parents were in the UK without lawful leave. Steps were taken to remove X’s parents, who absconded at one point. However, an application was made to register X as a British citizen, under the stateless minor provision, a few days after their fifth birthday. While they had not approached the Indian high commission to register X’s birth, the parents provided letters they had obtained from the Indian authorities stating that there was no record of the birth having been registered, so they clearly had no fear of approaching the Indian authorities.
X was registered as a British citizen, as the current wording of the British Nationality Act 1981 left us no other option. The parents then made an application to remain in the UK on the basis of family life, which was granted because it would have been harsh for the British child to leave the UK. I hope that Members across the House will agree that, while it is not X’s fault that their parents manipulated the system, it is not right that as a result they can acquire citizenship earlier than other children born here, whose parents have remained in the UK lawfully and been fully compliant.
We have heard the comment that parents should be able to choose which nationality their child has, but this is not about French parents living in the UK with settled status, for example, choosing whether to apply for a French or British passport, as the child holds dual nationality. Nor is it about parents who are dual nationals, such as a parent who is a British citizen by birth and citizen of Bangladesh by descent choosing not to register their child’s birth, which would have allowed them to acquire citizenship of Bangladesh in addition to British citizenship. No: this is about parents who are choosing not to acquire their own nationality for their child and leaving them with no nationality for a significant period until they can eventually qualify for British citizenship.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has published a document entitled “Guidelines on Statelessness nr 4: Ensuring Every Child’s Right to Acquire a Nationality through Articles 1-4 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness”. Those guidelines cover situations where it is possible to acquire the nationality of a parent by registration. They provide that the responsibility to grant nationality to children who would otherwise be stateless is not engaged where a child is born in a state’s territory and is stateless but could acquire a nationality by registration with the state of nationality of a parent, or a similar procedure.
The guidelines go on to say that it is acceptable for contracting states not to grant nationality to children in these circumstances if the child concerned can acquire the nationality of a parent immediately after birth and the state of nationality of the parent does not have any discretion to refuse the grant of nationality. However, that does not apply if a child’s parents are unable to register, or have good reasons for not registering, their child with the state of their own nationality. That must be determined depending on whether an individual could reasonably be expected to take action to acquire the nationality in the circumstances of their particular case. The effect of this clause therefore reflects the approach recommended by the UNHCR.
We understand that parents want the best for their children, and that a future in the UK represents that to them, but it is not right that they choose not to acquire a nationality for their child in order to facilitate that. We want genuinely stateless children to be able to benefit from our stateless child provisions, but we expect those who can easily acquire a nationality for their child to do so.
I will pick up on the point the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark made, because I am sure he wants to prompt me on that, but I first wanted to get through those case studies and set out the Government’s rationale. Clearly, in some cases there is a perverse incentive, and it undoubtedly disadvantages those who are acting in accordance with both the letter and the spirit of the law. It is right to address that, and that is why we are taking the measures proposed in clause 9 to close that loophole.
Neil Coyle
Will the Minister provide the overall number of cases that the Government believe fit this category? Will the Government also publish the number of children involved in similar cases where the parents have been trying to regularise their status within the UK? We had examples this morning such as that of my constituent Ade Ronke, who was wrongfully accused by the Home Office of having a prosecution that she did not have—it was a case of mistaken identity. There are cases like that, and hers took seven years to regularise. I mentioned this morning that at least two cases in my constituency took 10 years. There may be many children across the country whose parents have been waiting very many years to sort their status, who could fit into this category, but are being mislabelled by the Government.
Tom Pursglove
The direct answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that we can provide details of the number of applications, but we cannot confirm the specific number of cases in the way he is requesting. We know this is happening, and we believe that there is a perverse incentive for people to choose not to acquire a nationality, so that the family as a whole can jump the queue.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
May I confirm that I heard the Minister right? Did he say that the Government and Home Office are clear that this is happening, but they cannot give any indication of the extent?
Tom Pursglove
As I have said, we are aware that this is happening. We think it is right to take steps through the Bill, so that those going through the process are not disadvantaged relative to those who are seeking to make use of this loophole.
Bambos Charalambous
We believe that clause 9 will disentitle many stateless children who were born and grew up in the UK from their existing statutory right to British citizenship. I have heard what the Minister said. I think it would require a fair bit of cunning and conniving to conceive a child, wait for five years and not register them before applying for citizenship. This applies not just to children aged five, but to children aged five to 17. There may be many children caught up in those circumstances. We therefore strongly oppose this clause and believe that it should be removed.
Let us be absolutely clear about what the Government are trying to change with this clause. The existing law in section 36 of the British Nationality Act 1981 gives effect to schedule 2 expressly for the “purpose of reducing statelessness”. Paragraph 3 of schedule 2 is designed to prevent children born in the UK from growing up without nationality. As Ministers made clear during the passage of the 1981 Act, the provision was needed to ensure continued compliance with our international obligations under the UN convention on the reduction of statelessness, to which the Minister referred. In accordance with that convention, the provision entitles someone under the age of 22 born stateless in the UK who has lived in the UK for five continuous years at the point of application and who has always been stateless to register as a British citizen.
Clause 9 inserts a new paragraph 3A into schedule 2 of the 1981 Act for stateless children aged five to 17, requiring the Secretary of State to be satisfied that the child was unable to acquire another nationality before the child is permitted to register as a British citizen. It considers that a child can acquire a nationality where the nationality is the same as that of one of the parents, the person has been entitled to acquire that nationality since birth, and in all circumstances it is reasonable to expect them, or someone acting on their behalf, to take steps to acquire that nationality.
We oppose clause 9 because it is unethical and puts children’s rights in jeopardy. It unnecessarily restricts a vital safeguard intended to protect the rights and best interests of a small group of marginalised children born in the UK. For those affected, statelessness can mean problems accessing rights and services, denied opportunities, unfulfilled potential and a sense of never quite belonging. As worded, the new provision would give the Secretary of State wide discretion to prevent a stateless child born in the UK from acquiring British citizenship, perpetuating their statelessness. The Opposition believe that clause 9 creates an additional and unjustified hurdle to stateless children’s registration as British citizens and to satisfying the Secretary of State that they cannot secure some other nationality. This is in addition to the child having to show that they were born stateless in the UK, have remained stateless throughout their life and have lived at least five continuous years in the UK at the point of exercising their statutory entitlement to be recognised as a British citizen.
For many years, the existing requirements have together proved a high barrier to stateless children securing citizenship of the UK, which is where they were born, where they live and where they are connected to. Clarification of the relevant law by the High Court in 2017 and awareness raising by the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, the European Network on Statelessness and others have enabled several children to apply to be registered under statutory provisions that are expressly intended to reduce statelessness. Prior to this, applications were so few as to be negligible. That indicates the profound inadequacy of the Home Office’s previous operation of the provision, and the strong likelihood that there have been a growing number of children living stateless in the UK, in contravention of the original parliamentary purpose, and following the UK’s international commitment to reducing statelessness.
The purported justification for the draconian clause 9 bears no relation to any matter over which the child has any control or influence, or for which they have any responsibility. It is suggested that some parents may choose not to exercise a right to register their child with the nationality of another country, and may leave their child stateless for the purpose of securing British citizenship, but no evidence has been presented for the idea that some parents may choose not to exercise the right to register their child with the nationality of another country. In any event, an application for registration of a stateless child’s entitlement to British citizenship is a complex matter, and that itself has been an effective and unjust deterrent to the exercising of the right.
The UK Government have provided no evidence to justify restricting children’s rights in such a way. In fact, the leading organisations in the field have evidence to show that stateless children and young people born in the UK already face significant barriers to acquiring British citizenship under existing law, and that has a significant detrimental impact on their wellbeing. Young people have described how their inability to acquire British citizenship leaves them feeling alienated and excluded.
Stuart C. McDonald
I wish to echo everything the shadow Minister said in outlining why we passionately oppose the clause. As I said in earlier speeches, and has been illustrated by many hon. Members, citizenship is fundamental to a person’s identity. It provides a status and security that no visa or immigration leave can ever match. When talking about statelessness, we may sometimes be talking about people who have neither citizenship nor any immigration status. Organisations that work with stateless kids have provided myriad case studies and examples of the dreadful impact that it can have on them. In essence, they are one of the groups most deserving of our protection and consideration—those without any citizenship at all. Without citizenship, a whole host of other rights become almost impossible, leaving that person with a huge gap in their identity, security and sense of belonging.
We talk often about children who belong to recognised stateless populations, such as Kuwaiti Bidoon, Kurds, Rohingya or Palestinians. Also, there are children who suffer from discrimination under the nationality laws of other countries—the same type of discrimination that has existed and that we have been trying to correct in British nationality law. They could be children in state care, for example, particularly if one of the parents is not available or not co-operative in proving links or nationality.
As matters stand, stateless children and young adults under 22 can register as British if they were born here, have always been stateless and meet the five-year residency requirement. Even now, it is not always a straightforward process, as has been explained by the European Network on Statelessness. Lots of hurdles remain: we have touched on registration fees, as well as lack of knowledge and awareness of the rights of stateless children and challenges in providing proof. I would be keen to rectify that, but instead, for some reason, the Home Office is taking it upon itself to erect further hurdles, making it more difficult, not easier, for children under 18 to be registered as British. Clause 9 restricts access to registration of stateless kids, and is worded in such a way that it gives a broad discretion to the Secretary of State to decline applications, which we believe is in breach of international law.
We have not heard at all from the Government today what assessment they have made of the impact that will have on statelessness. There is no doubt in my mind that it will increase statelessness among children, but that does not appear to have been weighed up in the Government’s reckoning. That is absolutely contrary to the intention of the 1981 Act, which rightly set out to reduce statelessness.
There are three key points: first, the case has simply not been made. There is a bland assertion in the explanatory notes that there have been cases where parents have made that choice. But today, despite pressing for some sort of analysis of the scale of the issue, essentially what we have been given is one extreme case, as the shadow Minister said. I am utterly unconvinced that there are lots of parents going underground and running away from the Home Office all for the sake of trying to secure statelessness in this manner. That case has simply not been made today. That is a wholly inadequate explanation. It actually reflects where Home Office policy making sometimes goes wrong: isolated examples where the rules have arguably been used for purposes slightly beyond how the Home Office would like them to be used are identified, and then an utterly disproportionate response is forthcoming, which may be able to stop those isolated cases but also stops a lot of absolutely deserving cases, and impacts on totally innocent individuals. To put it succinctly, the baby is thrown out with the bath water.
We have called for greater detail: how many cases? We need more examples than one extreme case. What, ultimately, is the problem? There was a lot of talk about queue jumping, but it does not impact on others who perhaps have to wait 10 years for registration. Their rights are not impacted at all. At the end of the day, in one extreme case, a child who has done nothing wrong may end up registered as British five years before they otherwise might be.
Secondly, on international laws, the shadow Minister says that in our view this is in breach of the 1961 UN convention on the reduction of statelessness. The Minister made the case that the UNHCR guidelines on statelessness allow a small discretion for the state to withhold conferring citizenship where the nationality of a parent was available to the child immediately, without any legal or administrative hurdles, and could not be refused by the other state concerned. However, the wording of clause 9 goes significantly beyond what is allowed in the guidance. The clause will insert new paragraph 3A into the British Nationality Act 1981, with subsections 1(d) and 2(c) both going beyond what is permissible. The former appears to allow the Secretary of State some evaluative leeway about what is and what is not possible in terms of accessing another nationality. The question is: why not leave that as a pure question of fact? The latter subsection also introduces leeway where neither the convention nor guidance allows for it. Instead, the very limited exception that is allowed is where the other nationality is available to the child immediately, without any administrative impediments, hurdles, fees or similar obstacles, so I fear that the Home Office will end up in court again.
My final and most important point is that this will cause so much more harm than good. There has been no indication at all that the Home Office has undertaken any sort of balancing exercise. Whatever problem the Home Office is trying to fix—essentially, we have had an anecdote—the damage that will be done goes way beyond it. Families will not risk a huge fee if they have all sorts of doubts about what the Secretary of State will do with her discretion. We fear that many more people risk being unreasonably refused registration, prolonging their statelessness. Where is the assessment of the best interests of the children involved? Where is the assessment of the number of stateless kids who may be impacted by the Bill? There really has been a wholly inadequate justification for it.
I have a final plea to the Minister. Even if he will not revisit the need for some sort of response to the type of case that he has identified and spoken about today, will he at least revisit how far the clause is going? As I say, it is our strong view that it might have prevented that anecdotal case from happening, but it will cause all sorts of damage way beyond that. We also think that the wording is inconsistent with the UN guidelines that the Minister has cited. If he still feels compelled to do something, he should at least revisit how the clause has been worded. Otherwise, I think he will very much regret that the outcome will simply be thousands more stateless kids in the United Kingdom.
Anne McLaughlin
The UK is bound by the 1961 UN convention on the reduction of statelessness, as we have heard. That focuses on protecting the stateless child and preventing childhood statelessness. It requires only that the applicant is stateless, and not that they cannot reasonably acquire another nationality, as it says in the Bill. The UK Government say there is a problem that needs addressing through clause 9 and that would justify departing from the safeguards established by the convention, yet no evidence is offered.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East has just said, he intervened on the Minister to ask for the evidence. The Minister said he had a long speech and would come to that, but he did not do so. He gave one piece of anecdotal evidence. I know that much of the Bill will have been drafted prior to his recently coming into the role, and I appreciate that this must be a baptism of fire for him, but I ask him to look more closely at the Bill. Why introduce it, if there is no evidence that there is an increase in abuse? There is no evidence. If there is no evidence, there is no problem, and if there is no problem, there is no need for clause 9. The UK Government really must not legislate to enable breaches of the commitment in the 1961 convention and the principle of the best interests of the child in UK domestic law.
Neil Coyle
I will not repeat the excellent points that have been made by colleagues, and I will try to be brief. My first point is about international law. It seems that most responsible countries strive to reduce the number of stateless children, but the Bill, and specifically clause 9, leaves people in limbo for a much longer period. It feels as though global Britain is acting in a slightly squeamish way about its international responsibilities on this issue and on other areas, so my first question to the Minister is: which other countries use a similar process, given what he has said today about how this is used in examples?
I agree with the comments just made. The Government are presenting a Bill and a clause that are based on hearsay. The Minister is asking us specifically to rely on hearsay and one anecdote. We all remember the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), talking about someone who was not evicted from this country because their human rights had been encroached because they had a cat. It turned out to be totally false; yet that was used by the then Home Secretary at a Conservative party conference to try to make a very similar point.
Tom Pursglove
We have had a very wide ranging debate in relation to these matters, with views expressed that are sincerely and strongly felt. I do not doubt that for a moment. Let me be clear that genuinely stateless children will still be able to benefit from the registration provisions. This change is to prevent people from benefiting by choosing not to acquire their own nationality for their child where they are able to do so.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for giving way, because it is important that he addresses the question that has been raised successively. The clause goes against the drift of the rest of part 1, which is rectifying anomalies. This potentially creates one, and one that will come to land heavily on the Home Office in the future, as well as those who will be affected by it. It is incumbent on him, before we vote on it, to explain clearly the extent of the problem. He has given only one anecdote as the justification for it. Will he use the opportunity to do that now?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Member for his intervention. As Opposition Members will know, the way that I go about my work is to always try to be as constructive and helpful as possible. With that in mind, I will gladly write to the Committee setting out in greater detail our rationale for taking this approach, and as much information as I can to justify it.
As I say, there is a fairness issue here that we believe needs to be addressed. The MK case was cited, and it is worth recognising that in his conclusion Judge Ockelton made the comment that it opens an obvious route to abuse. We are satisfied that what we are proposing complies with our obligations under the statelessness conventions, and all our obligations that flow from that. I commend that the clause stand part of the Bill, with the very clear undertaking that I will provide the information that I have promised.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Nationality and Borders Bill (Seventh sitting)
Thursday 21st October 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 October 2021 - (21 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 88, in clause 10, page 13, line 13, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment would remove a provision allowing the Government to treat refugees differently depending on whether they are Group 1 refugees or Group 2 refugees.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 89, in clause 10, page 13, line 15, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would remove a provision allowing the Government to treat refugees differently depending on whether they are Group 1 refugees or Group 2 refugees.
Amendment 90, in clause 10, page 13, line 17, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment would remove a provision allowing the Government to treat refugees differently depending on whether they are Group 1 refugees or Group 2 refugees.
Amendment 91, in clause 10, page 13, line 19, leave out paragraph (d).
This amendment would remove a provision allowing the Government to treat refugees differently depending on whether they are Group 1 refugees or Group 2 refugees.
Amendment 92, in clause 10, page 13, line 25, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment would remove a provision allowing the Government to treat refugees’ family members differently depending on whether the refugee is a Group 1 refugee or a Group 2 refugee.
Amendment 93, in clause 10, page 13, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment would remove a provision allowing the Government to treat refugees’ family members differently depending on whether the refugee is a Group 1 refugee or a Group 2 refugee.
Amendment 94, in clause 10, page 13, line 28, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment would remove a provision allowing the Government to treat refugees’ family members differently depending on whether the refugee is a Group 1 refugee or a Group 2 refugee.
Amendment 95, in clause 10, page 13, line 30, leave out paragraph (d).
This amendment would remove a provision allowing the Government to treat refugees’ family members differently depending on whether the refugee is a Group 1 refugee or a Group 2 refugee.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair again, Ms McDonagh. I will also speak to the other amendments in the group.
We have now come to one of the most fundamental clauses of one of the most fundamental parts of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East and I set out on Second Reading, we regard both as totally outrageous. In essence, the avowed policy aim is to give the Secretary of State powers to treat certain refugees dreadfully in order to deter others from coming to this country. I find it extraordinary just to be saying that.
Over the course of this debate and the three to follow, we will ask lots of questions in the hope that the Minister will explain a little more what the Government intend to do with these extraordinary powers. We will also challenge the legal policy and, indeed, the ethical basis. We will make the case that in fact the clause will make the asylum system worse, not better. To all intents and purposes, the measure is an attempt to close the asylum system down to a large degree.
There are all sorts of problems with the asylum system: 70,000 asylum applicants were waiting for a decision as of June 2021, more than three quarters of them outstanding for longer than six months. Work has to be done to fix the system, but this measure is not what is required. In fact, as I said, the clause will make it worse.
Most of the broad discussion will take place in the stand part debate; the amendments are designed more to get the Government to flesh out exactly what they want to do with the powers. In doing so, as on Second Reading, I will speak about the implications for a Uyghur asylum seeker, a Syrian asylum seeker and a persecuted Christian seeking asylum, because I want to ensure that the Home Office is tested on its assertion now, and later on Windrush, that it is looking at the face behind the case—it is important to keep in mind who we are talking about. The clause will be particularly disastrous, allowing the Secretary of State almost to punish the individual, to make an example of them, as a form of deterrence.
Of the amendments in the group, amendments 88 and 93 would remove the power to grant so-called group 2 refugees and their families shorter periods of leave to enter or remain. Currently, refugees receive five years’ leave before becoming eligible for settlement. Nothing in the Bill or the explanatory notes tells us what the Government intend to do with the powers. The new plan talks vaguely of no longer than 30 months, with continual assessments thereafter of potential return to a country of origin or of removal to another safe country. My first question is, what is the Government’s proposal? Is it 30 months or, as dreadful as that prospect is, is it worse? Will it be a shorter period?
That is my first question, but the key point is that reducing leave to 30 months or less will have dreadful consequences for our three refugees. Having fled serious persecution, having endured a dreadful journey and having survived six months or more of going through the tortuous inadmissibility procedure—perhaps even an asylum claim—within an accommodation centre, our refugees require stability, a sense of home and the possibility of putting down roots, finding work and rebuilding their lives. All that is being taken away if the powers in the Bill are used as proposed in the new plan.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Would the hon. Gentleman describe a person who has come directly to the UK from France as a person escaping persecution? If so, will he describe the sort of persecution that that person might have experienced in France?
Stuart C. McDonald
That point was made repeatedly on Second Reading, but the big problem with the right hon. Gentleman’s question is that the language of the Bill itself recognises that such people are refugees. The Uyghur is clearly fleeing persecution, the Syrian is fleeing persecution by the Assad regime and the persecuted Christian is fleeing persecution. A refugee does not cease to be a refugee because he has gone on to a different country. We will come to a different debate under clause 14 on the circumstances in which it might sometimes be legitimate for a state to say, “Actually, you are in France and it would be appropriate for France to assess your asylum claim.” I am not saying that is never permissible—far from it—but we will have that debate on clause 14.
The people we are talking about here, however, have been through all that. The Home Office has attempted to move them to France or another country, it has not had any success in doing so and they have been recognised as refugees, so the question is how we treat those three people.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that those who purport to demand that France take more asylum seekers need to be mindful of the fact that France already takes three times as many asylum seekers as the UK, and that we need to meet our international obligations rather than seeking to demand that others take more of a share than we are taking?
Stuart C. McDonald
I agree with the hon. Gentleman. That is exactly why the Government are embarking on a dangerous slippery slope. If the case is that the UK cannot cope with the number of asylum claims that have been made here, which I do not think can remotely be the case, because it is not a remarkable number in the grand scheme of things over the past 25 or 30 years, and therefore we need to take all these steps, then clearly France and Germany and Italy will all be perfectly entitled by that same logic to do the same thing. When that chain of dominoes finishes up and we get to Lebanon and Pakistan, the countries neighbouring the countries where these people have been persecuted, the whole system of international protection falls apart.
Returning to the point I was making about how reducing the period of leave will be fundamentally detrimental to people’s ability to put down roots, to integrate and to feel part of UK society, I wanted to finish by saying that the VOICES Network, people who know the asylum system first-hand, in their response to the new plan consultation remarked that the proposal would
“perpetuate the insecurity and uncertainty of the lives of these people with damaging implications for their mental health.”
I think they are absolutely right.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. How many people does the Home Office anticipate will fall into this group in the first years of the policy? What impact does he believe the policy will have on the mental health, employment prospects and levels of integration for refugees such as a Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian? It seems apparent to me that the measures will undermine all that. What will happen to children? What will the cost implications be for the local authorities and health services that are supporting them?
Similar moves in Australia have had exactly the impact I am talking about. As the Australian Human Rights Commission reported in 2019:
“Uncertainty about their future, the inability to make long-term plans and the stress associated with having to reapply for protection (including the anticipatory distress of potentially being returned to the country from which they had fled) caused significant distress and anxiety amongst TPV holders, hampered their capacity to recover from past trauma and resulted in poorer settlement outcomes.”
The Australian Red Cross said that
“temporary protection institutionalises uncertainty, and often poverty, amplifying pre-existing trauma and suspending the process of settling into a new country.”
I have no reason to think that that will not be the fate of the Uyghur, the Syrian or the persecuted Christian if these provisions are enforced for them. That, unfortunately, appears to be exactly what the Government want to achieve, and that is the shame of the whole policy.
On the other side of the coin, given the record delays and problems in processing asylum claims that the Home Office already faces, why on earth do we want to require the Home Office to process the same cases and applicants over and over again over a 10-year period, adding exponentially to caseworker workloads? Can the Minister confirm what exactly the review process will entail? What will be the targeting for these decisions? What happens to refugees whose 30 months or less have expired while they were waiting? How many additional decisions does the Home Office anticipate it will have to make from the third year onwards, and how many extra staff will that require? This is not only disastrous for asylum seekers, but pretty bad news for Home Office caseworkers.
Amendments 89 and 94 would remove the Secretary of State’s right to punish a Uyghur, Syrian or persecuted Christian by denying them indefinite leave to remain on the same basis as other refugees. That settlement provides the ultimate safety and security and is currently available after five years. Again, the Bill does not say what the Government’s intentions are with this power, but it is understood that they propose 10 years of short-term visas before settlement would become available. Can the Minister confirm precisely how the Secretary of State intends to use these powers? What else will be required of a refugee at the 10-year stage? Will there be a fee? What tests will we require to be met? These arguments are similar to those I made for amendments 88 and 93, so I will not repeat them. The key point is the same: instead of offering security, integration and the opportunity to rebuild their lives, the Syrian, the Uyghur and the persecuted Christian have been faced with uncertainty, re-traumatisation, stress and anxiety.
Amendments 90 and 95 are designed to remove the Secretary of State’s power to impoverish these three asylum seeker groups. The power would see universal credit, child benefit and local authority homelessness assistance among the crucial safety nets torn away from them. The explanatory notes say that the power will not be applied in cases of destitution. Minister, if the power must be kept, why not put that in the Bill? Fundamentally, how will it work, and how will it be assessed? Especially after months and years of being excluded from work, refugees will be destitute from the point that they are recognised. Will it happen automatically? How will the Secretary of State review that? How much more work will that entail for Home Office staff?
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that these amendments play into the business model of the people smugglers in that they would discourage people from claiming asylum in the first safe country they reach, tempting them to make the hazardous journey in a non-seaworthy craft across the channel, feeding into the organised criminals who prey on those poor vulnerable people?
Stuart C. McDonald
I have absolutely no problem with measures that go after the people smugglers. We all share the goal of disrupting their model. We draw the line at punishing the victims and going after them in an attempt to disrupt and undermine people smuggling. First, I find that morally indefensible. Secondly, as I will come to later, there is no evidence that it will work.
Neil Coyle
Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern, which is twofold? First, the best way to tackle the people smugglers is to provide safe routes, because then they are denied the chance to smuggle people to begin with. Secondly, a Xinjiang Muslim who faces forced sterilisation and forced labour is not going to be aware of UK law and what status they enter under. It is complete nonsense to think that refugees and asylum seekers fleeing persecution and torture are going to be aware of UK law, whatever goes into the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
I absolutely agree. The hon. Gentleman makes two points. Yes, safe legal routes can and will make an impact. If people have safe legal routes, they do not need to turn to people smugglers. The Government acknowledge this when they speak about the safe legal routes they support.
There are various other measures we have to take. Our intelligence and police and security forces need to do everything they can to interrupt these networks. It is about international co-operation, including with France, as the Minister alluded to at Home Office questions on Monday. We support those measures, but we do not support deliberately impoverishing the Syrian, the Uyghur and the persecuted Christian and denying them universal credit, homelessness assistance or the child benefit that other citizens in this country get if they need it. I will come back to that in the clause stand part debate.
The Home Office knows this. It did research 20 years ago. If it has done any more since, it is not published. There is no evidence to show that people sit down with a nice table comparing family reunion rights and asylum procedures in all the different countries and then say, “Let’s go for that one.” They come here for a whole host of reasons. Many go to other countries for a whole host of reasons—language, family links, the influence of people smugglers, or they may have a friend or colleague here. Perhaps they just identify with the culture. There are myriad reasons why people end up in France or the United Kingdom, but it is not for these reasons. That is why these provisions will not work.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the other reasons people come to the UK is that the payment to the people smugglers is only the deposit and the main payment is through modern slavery, forced labour or other ways in which those people are being exploited when they get here? Often, for example, Vietnamese people coming here are put into prostitution or nail bars and that type of work. That is why they want to get here, because that is the business deal. They come here to work in the black economy.
Stuart C. McDonald
The right hon. Gentleman fairly describes the circumstances that many find themselves in and it is another policy route that I would be fully behind. In this country, we are way behind where we need to be. We have statutes on the book and we will come to modern slavery later, but some of the measures in part 4 of the Bill will undermine the Home Office’s good work on modern slavery from just a few years ago, which the right hon. Gentleman was part of. Even with those statutes on the book, the system for inspection and finding where this is happening is just not up to scratch. The national referral mechanism takes forever to make decisions. The way it has been implemented is not effective at all; in fact, it is a boon to people traffickers and people who undertake exploitation. So yes, I am happy to support any work that addresses those concerns.
Amendments 91 and 92 would remove the Secretary of State’s power to strip the Syrian, Uyghur or persecuted Christian of their right to family reunion—the right of the Secretary of State to keep their families split apart. Under current law, having been recognised as a refugee, they could apply for reunion with their spouse or partner and with children under 18. For years, parliamentarians across the House have been pushing for broader family reunion rights and it is only a few years since Parliament voted in favour of the private Member’s Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) promoted on the subject. It is another crucial building block in allowing refugees to rebuild their lives, as that Bill recognised.
The Government say it is all about safe legal routes, but this is pretty much the only place where the Bill says anything about them, and now it seems the Government intend to reduce family reunion rights. The crucial question for the Government is simply: is that correct? How will they use the power? Will they prevent spouses and partners from being reunited? Are they going to prevent children from reuniting with a parent? Family reunion is probably the most pivotal safe legal route there is to safety in the UK and it is all the more imperative because without the safe legal route, it seems obvious that the most likely people to try to come here via unsafe routes are those who have family members here.
With around 6,000 family reunion visas issued every year over the past five years, let us also be clear that around 90% are issued to women and children. The real danger is that any restrictions will ultimately mean that many more women and children end up on the boats in the channel or taking other unsafe routes. The danger here is that the Government do the opposite of what they say they intend, and drive people into the arms of the smugglers the Bill is designed to foil.
Again, that is what the Australian experience tends to show us. The Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law notes that after temporary protection visas were introduced,
“there was an increase in the number of women and children who arrived in Australia by boat. According to personal accounts, this was because the TPV regime precluded family reunion. The ineffectiveness of TPVs is the very reason that they were abolished by the Rudd Government.”
Instead, we should do what my hon. Friend’s Bill would have done: expand rules to allow adult children and siblings up to 25 and make other changes. That would reduce the numbers in boats.
In conclusion, all the examples of discrimination in the Bill are just that: examples. The Bill is drafted so as to leave the Secretary of State’s power to discriminate completely and utterly unconstrained. That is pretty shocking. While the amendments test the Government on their intentions in relation to those particular subjects, it is also important to know that the Secretary of State could plan all sorts of other forms of discrimination. Can the Minister clarify what other methods of discrimination the Secretary of State is contemplating?
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Thank you, Chair, and good morning, everybody. The Government say they are introducing this Bill because they want people who need our protection to use safe and legal routes, but where are those routes? Where in the world and where in the Bill are they? On several occasions, the Minister has made it sound as if this Bill is all about those safe and legal routes, but it is not, because there is no provision for them and they are barely even mentioned.
I have heard those of us who oppose what the Bill does characterised as wanting people to make those dangerous journeys. Of course we do not want that. Our solution is the safe and legal routes that we keep hearing about but not have. They need to be set up and promoted, and people need to be able to use them. One of the safer legal routes that does exist, and is the most likely to be used, is the family reunion route, but this Bill takes that away from people who do not arrive by the mode of transport or in the way that the Government want them to.
Turning to amendment 91, I want to use the example of somebody from Afghanistan, which will also speak to amendment 15. I am using the examples of people, or their family members or friends, who I represent—I know that we were all inundated with requests from people in our constituencies who needed help for people in Afghanistan.
Mr L worked for a British charity in a programme funded by the UK Government around preventing violence against women. He has made an application for relocation, but he has heard absolutely nothing and I cannot get him any information. He and his wife had to go into hiding because his family was being targeted. The Taliban have already made threats against his wife, who, like him, is just 22 years old. The Taliban got messages to her that she will be raped multiple times if they can find her. His father has already been kidnapped by the Taliban and has been tortured by them. Who knows what will become of him?
Mr L’s wife has had such a severe mental breakdown that he had to make the decision to send her to what he hopes is a safe house in Afghanistan, as he thinks he has more chance of securing relocation for him and his wife if at least one of them can get out of Afghanistan. He is now paying illegal traffickers to get him out because he is so desperate to get this situation resolved and is hearing nothing, and weeks and months have gone by. Of course the traffickers are wrong, but is he wrong? Is he wrong to pay them? If he is wrong, what should he do instead? What options have we given him? I do not want him to do this. As an MP, I am not in a position to give him any kind of legal advice, and I know this is not safe for him to do. Does the Minister want me to go back to him and say that, despite all the promises we made to the people of Afghanistan, I do not have options to offer him?
I want to quote a couple of things that were said by Conservative MPs in August, when everything escalated in Afghanistan. The right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt) said:
“There is something we can do right now: cut through bureaucracy and ensure that we look after every single Afghani who took risks for themselves and their families because they believed in a better future and trusted us to deliver it.”—[Official Report, 18 August 2021; Vol. 699, c. 1307.]
I am sure we all agreed with that at the time. The right hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Dominic Raab) said:
“Like the Home Secretary, let me just say that, as the son of a refugee, I am deeply proud that this Government are continuing the big-hearted tradition of the British people in offering safe haven to those fleeing persecution.”—[Official Report, 18 August 2021; Vol. 699, c. 1370.]
The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby gave a welcome from the Scarborough community and talked about
“refugees who had left, in many cases with nothing more than the shirts on their backs. They will have gone through a very traumatic process to even get to the airport and now they have arrived in Scarborough. For many people, the consequences of not getting out of the country would be certain death.”
So, I know he completely understands the trauma that people are going through and their desperation.
That was in August and we are now in October. The people I am talking about are no less desperate—they are more desperate—and I do not know what to say to them. I will have to tell Mr L that if he somehow manages to have his wife looked after, while she tries to recover her mental health, and he manages to get here, he could be offshored, sent away or jailed. He may never see his wife again because we will take away the right to family reunion. That cannot be right.
The people of Afghanistan are desperate—I have read out only a few of the quotes, but I know that all members of the Committee understand that. Time is just not on their side, so we must remove the provision—I would remove all of it. I ask the Committee to support amendment 15, at least to remove those consequences for the people coming from Afghanistan, to whom we absolutely owe safe refuge.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Lady accept that the 242 Afghan refugees who are temporarily in Scarborough before being relocated around the country came here by safe and legal routes? I am sure that when the Minister responds, he will explain how we can set up different, and better, legal routes to get some of those vulnerable people here. That must not be done by feeding into the people-smuggling industry.
Anne McLaughlin
I absolutely endorse the ambition for everyone to be able to get here by safe and legal routes, but nothing in the Bill will set up any safe and legal routes. In fact, they will be taken away from some people.
We should be doing that, but we will never be in a position where everybody is able to access safe and legal routes. We will never be in a position where everybody who is entitled to claim asylum can access it, and we should not be punishing them if they cannot. Right now, there are 242 people in Scarborough, but how many thousands more are there in Afghanistan? They need to get out. If they feel that their lives are at risk and they cannot stay any longer, but they can only get here by their own means—I would rather they came by the Government’s means, but nothing is happening there—I could not say to them, hand on heart, that they should just stay where they are.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
To respond to the earlier intervention, does the hon. Lady recognise that people from Afghanistan are currently one of the four largest national groups risking their lives on channel crossings?
Anne McLaughlin
Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Gentleman for reminding me of that. For me, it is wider than that: Afghanistan just showed us what is happening throughout the world. It may have been escalated and was very intense at the time, but things like that happen throughout the world. Right now, people from Afghanistan are coming over by boat, and honestly—I am looking at the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, but I should really be looking at the Minister—I do not think that anyone can morally justify telling those people that they face jail or offshoring, and that they may never see their families again because of new rules that we are introducing.
Mr Goodwill
Nobody doubts anyone in this Parliament on their compassion or their feeling for people who are in very vulnerable situations. We should not agree, however, on the route that the hon. Lady is almost advocating—using people smugglers—which is, in effect, means-testing the refugee process so that only those who have the money to pay the people smugglers can come, not the people who are perhaps most vulnerable and most likely to be suffering persecution. Indeed, the gender balance favours men, who seem to be the ones who get here by illegal routes, and not women, who are the most vulnerable people in Afghanistan.
Anne McLaughlin
I do not know where to start with that. I take real exception to what the right hon. Gentleman said about my endorsement of people smugglers and those routes. I have been very clear that we do not want anyone to use people smugglers. I have given the Committee an example of somebody’s experience, and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can tell me what that man should do. His wife is seriously ill and is being looked after following a mental breakdown, because the Taliban told her that many of them will rape her multiple times if they catch her. How desperate would any of us be in that situation? I am not endorsing people smugglers in any way, and I wish he would take back that remark, because it is very unfair.
Another thing I want to mention, as I have a number of times in this place, is the gender balance. To say that men are not vulnerable is just not true. Often, men seek asylum because they would otherwise be conscripted into the army or tortured. I know many male asylum seekers who faced torture or conscription and had to flee. The other reason that more men come over is that they are coming to safety so they can then send for their family. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said, all the measure will achieve is that women and children will come with the men and make that dangerous journey as well. He said something else that, if I remember, I will come back to later
Mr Goodwill
I was not suggesting that the hon. Lady was advocating people smuggling, but unfortunately the law of unintended consequences comes into play. Taking Syrian families under our vulnerable persons resettlement scheme was the right way to proceed. None of the people I visited in refugee camps in Jordan had the means to pay people smugglers. In many ways, it is a means-tested operation if the route used by people smugglers is perceived to be of equal standing to legal and lawful routes, like those by which we took people from Afghanistan and took the people chosen by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in refugee camps in Syria.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I remind the hon. Lady of the right hon. Gentleman’s earlier point. Unfortunately, the abhorrent models of people smuggling result in people coming to this country who are locked into debt relating to their journey. It is not as simple as saying it is means tested. There are lots of unfortunate arrangements in that model, which we all want to end, but safe and legal routes will be how we achieve that.
Anne McLaughlin
Exactly. I thank the hon. Member for saying that. The right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby argues that those who have money are not vulnerable or in danger of persecution. In the case of the 22-year-old I was talking about, I have no idea how much money the couple have. They may be wealthy beyond our wildest dreams, but that does not stop her being under threat of multiple rapes by the Taliban. The money is a bit of a red herring.
Often, a vulnerable young man will pay the people smugglers with money gathered by the wider family selling property, because they need somebody to get out and get help for the whole family. We cannot assume that they have the money in the first place, or that they are not clocking up a debt that they will have to pay back, or that the fact of having money will make any difference to their safety.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the effect of my opposition to the proposal leads to people not using safe and legal routes. He says that he is not saying that I am endorsing the people smugglers, but equally, I could say that his refusal to push his Government to set up safe and legal routes before bringing in any other legislation is a case of him endorsing people smugglers. What other option do people have? Now, I am not saying that, but I hope he takes my point.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
The hon. Lady is misrepresenting the point my right hon. Friend made. He was not in any way suggesting that those with wealth cannot be vulnerable, but it cannot possibly sit comfortably with people who describe themselves as socialist to suggest that there should be channels that are, in effect, available only to those with substantial wealth, on a scale different from much of the rest of the vulnerable population.
The Chair
Order. I am sorry to intervene, but I think we have to stop reinterpreting what the last person to speak said. We are all quite clear that no one in this room supports people traffickers. We should move on.
Anne McLaughlin
Thank you, Ms McDonagh. That was a rather ridiculous intervention, so I was unsure whether to reply to it.
Neil Coyle
As UK law stands, an Afghan who had dared to work for and with the UK, protect the UK, in the past 20 years or so—perhaps as a guard at the embassy in Kabul—and who feared the threat to their family of the Taliban takeover so much that they gave their child to the US to evacuate from the country, cannot come into the UK under the family reunion visa. Perhaps one thing that we can agree on, and that the Minister could include in the Bill, is an extension of the family reunion visa beyond spouses and dependants.
Anne McLaughlin
I would absolutely support that. I had no intention of speaking for any more than five minutes, but Members keep on interrupting and goading me. I want to make two more little points, if I may. The Bill is being brought in because there is a mistaken belief that asylum seekers across the world are desperate to get to the UK. I am not sure why they would be if they ever watch parliamentlive.tv, but the fact is that most people coming to Europe as a whole think that Europe is one homogenous place. They do not think in terms of countries. This is not anecdotal; studies have been done on people who come to live here. Similarly, people often think that Africa is a country, when it is more than 50 countries.
Asylum seekers are not looking to go to a particular country. If they choose to come to the UK, it is perhaps because they have family or friends here, which is hugely important, or because they speak the language. They do not speak French or German, but they do speak English and do have family here. Imagine the turmoil when people’s city is bombed. They do not recognise the streets any more, and they do not know where their family are. They know that they could be raped, tortured or murdered at any moment. Imagine the trauma from that. People know that they have to get away. Of course they do not want to leave, but they have to do so. We should all think about that happening to us. We are so lucky that it will probably never happen to us. If it did, we would want to be with people who made us feel safe. If someone has family or friends in the UK, they should be able to join them. Yes, that is a pull factor, as is the language. There is also a mistaken belief that the great British empire was all-welcoming, all-democratic and all-supportive of human rights, which is another reason why people come to the UK.
The truth is that most people who arrive by boat have not decided that they are coming here; the smugglers have decided it. As my Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said, we should be targeting the smugglers, not their victims. We should take away their market, and the only way to do that is to provide the safe and legal routes on which we apparently all agree. But where are they?
I will make one more point, which is about France. We have established that, under the international legislation that the UK played a major role in developing, there is no requirement to claim asylum in the first so-called safe country that somebody arrives in. However, it is important to understand why someone fleeing persecution, and probably suffering from mental health impacts such as post-traumatic stress disorder, might not want to claim asylum in France—I am using France as an example. Why would an asylum seeker choose to make a dangerous crossing? As I said, most people are not choosing; the people smugglers are choosing. Why might they choose to make a dangerous channel crossing, when they could claim asylum in France? I have spoken about the fact that people do not choose their route, but it is well established that the asylum system in France has a reputation for being harsh. I know there are Members present who like the idea of harshness, but we do not.
A 2020 ruling by the European Court of Human Rights condemned France for inhumane living conditions for asylum seekers. Having spent a few days with my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East in the jungle in Calais a few years ago, I saw exactly what the court meant. France might take in many more people than we do in the UK—I believe that we do not treat asylum seekers as well as we should do when they arrive here, and we certainly will not do so if the Bill passes—but France is not where I would want to be if I needed international protection, especially if I had to recover from trauma.
Even during the pandemic last year, when we all agreed that there should be a break in evictions and that everyone should have a roof over their head, asylum seekers sleeping in tents in France where thrown out of their tents and tear-gassed, no doubt triggering terrible memories for many of them. When I was in the jungle, parents there told me that their children no longer played in the little playpark nearby because far-right activists set off fireworks to terrify them, and terrify them it did, as these kids fled, thinking that they were being bombed again.
In addition, the housing situation for asylum seekers in France has only got worse, with asylum seekers such as Hussain, interviewed by the New Humanitarian in April, being forced to sleep rough on the streets of Paris over a year after he submitted his application. The French National Consultative Commission on Human Rights went so far as to say:
“It is true that the conditions in France make people want to leave”.
Nicolas De Sa-Pallix, a French asylum lawyer, condemned the French Government’s approach, and his words should act as a warning for Government Members:
“They talk about being both humane and tough in migration policies, but these don’t go together…You can’t have both.”
I agree, so why not just respond to the plight of these people, facing things that none of us will ever have to face, with humanity?
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
We have heard two excellent speeches, and the Opposition totally support the position of the Scottish National party.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I thank the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Glasgow North East for all their hard work in this area, and for their engaging speeches. I do not doubt for a moment the sincerity of their contributions. Nobody should be in any doubt about the sincerity of the deeply felt views expressed by all Members of this House, who I genuinely believe want to see appropriate action to tackle dangerous channel crossings. I wanted to make that point at the outset, because it is important to remember that in the context of today’s debate.
As hon. Members will know, the clauses that they seek to amend are crucial to the Government’s intention to uphold the first safe country of asylum principle. In that respect, the clauses are designed to deter dangerous journeys across Europe by no longer treating migrants who come directly to the UK and claim without delay in the same way as those who do not. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that we must do everything in our power to stop people putting their lives in the hands of smugglers and making extremely perilous journeys across the channel.
Stuart C. McDonald
I echo what the Minister says: everybody present wants to see an end to such crossings. He used the word “migrants” a couple of times, but as the Bill reflects we are talking about people who have gone through the refugee process. They are refugees, and it is very important that in this debate we speak about the fact that this is happening to refugees—hence the term “group 2 refugee”.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.
I will take amendments 88 to 95 in one go, as they individually seek to remove key constituent parts of clause 10 in order to prevent the exercise of the powers to differentiate. That is not the effect of the amendments as drafted, but I shall none the less assume that the intent is as I just set out. Hon. Members are no doubt familiar by now with the way in which the policy is proposed to operate. For the avoidance of doubt, though, clause 10 provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of where differential treatment may be applied to group 2 refugees—in other words, those who do not meet the requirements set out in clause 10, which are based on criteria set out in article 31 of the refugee convention. That includes in relation to the length of leave issued, requirements to achieve settlement, recourse to public funds and family reunion rights.
As mentioned, the clause is extremely important because it acts on our commitment to do everything that we can to deter people from making dangerous journeys to the UK at the hands of smugglers, when they could claim asylum in a safe third country. I will pick up on a number of important points that were made, as it is right to provide clarification on them.
First, the question was raised of how the Secretary of State intends to use these powers. As we talked about in relation to the earlier provisions in the Bill, this will be set out in the normal way in the immigration rules and guidance in due course.
Neil Coyle
The Minister is seeking to reintroduce a system that the UK has used before. In the 1930s, German Jews who had reached these shores were, in some cases, sent back if they had been through other countries. Famously, in one case, Jewish brothers who were deported back to Belgium went on to be murdered by the Nazis. Why are the Government seeking to turn back the clock with such potentially disastrous consequences? Why is the Minister not more proud of the British tradition and of the British contribution to creating the refugee convention?
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. What I am proud of is this country’s long-standing tradition of doing right by those fleeing persecution from around the world. That is a proud tradition in this country, and something that I think Members on both sides of this House can agree on. It is something that this Government remain absolutely committed to. We are very clear that people should come here utilising safe and legal routes. That is the right way to come into this country.
Tom Pursglove
Let me just make this point, because I am conscious of the comparisons that the hon. Member sought to draw to the 1930s. We are, again, very clear—I say this for the record—that we do not return people to countries where they would be in danger.
Tom Pursglove
I have not accepted the intervention. I would like to finish the point that I was making. We are very clear that we do not return people to countries where their return would put them in danger. Of course, we also look at cases on a case-by-case basis.
Tom Pursglove
I will give way, but I have made this point, and I am very clear about it.
Neil Coyle
The Minister can say it as clearly as he wants. The reality is that I have constituents whose casework—correspondence from the Home Office—tells me that it was safe for them to be sent back to Afghanistan in June, when the Taliban were marching across Afghanistan and beginning to take over the country! There is a big difference between the nonsense and rhetoric we get and the reality—the dangers and risk that this Government are putting people in.
Tom Pursglove
In response to the specifics that the hon. Member is raising on Afghanistan, I would make the point that returns to Afghanistan have been ceased, given the current circumstances, given the circumstances there at the moment. That takes into full account the considerations around the circumstances on the ground at any given point in time, and the Government have rightly been responsive to that ever-changing situation. I am not able to comment on the detail of the individual cases that the hon. Member is referencing, but I would ask him to please write to me with that detail so that I can take that away and look at it.
Neil Coyle
I think Members will be somewhat sceptical of the invitation to write, given that we were writing about hundreds of cases in Afghanistan in emails that were not even opened by the Foreign Office, the Home Office or the Ministry of Defence. I will write. I will take that opportunity. I still have hundreds of cases, including four Brits who are still in Afghanistan because they were abandoned by this Government. The Minister says he is proud of our tradition and proud that we offer safe and legal routes, but where in this Bill do we extend the ability to access safe and legal routes that avoid the need to use human traffickers and people smugglers?
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that further contribution. I look forward to receiving the correspondence from him—it was a genuine offer made in the right spirit and I look forward to him taking it up.
As I say, this Government have a strong track record of providing safe and legal routes. This country has a proud record of providing safe and legal routes. It does not escape me that overall since 2015 we have settled more than any EU member state. That is something this country can be incredibly proud of. Various examples of safe and legal routes that people may avail themselves of include the UK resettlement scheme, the mandate resettlement scheme and the community sponsorship scheme. I am keen for communities to participate in that sponsorship scheme.
Neil Coyle
I welcome the Minister’s generosity and I am grateful for it, as I am sure Afghans will be if he can tell us when the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme will actually open, given that it has been two months since Kabul fell.
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate some of the genuine difficulties for people in trying to leave Afghanistan—[Interruption]—and doing so in the safest way possible—[Interruption.] He keeps interrupting from a sedentary position. Will he let me finish the point that I am trying to make?
The bottom line is that we are firmly committed to that resettlement scheme. We will announce details of it as quickly as possible, having taken proper account of the very real difficulties that exist in getting people safely, as far as that is possible, out of Afghanistan. Ministers and officials are working tirelessly to work that up in an appropriate manner.
Tom Pursglove
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman as well, because I want to be generous and to hear what he has to say.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister is being generous. I want to push things back to some of the questions—
Stuart C. McDonald
Great, because the purpose of the amendments is to probe exactly how these very broad powers will be used. It will be useful if he could talk about some of what the Government intend.
Tom Pursglove
I am keen to do just that. I have made the point about safe and legal routes. There are many examples in the past and that are still active.
Tom Pursglove
I will give way, but I am keen to move on to answer some of the questions.
Paul Blomfield
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He talked again about the UK’s leading role in accepting refugees. Does he not accept that the most recent data from the UNHCR on refugees in Europe—from 2019—has Germany resettling more than three times as many refugees as the UK, or 9,640 compared with 3,507? Also, smaller countries such as Sweden and Norway accepted more than the UK.
Tom Pursglove
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my earlier point.
I want to move on to the points made by various members of the Committee about a number of areas related to the amendments. In answer to the question about section 95 asylum support, those who are already in receipt of such support will not face any condition restricting access to public funds. The power to differentiate in respect of public funds is flexible and there is no obligation to use it in inappropriate cases. Again, detail will be set out in the guidance and rules to follow. The House will have the opportunity to scrutinise those in the normal way.
A number of points were made about family reunion. It is wrong to say that the Bill will remove family reunion rights. Family reunion will be protected in line with article 8 of the European convention on human rights. The Bill will allow us to take steps to disincentivise people from taking risky, life-threatening journeys. There is, I suppose, a philosophical debate about this: I think we all agree that we need to end those dangerous journeys, but how we achieve that is the area of dispute.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister is right to say that we all agree on the objective and that the dispute is about the effectiveness of the Government strategy. Is he not even a little unsettled by the fact that the Government’s own impact assessment states that their strategy is unlikely to work? It states that
“evidence supporting the effectiveness of this approach is limited.”
Tom Pursglove
It is right that we break the business model of these evil criminal gangs and take steps that help to achieve that endeavour. The point the hon. Gentleman has made, which runs through the Bill, is that people should come here by safe and legal routes and that we should take steps as appropriate to break that business model. I am confident that the steps we are taking in the Bill will achieve exactly that.
Paul Blomfield
So the Minister is saying that the Government’s impact assessment is wrong.
Tom Pursglove
I genuinely believe that the policy we are pursuing through the Bill will make a significant difference in deterring dangerous channel crossings, where people pay evil people smugglers to try and get to the United Kingdom. It is right that we prioritise safe and legal routes and make it very clear that they are the way to arrive in this country, and that we deter people from making those very dangerous, irregular journeys. I am confident that the Bill will make a significant difference in tackling that challenge.
Mr Goodwill
When I was in Nigeria I heard from the Nigerian Home Secretary that the system often contributed to family break-up rather than reunion. The people smugglers perpetuated the lie that people who could get a teenage child to the UK would be able to follow. In fact, it has always been the principle of family reunion that children must travel to where their families are and not the other way round.
Tom Pursglove
In terms of the deceit and the appalling treatment of so many people, I have heard heartbreaking stories of the way that individuals have been treated by these evil people smugglers. That has only redoubled my determination to render their business model redundant.
This point goes to the heart of the intervention a moment ago from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central: the measures in the Bill do not just stand alone—it is not just about these measures. Tackling the problem requires a strong and co-ordinated response that also involves our international partners. For example, the collaboration through the arrangement we have with the French is very important contextually in tackling this issue. Clearly, supporting French law enforcement to try and stop some of the crossings happening in the first place is crucial, and the evidence is clear that that support is having a positive effect in achieving that goal.
Our international diplomacy is also important, because we want to send out a clear message that human rights must be respected and upheld across the world. The measures in the Bill, as important as they are, are not the only element in responding to these huge challenges. That international collaboration is very important as well, as is our diplomatic work.
Neil Coyle
I thank the Minister for giving way; he has been very generous. It is extraordinary to hear a Minister trash their own department’s equality impact assessment and point out its inadequacies.
Neil Coyle
That is exactly what the Minister did. However, my question is around family reunion visas, which he mentioned. The number of family reunion visas granted in the UK fell by nearly 10% in the last year for which numbers were available. Will he agree to a review of the system to look at some of the issues around entitlements for those other than dependants or spouses?
Tom Pursglove
I will take that away to look at it. I refer the hon. Gentleman to my previous point in trying to address the matter of family reunion. I am conscious that in his earlier remarks he raised the particular case of an Afghan family. I will also go away and speak about that to the Minister for Afghan Resettlement, who is the Minister responsible for Operation Warm Welcome and our refugee policy in relation to Afghanistan. I undertake to take that point away and ensure that my hon. Friend is aware of it. It is very important and I will do that. It is crucial that that happens. I ask that the hon. Gentleman leave that with me, and that will happen later today.
To finish on this point, the powers under clause 10 enable the Secretary of State to differentiate in respect of family reunion. It is important to recognise that the power is flexible and will not be used where a refusal of family reunion would breach our international obligations. The policy will be set out, again, in guidance and in rules, but I thought it was important to get that point on the record. Suffice it to say that of course this Government will always act in accordance with our international obligations and the law.
With all that in mind, I ask the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to withdraw the amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am slightly frustrated—actually, pretty frustrated—that we have not managed to tease out more about what the Government intend. We will no doubt come back to the point about article 31 justifying the provision.
We are being asked to hand hugely significant and broad powers to the Home Secretary, and we are being told, “Well, everything will be set out in immigration rules and guidance,” when we all know that scrutiny and opportunities to amend such provisions are incredibly limited. Let me ask the Minister this: what more do I know now about the Government’s intentions than I knew before half-past 11 this morning? Not very much. I am not sure I even understand the answer in relation to no recourse to public funds. I do not see how a person who is a refugee would still be on section 95 support; having been recognised as a refugee, such a person would obviously move on. At least I get the sense that there would be some sort of automatic decision not to put an NRPF condition on them, but I am none the wiser about how some of the other powers will be used.
Tom Pursglove
As I have said previously, I am very keen to be helpful to the Committee, so if I may, I will study Hansard to look back at the questions that the hon. Gentleman posed on this matter. I will gladly write to him to clarify the position and try to provide further detail.
Stuart C. McDonald
It would be hugely helpful for Members of this House, ahead of Report, and for Members of the other place, who will be wanting to scrutinise the Government’s intentions, to be told more about that support and about precisely how the clauses on family reunion can be consistent with article 8, and the answers to my questions about leave. That was the purpose of tabling the amendments, so if the Minister undertakes to do that, there is no reason to put anything to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 15, in clause 10, page 13, line 34, at end insert—
“(7A) An Afghan national who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution by the Taliban is not to be treated as a Group 2 refugee and in particular—
(a) must not face a restriction on their leave to enter compared to group 1 refugees;
(b) must have access to indefinite leave to remain on the same basis as group 1 refugees;
(c) must not have no recourse to public funds conditions attached to any leave to enter or remain given to them; and
(d) must have access to family reunion on the same basis as group 1 refugees.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from treating Afghan refugees at risk of persecution by the Taliban as Group 2 refugees.
I can be brief, because a lot of the territory in relation to Afghanistan was covered in the previous debate. Again, Members across this House have been forceful, powerful advocates. Whatever our views on the manner of the withdrawal, its timing and so on, I do not doubt for a minute that every Member of the House intended to ensure the UK did what could be done to assist the people of Afghanistan. The problem with this Bill, as far as I can see, is that that generosity of spirit, that determination to help, seems to come to a shuddering halt should a person from Afghanistan end up claiming asylum in this country.
The amendment confronts hon. Members with, to use a Home Office expression, a face behind the case. We are talking about creating an exemption where the Home Office has assessed a person’s case and accepted that they are at risk of persecution from the Taliban in Afghanistan, such that it will not be permissible for the Secretary of State to discriminate against them—to make them subject to no recourse to public funds, to deny them family reunion, to refuse to give them settlement after five years and to perpetrate all the other discriminations that the clause allows. In a sense, it would be nonsensical to create an exception only for such people, but the amendment is designed simply to confront hon. Members with the fact that that is who we are talking about. Those discriminations will apply to these people, whom we have all been championing, just as they would to any other asylum seeker. I do not need to say any more than that, but I will press the amendment to a Division.
Tom Pursglove
I do not think it would be appropriate for clause 10 to include an exemption from group 2 refugee conditions for Afghan national refugees. Although I have great sympathy for the plight of Afghan citizens who are fleeing the brutal reign of the Taliban, a blanket exemption for Afghan citizens who are recognised as refugees would be inappropriate for two reasons.
First, we cannot exempt any particular nationality, because situations of conflict and repression are fluid. There may come a time when that country is no longer unsafe and those from it who claim asylum are no longer genuinely in need of protection; I am sure that is something that we all wish to see. If there were still an exemption for them in primary legislation, it would serve as a huge pull factor to the UK for migrants seeking to claim asylum in order to work or otherwise make a new life in the UK.
Secondly, any blanket exemption would inevitably lead to people posing as Afghans in an attempt to benefit from the hon. Gentleman’s very principled generosity. That would, perversely, prevent us from protecting Afghans who were genuinely in need. I am sure hon. Members agree that that would be in no one’s interest.
Anne McLaughlin
I wonder whether the Minister agrees or disagrees with the Conservative former Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who said in August:
“There are times and places where we should be strict with asylum applications. Afghanistan today is the exact opposite. We should take anyone who can make a case”.
Tom Pursglove
I simply cannot in all conscience support anyone of any nationality putting their lives in the hands of evil people-smuggling gangs, and I think that that would be the unintended consequence of what the hon. Lady is trying to achieve. I do not doubt the generosity of spirit behind the amendment, but I do not think that putting it into the Bill is the right thing to do. It is right that we continue to develop the safe and legal route as quickly as possible, and make sure that people are able to come here. I cannot, in all good conscience, support an amendment that would simply afford opportunity to evil criminal gangs. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to withdraw it.
Bambos Charalambous
The Afghan resettlement scheme would have a cap of 5,000 per year. If that 5,000 limit had been met, anyone who came here via other routes would be deemed to be in one of the group 2 categories, and they would have fewer protections. On guidance, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark mentioned, the issue around how they would be treated would certainly be in play. They would be treated as group 2, and we must bear in mind that the guidance would say that they could not return to Afghanistan. Does the Minister have any comments on that?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the intervention. I think there is a timing issue here. We are debating this Bill in Committee today and we have several more weeks of Committee, and then Report and Third Reading in the Commons, followed by Lords consideration in full, and consideration of any amendments that those in the other place wish to send to us. As a result, we are some way away from this Bill becoming law. By that time, I fully expect that the safe and legal route will have been established and people will be able to avail themselves of it. The overriding point is that all cases are considered on a case-by-case basis, taking into proper account all the relevant considerations.
Anne McLaughlin
The Minister says that he hopes that, by the time the Bill is enacted, the safe and legal route will be up and running. We are talking about Afghanistan. Does he mean that, by the time it is enacted, all the safe and legal routes that are required in different parts of the world where people need to flee to seek protection will be and up and running, or just the Afghan route?
Tom Pursglove
Amendment 15 is very specifically about Afghanistan. I would not wish to invoke your wrath, Ms McDonagh, by going wider than that, so I must keep my remarks to Afghanistan. The point that I have made stands, and I reiterate that cases are considered on a case-by-case basis, as the hon. Lady would rightly expect.
Neil Coyle
The Minister has been very generous in giving way. I am particularly concerned about this. He is suggesting that a safe route is available, when the Government guidance currently says not to make applications for family reunion for Afghanistan cases. Perhaps he can explore that issue in more detail with his hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is the Minister for Afghan Resettlement, and get back to us—certainly before Report.
Tom Pursglove
I am very happy to reflect the sentiment in my conversations with my ministerial colleague. As I was about to say before I took the intervention from the shadow spokesperson, I urge SNP Members to withdraw their amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
For the reasons given by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central in particular, I do not accept the argument about creating incentives. All we are asking is for Afghan asylum seekers to be treated in a few months’ time precisely in the same way as they are treated now, to be given a fair hearing, and, once they are recognised as refugees, to be treated in the same way as other refugees.
I have a second quick point before I conclude. Towards the end of his speech, the Minister referred a couple of times to things being looked at on a case-by-case basis. It is very important that, when we get to the clause stand part debate, he expands on what exactly he means by that. From what I heard from the Home Secretary, my understanding was that clause 10 would apply to Afghans in precisely the same way as it would to everybody else. The Minister’s reference to a case-by-case basis seems to suggest some sort of discretion, whether between nationalities or between individual cases. He has opened up a whole series of questions about how exactly the scheme is going to operate. Perhaps we can revisit that during the clause stand part debate.
I agree with the Minister that it does not make sense for legislation to carve out a particular nationality. However, what makes even less sense, as I said at the outset, is for all of us to be champions of Afghans so long as they are—
Tom Pursglove
I am keen to clarify that point. The point that I was making was exactly as I alluded to earlier: that, for example, we would not return someone to a country that is fundamentally unsafe.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful for that clarification. I had thought that the Minister was saying that the powers in clause 10 would be applied on a case-by-case basis depending on individual circumstances, rather than what seems to be suggested by the clause: depending on their mode of arrival. He has clarified that what the Home Secretary said was correct: it will apply to Afghans, Uyghurs and everybody else in the same way.
Amendment 15 is not the most perfect or wonderful amendment, but even less perfect are the provisions in the Bill that would see Afghan asylum seekers stripped of public funds, stripped of family reunion rights and treated, frankly, abysmally. I would therefore like to put amendment 15 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 96, in clause 10, page 13, line 36, at end insert—
“(8A) Immigration rules made under the power in subsection (8) may not apply to any individual who has submitted a claim for protection prior to those rules coming into force.”
This amendment would prevent the differential treatment described in subsections (5) and (6) from applying to anyone who submitted a protection claim prior to the relevant immigration rules coming into force.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 97, in clause 10, page 13, line 36, at end insert—
“(8A) Notwithstanding section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, any regulations made under the power in subsection (8) shall be subject to the draft affirmative procedure.”
This amendment would mean that any regulations made under the power in subsection (8) could not enter into force until they had been approved by Parliament.
Stuart C. McDonald
I will take the amendments in reverse order. To go back to part of Tuesday’s debate about Parliament, rather than the Executive, taking back control, nobody—regardless of whether they were for or against anything else I have said this morning— could deny that these are sweeping powers, with next to no limits or constraints on how they may be used. In theory, the Secretary of State could put everyone up in palaces or prisons, expand or restrict family reunion rights, and give 50 years’ leave or 50 days’ leave. Because it can all be done by changes to the immigration rules, there might as well be no oversight at all.
The process is even weaker than the negative procedure that we use for some statutory instruments. Not since 2008 has a statement of changes to the rules been properly debated by MPs. Although the other place has a better record of holding debates, 87 changes to the immigration rules have been made since 2008 without the procedure being fully invoked. Even if either House disapproves the changes within 40 days, all that means is that the Home Secretary has to lay further rules, making any changes that she thinks appropriate. In short, these are massive powers that could fundamentally change the asylum system in the UK. More important, they will have a profound impact on hundreds of thousands of people. The powers need proper oversight, which is essentially what amendment 97 supplies.
Amendment 96 is designed to retrieve a sliver of hope from an otherwise horrendous clause. Even if the Government are hellbent on proceeding down this road, by their own logic they surely cannot apply these changes and disincentives retrospectively to somebody who has already claimed asylum. The Minister says that the Bill is about disincentives to stop people crossing, or coming by other dangerous routes. I do not think that that will work, or that it is right, appropriate or ethical to do that. Although the Government take the opposite view, they cannot possible argue that we can disincentivise someone who is already here.
There are 70,000 people in the asylum system, many of whom claimed for refugee status many months ago. It is a source of stress and anxiety, according to organisations that work with refugees, such as the British Red Cross, that the threat of being put into limbo, and of family separation and destitution—all the things that we have just spoken about—will hang over them if the provisions of the Bill apply to them.
Tom Pursglove
I hope that I can give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance he seeks in relation to amendment 96. It has never been our intention to apply differentiation retrospectively.
Stuart C. McDonald
That is a hugely welcome assurance, which many people will be very pleased to hear. The Minister can say in his response why he objects to that going in the Bill, but, as I say, it will make a profound difference to 70,000 lives, and to family members further afield.
Tom Pursglove
I reassure the Committee that amendment 96, which seeks to ensure that only asylum claims made after commencement are considered under clause 10, is not needed. For many good reasons, not least for purposes of practicality, we have always intended to apply clause 10 only to asylum claims made after commencement. The position is similar in respect of amendment 97, which seeks to ensure that any regulations required to implement the policy should be subject to the affirmative procedure in Parliament. Clause 10(8) is not a regulation-making power; rather, it is a power to make immigration rules. In any event, the amendment is not needed since the rules are subject to their own parliamentary procedure, set out in section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971. Parliamentarians may pray against them within a 40-day period. I therefore urge the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to withdraw his amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. After a day and a half of debate, I feel I have achieved one small positive, which is reassurance in relation to retrospective application of clause 10. That is welcome. I have moved millions of amendments to Bills over the years in relation to scrutiny and oversight of immigration legislation, and they have all been rejected, so I am not going to press this to a vote. However, I make the point that if we parliamentarians are serious about scrutinising legislation and profound changes that have an impact on people’s lives, we have to come up with better ways of scrutinising what goes on in the immigration system. I shall leave that debate for another day. Having made my point, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 87, in clause 10, page 13, line 40, at end insert—
“(10) Before this section comes into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the implications of this section for local authorities, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and the report must be approved by a substantive vote in both Houses.
(11) A report under subsection (10) must include the following information—
(a) an assessment of the financial implications for the bodies listed in subsection (10);
(b) an assessment of the functions and powers of those bodies that will be affected by this section;
(c) details of any consultation and engagement with those bodies, and the outcome of such engagement and consultation;
(d) the Secretary of State’s findings, conclusions and proposed actions.”
This amendment would require the Government to report on the implications of clause 10 for local authorities and the devolved administrations, and to obtain Parliamentary approval for such a report, before the clause enters into force.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 161, in clause 10, page 13, line 40, at end insert—
“(10) Nothing within the Act or this section authorises any treatment or action which is inconsistent with the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.”
This amendment seeks to ensure consistency of clause 10 with the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.
Clause stand part.
Stuart C. McDonald
You will be sick of the sound of my voice pretty soon, Ms McDonagh—[Hon. Members: “Never!”] I am reassured by hon. Members. I will speak in opposition to what I regard to be a dreadful clause in the Bill.
Amendment 87 makes an important point in seeking to test how the Government have engaged with other tiers of government for which the clause will have significant implications. It is clear from everything that has been said that there will be implications for health services, housing and welfare services, devolved social security, and the legal aid and justice systems. How have the Government engaged with all the devolved Governments and local authorities on the implications of the Bill? What joint ministerial meetings have there been? What is the outcome of the suggested assessments about the impact on them? Of course, asylum is reserved, but what has been proposed here will have significant implications for all sorts of devolved functions and for the functions of local authorities. Far too often, experience shows us that the Home Office is happy to pursue policies that leave local authorities, in particular, to pick up the pieces with destitute families.
The Minister may say that there was a consultation on the new plan for immigration but, significantly, that consultation period ran, almost to the day, for the entire period of purdah for the recent Scottish and Welsh elections, and for some local government elections. That made it virtually impossible for civil servants and some local authority officials to engage in any work on the matter because it was politically contentious. It is fair to say that the timing of that consultation was, at best, rather thoughtless and it makes it all the more imperative that engagement with other tiers of government happens before the Bill is passed.
Fundamental questions are raised by amendment 161 and clause 10 more broadly. Indeed, amendment 161 takes us to the question of the Bill’s consistency with the refugee convention. What I regard to be inconsistency with the convention is a key reason why I do not believe the clause should stand part of the Bill. The Minister has already answered my intended question about whether he maintains that there is consistency with the refugee convention. The issue was not spoken about at the Dispatch Box on Second Reading, but if that is the Government’s position, presumably amendment 161 or an alternative along those lines is entirely unproblematic. All it does is call for everything in the Bill to be construed in accordance with the refugee convention, so if there is no problem with the consistency, presumably the Government do not have any problem with that amendment either.
Some may not be particularly vexed about whether the Bill complies with the requirements of the refugee convention, but we believe that is a fundamentally vital question. It is vital because the 70-year-old convention is crucial, simply as it ensures that some of the most vulnerable people in the world, at risk of persecution in their own countries, have a safe place to go to and appropriate rights.
The convention is crucial to ensuring that responsibility is at least to a degree not entirely dumped on neighbouring countries—we heard on Second Reading about how the overwhelming majority of refugees are situated in developing countries. If one country is able to rip up the refugee convention—in particular, one that was instrumental in drafting the convention, as the UK was—then absolutely nothing stops others following suit.
I said earlier that the UK Government have been saying that too many people are making claims in this country, but if we make that argument, the Governments to follow will be France, Germany and Italy. Everything would fall back on Lebanon, Jordan, Pakistan, Kenya and other countries that have to take significant populations from neighbouring countries.
That matters, too, for the reputation and influence of the United Kingdom. I do not want to repeat all the arguments we have had in recent months about the importance of abiding by international law and not breaking it, even in a “specific and limited way”. The Minister also referred to that being important. The problem, however, is that when a Foreign Secretary is busy telling Pakistan—already home to several million Afghan refugees—to keep borders open and take people in, or the Taliban to abide by international norms, at some point, if the widely accepted view is that the UK is itself busy ignoring or totally contradicting advice from the UNHCR and riding roughshod over the spirit and letter of the convention, that will come home to roost. How can we tell other countries to comply with international obligations if we are, as we are with the Bill, ripping up not only the refugee convention, but the statelessness convention, the trafficking convention, international maritime law and probably the European convention on human rights?
Let us be in no doubt, the UNHCR has said over and over again that the attempt to create two different classes of recognised refugees is inconsistent with the refugee convention and
“has no basis in international law.”
Regardless of what the Minister said earlier, that view requires significant deference and respect. I appreciate that Governments do not like publishing legal advice, but I can find no respected refugee lawyer who disagrees with what the UNHCR said. The Minister has his work cut out to explain how the Government believe the UNHCR to be wrong. The convention contains only one definition of a refugee, and only one set of rights to go with it. For someone to be outside their country of origin because of a risk of persecution for reason of one of the characteristics set out in that convention is all that is required.
Turning to the specific provisions and how they breach the refugee convention, the Minister must explain in particular how he reconciles the clause with article 23 of the refugee convention:
“The Contracting States shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to their nationals.”
In contrast, the clause expressly authorises one group of refugees to be deprived of recourse to public funds that UK nationals would have. The human rights memorandum to the Bill seems to acknowledge a problem, noting the apparent contradiction, but then blithely states that
“the Department will ensure that the powers in clause 10 are implemented in a way which is compatible with Articles 23 and 24.”
The huge question is, how? I do not accept—neither does the UNHCR—that there is a way in which that can happen. It is completely insufficient as a justification or an explanation. It is a promise to do the impossible. Any reasonable person looking at the clause and at article 23 will see that they are completely and utterly incompatible.
Other articles are also contradicted. For reasons I set out earlier, the provisions of the Bill will significantly undermine any possibility of refugees’ integration into society, in contravention of the requirement to facilitate integration and naturalisation under article 34. Going further, the proposals in the Bill and policy documents make it clear that the short periods of leave and the constant reviews are designed to lead to the expulsion of those refugees, regardless of the question of whether they are still refugees and in need of international protection. That is in contravention of article 32 of the convention, which prohibits expulsion except on the grounds of national security or public order.
The principle of family reunion is not in the body of the refugee convention itself, but the conference of plenipotentiaries at which the convention was adopted affirmed that
“the unity of the family, the natural and fundamental group unit of society, is an essential right of the refugee”.
Furthermore, as we heard, article 8 of the European convention on human rights enshrines the right to respect of family life. Given the insurmountable obstacles that those recognised refugees will face—they cannot enjoy that family life in their home country—and that, if they have got to this stage, clearly no other country will accept them, then it is impossible to see how the UK will not be breaching the convention routinely if it does not allow for family reunion.
As the Minister alluded to earlier, the clause is drafted to circumvent such clear breaches by cutting and pasting certain words and expressions from article 31 of the refugee convention into a completely different context. That article was meant to apply to refugees who are lawfully settled in another country, who have found protection there and who have then moved onwards irregularly for reasons unconnected to their need for international protection. In those restricted circumstances, administrative penalties for unlawful entry or presence are permissible. The article is clear that one condition for its applicability is that the person has an unauthorised presence in the country. This measure in the Bill includes no such restriction so, again, it is not compliant with the article.
Article 31 is also clear that, even when it is available to a state, the penalties that are permissible to put in place cannot breach other parts of the refugee convention, which is what the clause does. It also breaches international human rights law on family unity. The clause breaches the convention by applying unlawful penalties to an unlawful range of people. In coming days, we will address further breaches by new offences under clause 37, which will criminalise refugees, and clause 34, which will limit certain defences.
In short, for all the reasons I have given in the earlier debates, the clause will not work. It will not achieve what the Government want it to achieve. It is morally repugnant—it is completely unethical to treatment victims like this—and illegal, so the whole idea should be ditched and clause 10 should not stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Nationality and Borders Bill (Eighth sitting)
Thursday 21st October 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 21 October 2021 - (21 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. May I, perhaps not entirely convincingly, remind you that if you want to take your jackets off, you can? More significantly, could you please ensure that your mobile phones and other devices are turned off? I have checked mine to ensure that it is off as well.
Clause 10
Differential treatment of refugees
Amendment proposed (this day): 87, in clause 10, page 13, line 40, at end insert—
“(10) Before this section comes into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the implications of this section for local authorities, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and the report must be approved by a substantive vote in both Houses.
(11) A report under subsection (10) must include the following information—
(a) an assessment of the financial implications for the bodies listed in subsection (10);
(b) an assessment of the functions and powers of those bodies that will be affected by this section;
(c) details of any consultation and engagement with those bodies, and the outcome of such engagement and consultation;
(d) the Secretary of State’s findings, conclusions and proposed actions.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This amendment would require the Government to report on the implications of clause 10 for local authorities and the devolved administrations, and to obtain Parliamentary approval for such a report, before the clause enters into force.
Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Amendment 161, in clause 10, page 13, line 40, at end insert—
“(10) Nothing within the Act or this section authorises any treatment or action which is inconsistent with the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.”
This amendment seeks to ensure consistency of clause 10 with the UK’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.
Clause stand part.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The Opposition strongly oppose the clause. We believe that it contravenes the 1951 refugee convention, that it sets a dangerous precedent by creating a two-tiered system for refugees and that it is deeply inhumane. The clause seeks to dehumanise refugees in many insidious ways, and I believe that it threatens our very sense of who we are as a civilised nation. I will set out all the ways in which the clause does that, but before I begin, I would again like to thank the many organisations from across the refugee and asylum sector for their invaluable help in our scrutiny of the clause.
I will talk first about the differential treatment of refugees in groups 1 and 2. As all members of this Committee will know, at the heart of clause 10 is the creation of two tiers of refugee under UK law. Only those refugees who meet specific additional “requirements” will be considered group 1 refugees and benefit from the rights currently granted to all refugees by the refugee convention. Under clause 10 of the Bill, the requirements for group 1 refugees are that
“they have come to the United Kingdom directly from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened (in the sense of Article 1 of the Refugee Convention), and…they have presented themselves without delay to the authorities.”
The clause also states:
“Where a refugee has entered or is present in the United Kingdom unlawfully, the additional requirement is that they can show good cause for their unlawful entry or presence.”
Other refugees, who are not deemed to meet the criteria, will be designated as group 2 refugees. The Secretary of State will be empowered to draft rules discriminating against group 2 refugees with regard to the rights to which they are entitled under the refugee convention, as well as the fundamental human right to family unity.
To explain this differentiation between refugee groups further, clause 10 makes provision for different treatment of people recognised as refugees on the basis of how they travelled to the UK and the point at which they presented themselves to authorities. Those who travelled via a third country, do not have documents or did not claim asylum immediately would routinely be designated as group 2 refugees. The clause goes on to set out how the length of limited leave, access to indefinite leave, family reunion and access to public funds are likely to become areas for discriminating against group 2 refugees.
The Opposition strongly argue that such an approach is deeply flawed and fundamentally unfair. Furthermore, the attempt to create two different classes of recognised refugee is inconsistent with the refugee convention and has no basis in international law. The refugee convention contains a single, unitary definition of refugee, which is found in article 1A(2). That defines a refugee solely according to their need for international protection because of feared persecution on the grounds of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Anyone who meets that definition and is not excluded is a refugee and entitled to the protection of the refugee convention. We heard in evidence from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees representative to the UK that in her opinion this clause and the Bill were inconsistent with the UN convention and international law.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman mentions the UNHCR, which is the guardian of the refugee convention. Does he agree with me that on that basis, if we are to listen to anybody’s opinion about this issue, it would be the UNHCR and that should be therefore the final word on it?
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Lady makes an excellent point. It is not just the UNHCR. It is the custodian of the UN refugee convention, so we should listen to what it says, but many other commentators across the board have commented on how this clause and the Bill breach international law, and we need to heed what they say. I have yet to see the Government’s legal advice that says that they do comply with international law, but hopefully that will be available.
I will set out for the Committee the reasons why the distinction between groups of refugees is so unfair and inhumane. I will start by addressing the issue of distinguishing between refugees on the basis of how they arrived in the UK. By penalising refugees for how they were able to get to the UK, the Bill builds walls against people in need of protection and slams the door shut on many seeking a safe haven. Most refugees have absolutely no choice about how they travel, as people on all sides of the political divide understand.
Do the Government seriously intend to penalise refugees who may have found irregular routes out of Afghanistan? In fact, Government Ministers have been on national news programmes in recent weeks, urging such a course of action for those wishing to flee Afghanistan. Are the Government saying that people are less deserving of our support if they have had to take dangerous journeys? Is an interpreter from Afghanistan who took a dangerous journey to our shores less deserving than a refugee who was lucky enough to make it here on one of the flights out of the country?
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that those who fought alongside or were trained by UK forces, or who guarded our diplomatic personnel in Kabul, were betrayed in being left behind and are being doubly betrayed by the provisions in the Bill?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and he is absolutely right. People linked to my constituents are Chevening scholars who were told to go to Kabul airport. They got no assistance and are still stuck in Afghanistan, with no way to get out. It is deeply concerning, and they feel let down.
It clearly makes no sense to seek to penalise and, in some cases, even criminalise those who have been forced to take dangerous journeys. In our view, it is an insidious way of dehumanising a group of people who deserve our support—it is victim blaming of the most crass and immoral type. Penalising people for how they have arrived in the UK has particular implications for already vulnerable groups of refugees, such as women and those from LGBT communities. Women are often compelled to take irregular routes to reach safety, as we can see only too clearly in Afghanistan. There are simply no safe and legal routes that exist. Even the Government’s much-vaunted resettlement scheme relies on women escaping from a regime in which they are forbidden to walk around freely in the streets.
In many cases, even if the Government created new safe routes from dangerous parts of the world, they would simply not be available to all those in need of protection. Many women would not be able to safely reach an embassy or cross a border to access a resettlement programme, if those routes did indeed exist. Some women would be able to disclose their need for protection only once they reached a country that they considered safe. Under the proposed changes, however, women who arrive irregularly, including through a safe third country, would be penalised. Furthermore, a woman could be prosecuted, criminalised and imprisoned for one to four years. All these obstacles apply to those from LGBT communities as well. We simply ask the Government: how on earth does this draconian and inhumane treatment of vulnerable groups sit alongside British values of fairness?
Another huge flaw in this part of clause 10 is that many of the journeys facilitated by people smugglers are undoubtedly dangerous. Much attention has been directed by the Home Secretary and certain sectors of the press to the minority of people who enter the UK’s asylum system via boat crossings of the channel. However, that is far from the only dangerous journey that is made to enter the UK; the Home Secretary emphasised that when referring to the tragedy of the 39 Vietnamese people who lost their lives in a container found by Essex police in 2019.
Again, as the Home Secretary identified in her speech, the dangers are not limited to the journeys but are also a feature of the violent and exploitative treatment by people smugglers, traffickers and other abusers. Moreover, many of the people who make dangerous journeys to reach the UK from the continent will already have made dangerous journeys by land and sea, including across the Mediterranean.
The fallacy of the Government’s position in penalising people for making irregular routes to the UK is the same as the fallacy inherent in the stated objective of breaking the business model of people smugglers. Unless the Government can provide safe routes—they plainly have not done so in the case of Afghanistan and elsewhere—penalising people for making unsafe journeys is simply cruel. By not providing safe routes, the Government are also fuelling the business model of people smugglers and then penalising the victims they have a responsibility for creating. Do they not understand or are they simply willing to turn a blind eye? In America in the 1920s, prohibition drove the sale of alcohol underground, and a similar thing will happen here: more people smuggling will take place rather than less. The Government are fuelling the people smuggling business model.
It appears that Ministers and those advising them do not appreciate the compulsion to make these journeys, which is strange because they clearly acknowledge that the journeys are very dangerous and sometimes fatal. They are often highly traumatic, physically and mentally, and generally involve at some point extremely violent and cruelly exploitative people.
To give one example, it has long been documented that there is a practice among the women and girls seeking to cross the Mediterranean from Libya of taking contraceptive medication prior to the journey. That is because those women and girls anticipate that they will be raped. Do Ministers have any idea of the desperation involved in making the decision to take such medication? It is clear that although the women and girls fully understand the danger involved in the journeys, they are still compelled to make them, because the alternative of not doing so is even worse.
If people truly had a reason to believe that they were or would be safe where they are, they would not make the journeys. Simply making the journey more dangerous or the asylum system more unwelcoming will not change that. A salutary lesson ought to be taken from the example in 2014 when pressure from the EU, then including the UK, led to Italy’s decision to abandon its organised search and rescue operations in the Mediterranean. The immediate impact over several months before the Government relented was a huge increase in the number of people dead. The need for the journeys had not changed, so the journeys continued. The dangers of the journeys were greatly increased, so hundreds more people lost their lives. Discriminating against refugees obliged to arrive spontaneously will not prevent desperate people from making dangerous journeys. There is strong evidence that a policy focused on closing borders forces migrants and refugees to take more dangerous journeys and leaves them more vulnerable to traffickers.
That brings me to section 2(a) of the clause, which states that group 1 refugees must have
“come to the United Kingdom directly from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened”.
In other words, the Government are setting an expectation that to be a refugee who is supposedly deserving of the support usually afforded, the UK must be the first safe country in which they have sought asylum. I cannot state strongly enough how requiring refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach would undermine the global, humanitarian and co-operative principles on which the refugee system is founded. The UK played a key role in developing those principles 70 years ago when it helped draft the refugee convention, and, together with the other members of the United Nations General Assembly, it recently reaffirmed them in the global compact on refugees.
The proposed clause designed around the maxim that asylum seekers should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach and can be penalised if they do not, including by being designated as group 2 refugees, will impact not only refugees but fellow host states and the ability to seek global, co-operative solutions to global challenges.
The expectation that refugees should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach is also unworkable in practice. The Government are aware that there are 34.4 million refugees and asylum seekers worldwide, and the vast majority—73%—are already hosted in countries neighbouring their countries of origin. Some 86% are hosted in developing countries. Low-income countries already host 86% of the world’s refugees compared with the UK, which hosts just 0.5%. To insist that refugees claim asylum in the first safe country they reach would impose an even more disproportionate responsibility on the first safe countries both in Europe and further afield, and threaten the capacity and willingness of those countries to provide protection and long-term solutions. In turn, that would overwhelm the countries’ hosting capacity and encourage onward movement.
It is also worth noting that even within Europe most of the countries that refugees pass through on their way to the UK already host significantly more refugees and asylum seekers per population than the UK does. According to the Home Office’s own statistics, the UK is 17th in terms of the numbers it takes, measured per head of population.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that very few other countries resettle as many refugees as the United Kingdom or take as many through safe channels from United Nations camps in some of the most troubled parts of the world?
Bambos Charalambous
Since Dublin 3 ended, there are very few resettlement routes available. That is one of the problems. Unless there are safe resettlement routes, we are just fuelling dangerous journeys.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is repeatedly asserted that the UK has an exceptional record in terms of resettlement. It has a decent one; it is about mid-ranking in the European Union, in terms of the number it has taken per head of population over the years. Similarly, it is mid-ranking in terms of the number of asylum cases it assesses. It is good, but it is not exceptional and it is not a justification for the measures in this Bill.
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Unless safe routes are developed, all that will happen is that there will be an increase in dangerous crossings, because that will be the only way in which people can reach the UK.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
As we have already discussed, the majority of the people who come to our shores come from France. There is a safe route from France. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting we should give these people Eurostar tickets?
Bambos Charalambous
France takes three times more asylum seekers than the UK, as does Germany. As I mentioned, the UK is 17th by population in the number of asylum seekers it takes. The right hon. Gentleman is being slightly disingenuous. There are many other countries—Lebanon, for instance, has taken 1.9 million refugees from Syria. Jordan has taken 1 million over the last 10 years. Turkey has taken 4.3 million refugees. We are talking about a tiny fraction of those numbers. I think we need to stand up and take our share of the refugees. These countries will collapse if they are forced to take refugees because they neighbour countries where there is conflict.
Neil Coyle
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a bit of a dichotomy here? People talk up the tradition and reputation of the UK at the same time as presenting legislation that undermines that reputation. Does my hon. Friend share my concern that global Britain seems less compassionate, less generous and less Christian than the Great Britain that proudly helped draft the refugee convention?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The refugee convention was enshrined in UK law in 1954 when Winston Churchill was the Prime Minister. It was one of his beliefs, and that of the Government of the day, that it was a very important part of the UK’s global position in the world. We should not do anything that would trash our reputation, because we will all be diminished by that.
The clause makes no practical or moral sense at all. Global provision for refugees could not function if all refugees claimed asylum in the first safe country they came to. As Members across the political divide know, most refugees are hosted in developing countries and the UK receives fewer asylum applications than most other European countries. Furthermore, it is an important aim of the refugee convention that there should be no penalisation of refugees who arrive irregularly. It is very important to make that point and to repeat the point that the refugee convention does not state that refugees must claim asylum in the first safe country they come to; it permits refugees to cross borders irregularly to claim asylum.
Let me give the Committee an example to illustrate why this part of the refugee convention is so vital. This is a real-life scenario that faced a refugee to the UK, who, in this situation, I am going to call Aaron.
Aaron is a refugee who travelled to the UK via other countries. He was a young teenager when he had to leave Eritrea without his family. His father had been conscripted into the country’s brutal military service and came home to see his family. When he left again, he told his family that he was going back to his base, but he never showed up there. The family did not know anything about his whereabouts. The military came to Aaron’s house looking for his father and told Aaron’s mother that they would take her children, including Aaron, if they could not find his father. Aaron had no choice but to leave. He says:
“People really suffer. They don’t want to leave their country but their country forces them because military service in Eritrea is the worst thing. You have to serve the military forever. There is no life, there is nothing.”
He left Eritrea and spent two years looking for safety before arriving in the UK. He travelled via Sudan and Libya, both of which were very dangerous. He then went to Italy, where he felt unsafe sleeping outside under bridges, and to France, where he ended up in the Calais jungle. He explained:
“They didn’t treat us like human beings”,
Aaron came to the UK in the back of a lorry. “I wasn’t expecting anything,” he remembers,
“I just escaped to keep my life, to be safe. That’s the most important thing.”
He was initially refused asylum and had to submit a fresh claim. He was in the UK asylum system for seven years before finally being recognised as a refuge—and as having been one all along. He now plans to study IT.
Under international law, the primary responsibility for identifying refugees and affording international protection rests with the state in which an asylum seeker arrives and seeks that protection. The idea of seeking asylum in the first safe country is unfair, unworkable and illegal in international law.
That brings me on to the suggested strictures on group 2 refugees in clause 10(6), which sets out a non-exhaustive list of ways in which refugees who arrive irregularly may be treated differently, with reduced leave to remain, more limited refugee family reunion rights, and limited access to welfare benefits. The explanatory notes for the Bill state:
“The purpose of this is to discourage asylum seekers from travelling to the UK other than via safe and legal routes. It aims to influence the choices that migrants may make when leaving their countries of origin—encouraging individuals to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach after fleeing persecution, avoiding dangerous journeys across Europe.”
However, the Government have provided no evidence to show that the stated aim will result from the policy.
Evidence from many refugee organisations suggests that refugees seek asylum in the UK for a range of reasons, such as proficiency in English, family links or a common heritage based on past colonial histories. Many sector organisations have told us that refugees do not cite the level of leave granted or other elements of the asylum system as decisive factors. In fact, it seems likely that those are not even details refugees would tend to be aware of.
However, the proposed strictures will certainly result in a refugee population who are less secure, because they have a shorter amount of leave and are less able to integrate because they have reduced access to refugee family reunion. They will punish those who have been recognised, through the legal system, as needing international protection—girls fleeing the Taliban in Afghanistan, Christian converts fleeing theocracy in Iran or Uyghurs fleeing genocide in China.
These strictures are likely to retraumatise people who have already been subjected to horrific abuse. To take one example in more detail, clause 10(5) gives the Home Secretary broad discretion to set the length of any limited period of leave given to group 2 refugees, such that they may be indefinitely liable for removal. Both the new plan for immigration and the Bill’s explanatory notes confirm that group 2 refugees who have a well-founded fear of persecution will be given only temporary protection status—no more than 30 months, according to the new plan—after which they will be reassessed for return or removal. The extreme uncertainty that this will cause, along with the inability for people to move forward with their lives, is tantamount to inflicting mental cruelty.
The explanatory notes also state that 62% of asylum claims in the UK up until September 2019 were from people who entered irregularly. This means the policy intention is to impose strictures on the rights and entitlements of the majority of refugees coming to the UK, even though we take fewer than comparable countries, as has been noted.
Furthermore, these strictures would deny recognised refugees rights guaranteed to them under the refugee convention and international law. They would also create a series of significant civil and criminal penalties that would target the majority of refugees who will seek asylum in the UK. Those penalties would target not just those who had entered the UK irregularly or who had made dangerous journeys, but all those who have not come directly to the UK—regularly or irregularly—from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened; those who have delayed claiming asylum or overstayed; and even those who arrive in the UK without entry clearance and who claim asylum immediately.
In short, these strictures can only be seen as cruel and as a way to obstruct integration. Barriers to resettlement in the UK would force refugees to live under the perpetual threat of expulsion, denied a chance to rebuild their lives. Subjecting refugees to no recourse to public funds conditions would leave refugees vulnerable to destitution and exploitation. Meanwhile, reducing family reunion rights interferes with the right to family life, and is cruel. It constitutes a reduction of safe, managed routes for people seeking sanctuary.
I will now look in more depth at the practical consequences of the strictures of group 2 status that have just been outlined. It is worth stating that this clause envisions that group 2 status will be imposed on recognised refugees—people who are at risk of persecution, who have been forcibly separated from their homes, families and livelihoods, and who in many cases have suffered trauma. The mental health challenges they face are well documented, yet this clause will stigmatise them as unworthy and unwelcome, and if the intentions expressed in the explanatory notes were carried out, it would maintain them in a precarious status for 10 years, deny them access to public funds unless they were destitute, and restrict their access to family reunion. Multiple studies have shown that that precarious status itself is a barrier to integration and employment, yet despite these challenges, the Bill would specifically empower the Secretary of State to attach a no recourse to public funds condition to the grant of leave to group 2 refugees, and according to the explanatory notes their status
“may only allow recourse to public funds in cases of destitution.”
The adverse consequences of no recourse to public funds conditions will fall not only on the refugees themselves, but on their families, including children who travel with them, who are able to join them later or who are born in the UK. Those consequences have been documented in numerous studies, as well as in the context of litigation. They include difficulty accessing shelters for victims of domestic violence; denial of free school meals where those are linked to the parents’ benefit entitlement; and de facto exclusion from the job market for single parents, largely women, who have limited access to Government-subsidised childcare, as well as significant risks of food poverty, severe debt, substandard accommodation and homelessness. These consequences in turn hinder integration and increase the financial cost to local authorities, which in many cases have statutory obligations towards children and adults. The Home Office’s own indicators of integration framework identifies secured immigration status as a key outcome indicator for stability, which is
“necessary for sustainable engagement with employment or education and other services.”
It is also worth noting that among the public relief measures defined as public funds in this context are those specifically intended to support children, such as child benefit, and the particularly vulnerable, such as carer’s allowance and personal independence payments. Moreover, children born to group 2 refugees in the UK normally have no right to British nationality for 10 years, or until their parents are granted settlement; given that refugees may put their status and perhaps their security at risk were they to approach the embassy of their country of origin to register their children, many would have no effective nationality at all. With the possibility of applying for family reunion foreclosed, more women and children are likely to attempt dangerous journeys, either at the same time as the men who might previously have sponsored them under current laws, or joining them afterwards. That risk has been recognised by the Council of Europe, among others, and has been borne out in Australia, where the abolition of family reunion rights for holders of temporary protection visas was followed by a threefold increase in the percentage of refugees trying to reach Australia who are women and children.
I will now turn in more detail to how clause 10 contravenes the refugee convention. As a party to the convention, the UK has a binding legal obligation towards all refugees under its jurisdiction that must be reflected in domestic law, regardless of the refugee’s mode of travel or the timing of their asylum claim. The obligations in the convention are set out in articles 3 to 34. They include, but are not limited to, the following obligations that are directly undermined by clause 10: providing refugees who are lawfully staying in the country with public relief on the same terms as nationals, which is article 23, and facilitating all refugees’ integration and naturalisation, which is article 34.
The Bill is inconsistent with those obligations in at least three significant ways. First, it targets group 2 refugees, not only for unlawful entry or presence but for their perceived failure to claim asylum elsewhere or to claim asylum promptly, even if they entered and are present in the UK lawfully. Secondly, it would empower the Secretary of State to impose a type of penalty for belonging to group 2 that is at variance with the refugee convention: namely, the denial of rights specifically and unambiguously guaranteed by the convention to recognise refugees. Thirdly, it would empower the Secretary of State to impose a penalty on group 2 refugees that would be inconsistent with international human rights law: namely, restrictions on their rights to family unity. There are many other ways in which the Bill as a whole contravenes the refugee convention in clauses other than clause 10, as we will discuss in later debates.
Neil Coyle
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, once again, the Government will extend the number of people in the UK subject to no recourse to public funds conditions, requiring emergency support from councils and creating a new burden for local authorities of every political colour up and down the country, which will have to provide millions more pounds in support, when people could be supporting themselves and moving on with their lives?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend is exactly right. The burden will fall on all local authorities looking after asylum seekers and their families; they will have no choice but to provide that service. The Government have stayed silent on what provisions they will make for local authorities. I am not sure how far they have even consulted local authorities as to whether they accept what has been proposed.
Clause 10(6) would give the Secretary of State the same power to discriminate against family members of group 2 refugees. At present, the Secretary of State’s powers in that regard are constrained by section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, which states:
“Nothing in the immigration rules (within the meaning of the 1971 Act) shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention”,
which would appear to preclude the adoption of some of the immigration rules set out in the explanatory notes.
It is worth restating that nothing in the refugee convention defines a refugee or their entitlements under the convention according to their route of travel, choice of country of asylum or the timing of their asylum claim. The Bill is based on the premise that
“people should claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in”.
That principle is not found in the refugee convention, and there is no history of it in the convention.
Mike Wood
The shadow Minister says that there is no history of distinguishing between refugees depending on their route into the country, but that was not the approach taken by the previous Labour Government with the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. Baroness Scotland said:
“When a person leaves their country through fear, we consider that, as a general principle, such a person should seek protection in the first safe country where they have the chance to do so. It has been said that nowhere in international law is such a requirement imposed. There may not be such a law, but that does not dilute the argument that a person who is in genuine fear should seek shelter at the earliest opportunity.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 April 2004; Vol. 659, c. 1683.]
She was right, wasn’t she?
Bambos Charalambous
I do not know the context in which Baroness Scotland said that, but I disagree with her. I very much believe that that would have been breaching international law, as I have stated throughout my speech.
Neil Coyle
Perhaps Government Members would have greater standing on the issue if they were not betraying their own manifesto and cutting aid to countries where people might be able to seek support or stay longer if UK support was not retracted.
Mr Goodwill
Just for the record, did the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate just say that the last Labour Government was breaking international law?
Bambos Charalambous
Nice try. No, I did not say that.
The clause represents a fundamental change to the principle of refugee protection in the UK, introducing a two-tier system where any refugee reaching the country who has not benefited from a place on a resettlement programme may have their claim deemed inadmissible and be expelled to another country, or eventually granted temporary status with restricted rights to family reunification and financial support.
It is worth pointing out here that the UNHCR, the guardian of the 1951 refugee convention and the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees, tells us that the core principle is non-refoulement, which asserts that a refugee should not be returned to a country where they face serious threats to their life or freedom. That is now considered a rule of customary international law. Clause 10 therefore represents the shameful undoing of the commitment to the refugee convention and the British values that led to that commitment in the first place.
Anne McLaughlin
It is clear to all on the Opposition Benches that if this goes ahead, we will be breaching our international legal obligations. Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that in doing so, the damage done both to the UK’s reputation as a global legal centre and to its trade strategy will be immense, at a time when we really need to find new trading partners?
Bambos Charalambous
I very much share those concerns. It is clear that some countries wishing to trade with the UK may also insist on certain measures in relation to visas and access, and in some of the new clauses tabled by the Government more recently there is a suggestion that they would be willing to withdraw visas to some countries. I do not know who they have discussed it with, but that seems contrary to the intention of trading with other nations.
There is no doubt, therefore, that the clause stands in clear contravention of the refugee convention—no small thing, given that the convention, sometimes known as the Geneva convention of 1951, anchors the status of refugees in international law. Around the most desperate and terrorised people on earth, the convention throws the shield of international protection. Since the horrors of the second world war, it has been an article of faith for every decent society, as required today as it was 70 years ago by all those fleeing war, torture and persecution of all kinds, and by all those women and girls who undertake their journey in the knowledge that they may well be raped en route to finding safety.
The Opposition are clear that accepting this clause would set a dangerous precedent by creating a two-tier system for refugees that is deeply inhumane. Furthermore, we hold that its consequences, intended or not, would undermine our binding legal obligations to all refugees. We oppose it because we believe the 1951 convention and all that goes with it speaks profoundly to the core values of the British people. Given the multiple, deeply negative consequences of the clause—mental ill health, poverty, debt, substandard accommodation and homelessness, to say nothing of the financial costs to local and national Government—it should be removed from the Bill.
In short, group 2 status is not only inconsistent with the refugee convention; it is a recipe for mental and physical ill health, social and economic marginalisation and exploitation. The human cost to refugees and their families, including their children, is obvious enough, and it should shame us that this Bill would actively cause harm if clause 10 is adopted. We will oppose clause 10 stand part.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate on his comprehensive critique of clause 10. I want to add only a few points on what is clearly at the heart of the Government’s approach in this Bill: seeking to create a hostile environment for refugees and splitting them into the two groups of which my hon. Friend spoke.
I was interested to hear the Minister talk earlier about the Bill as just one part of a multifaceted approach to tackling the problem, of which international diplomacy was at the core. I would welcome his reflections, when he comes to make his remarks, on how far he thinks our position in international diplomacy is strengthened by a Bill that the UNHCR, the guardian of the 1951 convention, denounces in clear terms as
“The creation of an unlawful two-tier system in which most refugees are denied rights guaranteed by the Refugee Convention and essential to their integration”.
I think that our position in terms of how we play our cards in international diplomacy will be weakened by setting ourselves against the international community. This proposal appals all organisations that have worked with those coming to our country to flee war, terror and persecution, and Labour shares their view. However, I appreciate that this Government, in contrast with previous Conservative Administrations, revel in setting themselves against the international consensus and are happy tearing up treaties to which they have been signatories.
We should examine the clause in the context of the Government’s own objectives. They say it is part of a deterrent to break the business model of people smugglers by dissuading those seeking asylum from taking what the Government consider to be irregular routes. We are all agreed on the objective of breaking the appalling business model of people smuggling and we all agree that we want to end the situation that leads people to take the most desperate journeys across the channel. As I said earlier, and clearly the Minister struggled to respond to that point, even the Government’s own impact assessment says,
“evidence supporting the effectiveness of this approach is limited.”
I know that he had a problem with evidence when we were talking about clause 9 under part 1.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
The hon. Gentleman will get a very nice long letter.
Paul Blomfield
I look forward to the letter, but it would be useful to hear the evidence before the Committee is forced to vote.
As colleagues have pointed out, these plans will punish the victims of the crime rather than the perpetrators. The Government’s approach conveniently ignores the reality of seeking asylum—of fleeing persecution, danger, abuse and terror, and taking the extraordinary step of leaving your own country and having to flee because you are not safe in the land where you were born and brought up and where your friends and family live. Irregularity in that context is almost a certainty and with it comes a lot of chaos and unpredictability.
Others have mentioned the countless studies that have demonstrated that the preferred destinations of refugees are not identified solely or even primarily on the basis of migration policies devised by Governments with the explicit aim of reducing arrivals. The Home Office has confirmed that the nationality of those arriving irregularly are overwhelming those for whom the majority of their asylum applications will be upheld either at first instance or on appeal, and that includes those from Afghanistan, Iran and Syria. The clause draws a differentiation between different kinds of asylum seekers. Not only is it inhumane and suggestive of bad faith as regards those taking these desperate journeys from the outset, but it is an approach that will not work and that risks making things worse.
The Conservative-led Foreign Affairs Committee warned in 2019 that
“A policy that focuses exclusively on closing borders will drive migrants to take more dangerous routes, and push them into the hands of criminal groups.”
The Government’s own impact assessment warns that increased deterrence in this manner
“could encourage these cohorts to attempt riskier means of entering the UK.”
The Minister looks frustrated; perhaps he ought to pay attention to his impact assessment.
Central to the Government’s arguments for the clause is that they want to encourage the use of safe and legal routes. Where are they? It is worth looking at that in context. The Minister talked about his pride in the UK’s generosity to refugees. There was some exchange both ways on that because it does not match up to reality. Anything that this country does to accept those seeking to build a new life in the face of terror, conflict and persecution is welcome, but as the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East suggested, we are middle-ranking in this area. Worldwide, as the shadow Minister said, we know that it is those countries on the frontline of conflicts, which are often least equipped to deal with the influx of significant numbers, who take the largest share of refugees, including Turkey, with around 4 million, Colombia, Pakistan and Uganda.
Neil Coyle
It is not only the duplicity of that statement. My constituent’s family member is in Afghanistan and needs their passport to leave the country. Their passport is currently being held by the Home Office in the UK. The Home Office is denying them the opportunity to leave Afghanistan by refusing to be flexible. It could perhaps get that passport, through Qatari friends, to the chargé d’affaires in Doha and out to Afghanistan.
Paul Blomfield
Many of us could tell similar stories of hopes dashed by the mismatch, reflected in some of the Government’s language around this legislation, between their ambition and the reality as it affects people’s lives. We see safe and legal routes in name only, with the Government talking the talk but failing to walk the walk. On its own objectives, the clause will fail. It is a flawed policy. The Minister looks critical of what I say. I would love him to intervene on me to set out the programme of safe and legal routes that will be unfolded, because they are the principle that underpin the strategy in clause 10. Without that, clause 10 cannot stand part of the Bill.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I doubt that what I am about to say on clause 10 will shock Members. It is a fantastic element of the legislation because it will act as a deterrent to one of the many pull factors that the United Kingdom has and why so many people are prepared to make the dangerous journey through mainland Europe—that is not war torn, as some would like to have it seen as—to try to make it here to our United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central talked about the hostile environment, but I remind him that in May 2007 it was the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne), the then immigration Minister in a Labour Government, who referred to a hostile environment in his announcement of a consultation document. He said:
“We are trying to create a much more hostile environment in this country if you are here illegally.”
When that comment is added to the remarks of Baroness Scotland—cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South—that people should claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in, it does not take much to understand the demise of the Labour party in red wall seats such as Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke. People in my constituency want to see tougher immigration control, and 73% voted for Brexit because they wanted us to take back control of our borders. Clause 10 is one method by which we will take back control, because it will say clearly to people that if they make an illegal entry to this country it will count against them. If people take a safe and legal route, the country will open its arms to them and bring them over here, as we have done for people from Syria and Afghanistan.
Anne McLaughlin
The hon. Member keeps talking about people coming here illegally to apply for refugee status. Of the 5,000 people who came last year by boat, 98% were deemed by the Home Office to be eligible to apply for asylum. They were “genuine asylum seekers”, to use his words and they were not here illegally. They will only become illegal if the Bill is enacted.
Jonathan Gullis
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for that intervention. What I heard is that 5,000 people made illegal entry into this country, putting money into the hands of people smugglers, which ultimately funds wider criminality here and in mainland Europe. That is obviously negative, because it means that more people will be trapped in misery. Even Opposition parties accept that the system is currently broken and we need to fix it, but they seem to want to make sure that we have even more people come here—I heard the comparison to other European countries—rather than what people voted for this Government to do, which is to deter people from making those journeys so that they use safe and legal routes.
Neil Coyle
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not listening when my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central outlined that the explanatory notes explain that the Bill will mean that some people are more likely to be forced to use criminal gangs. I am sure that he would not support that.
Jonathan Gullis
I disagree. The clause will not force people to use criminal gangs. It is one strand of a wider idea of deterring people from using dangerous routes, including pushbacks, offshoring and a second status for those who enter the country illegally. All those factors brought together, as part of a wider policy, will act as a deterrent, as we heard from His Excellency the High Commissioner for Australia. This clause is one of those deterrents and will form part of a wider package, which has my full support.
I applaud the Minister for this fantastic piece of work. We will always accept people in this country who take safe, legal routes. We will do our utmost to make sure that those people who are most in need are protected. This country has a fantastic history of looking after such people. Stoke-on-Trent is the fifth highest contributor to the asylum dispersal scheme—a Conservative-run authority with three Conservative Members of Parliament. We are proud of our city’s history, but at the same time we also acknowledge that illegal crossings of the Channel are putting people’s lives in danger unnecessarily and causing huge strain on our systems. Such crossings also enable and make profits for the disgusting criminal gangs. The only way to stop that is to stop people wanting to take those journeys. The clause is one part of a wider strategy to ensure that that happens.
Anne McLaughlin
The hon. Gentleman is being generous in giving way, at least. He seems so determined to stop illegal crossings—not illegal people, illegal crossings—and I agree that no one wants people to take dangerous journeys. What are his thoughts and ideas on how we can expand and develop the safe and legal routes, on which the Bill is apparently based, as an alternative? If we have those routes, people will not have to take dangerous journeys.
Jonathan Gullis
The hon. Lady has just promoted me to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office or the Home Office. I would be delighted if the Minister were looking for someone to join him in the Department, but I am sure my Whip would have something to say about that. It is a complicated situation. In Afghanistan, for example, we had a brief window for a safe and legal route to bring people out via the airport. Obviously, we cannot go into Afghanistan tomorrow; we would have to negotiate such an exit route with an Administration that I believe would be hostile to that—I do not believe they have good intentions—so we need to look to neighbouring countries such as Pakistan to see whether we can develop safe and legal entry routes in those other countries. I have full faith that the Government will come about that, but first we need the Bill in place to empower the Government to go forward and create those routes.
Anne McLaughlin
Does the hon. Gentleman not think it would be more helpful and more humane to have the safe and legal routes before we enact the Bill so that we do not have a gap for however long it takes when people who desperately need our help cannot get it? That could be months or years—it has taken a long time with Afghanistan, which is apparently a priority. Would it not be better to have the routes first before the Government do whatever they want with the Bill?
Jonathan Gullis
The problem is that we are not the only country looking for safe and legal routes from places such as Afghanistan. The world is struggling to come to a solution, and it is a world solution that we need to agree. I hope we will use our position as leader of the G7 for that going forward. However, there are a lot of refugees in mainland European countries such as Greece, Italy and France, which are perfectly safe and nice countries in which to start a new life, and people should absolutely claim asylum in them rather than making the journey to Calais, where they put funds into the hands of criminal gangs to fund criminality and come over here illegally. Remember that 70% are men aged between 18 and 35, which means that women and children—the most vulnerable groups—are being left behind in those countries.
Ultimately, it is more important that we ensure that they are protected and that we get to them, as we did in Afghanistan, rather than the illegal economic migrants who are crossing the Channel to enter the country illegally and putting a huge strain on our local authorities. That is why the clause saying, “If you come to this country illegally, that will count against you in your application” is a fantastic idea. Again, that is one strand of a wider strategy to help combat the shocking scenes we see in those Channel crossings, which are angering the people I represent in Stoke-on-Trent—and, to be quite frank, the nation.
The Bill is therefore long overdue. The Opposition accept that the asylum system is broken. Given that, I do not understand why what we are trying to do is not the right solution. The only thing I hear from the Opposition is, “We should have more people coming over here,” but that would create more pull factors to encourage people to make that dangerous journey.
Mr Goodwill
Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be good to follow the model of the Syrian resettlement programme, brought in by David Cameron, in respect of Afghanistan? Indeed, countries such as Canada are considering many more than us, and, because their system is not clogged up with people arriving illegally, they can have much wider scope for the legal settlement schemes.
Jonathan Gullis
My right hon. Friend makes a really good point. I go back to His Excellency the High Commissioner for Australia, who made it clear that Australia would not have been able to take the amount of Syrian refugees it did with public support had it not had control of its borders—and, because it did have that control, public support and empathy was massively increased when it came to helping people in desperate situations. Those people deserve to have some of the biggest and best countries around the world holding them dear and giving them a new life in safety and security.
The public are angry because they see an asylum system that is not working. They want to see control of the borders; then, when we have people from Syria and Afghanistan coming over, there would be much more public empathy.
Bambos Charalambous
The hon. Gentleman talked about the broken asylum system, but we actually have more people working in it and processing fewer cases. May Bulman, the journalist from The Independent, wrote an article recently in which she identified 399 people who have been waiting 10 years for their asylum claim to be processed. How can it be that the system employs more people but is processing fewer claims? How can it be allowed that people are waiting 10 years for their claims to be processed? That is the broken system. If it were a business, it would be bankrupt.
Jonathan Gullis
The issue is that we inherited a ruinous backlog from the Labour Government, and we have gone through a multitude of challenges recently—covid, for example, which brought the very challenging situation of working from home. I understand—I am a constituency MP like everyone else. We all do our bit and write to the Home Office. We get frustrated by the time that certain cases can take to process, but ultimately, we are trying to fix the system. That is one strand, and there are other parts of the Bill that we will examine, such as offshoring, which I support. There are other methods to help to deal with the backlog and speed up the processing of asylum claims.
I am more than happy to welcome genuine asylum seekers; what I am unhappy about is the illegal economic migrants continually crossing our channel, coming to our shores and costing millions of pounds to the British taxpayer, and the lawyers obsessed with taking money out of the British purse to stop people being deported. Let us not forget, there are convicted criminals dragged off the plane at the last minute, leaving the UK taxpayer to pick up the tab. They are criminals who should not be here and rightly should be deported. Sadly, I see too many Labour Members celebrating those lawyers’ work to prevent those people from being deported from our country. It is a very sad state of affairs to see those letters written to the Home Secretary. I hope clause 10 will stay as is and will be a part of a wider strategy to deter.
Tom Pursglove
First, I will deal with the two amendments that we have debated. Amendment 87 seeks to make implementation of the differentiated asylum system contingent on issuing a report on its impact on local authorities and devolved Administrations. The report must also be passed by both Houses. Clearly, immigration is a reserved matter, so it is for Westminster to set policy in that regard. Local authorities and devolved Administrations have not only taken part in the public consultation, where they have shared substantive views, but have been included in targeted, ongoing engagement with the Home Office to discuss issues and implementation. I am afraid I do not see what further value such a report could offer, other than to delay the implementation of this important policy.
Amendment 161 seeks to ensure that nothing in the Bill or this particular section authorises any treatment or action that is inconsistent with the UK’s obligations under the refugee convention. This amendment is unnecessary because we are already under an obligation to meet our international obligations and, as I have continually set out, intend to do so in the Bill. Furthermore, section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 prevents us, in implementing this policy, from doing anything in the immigration rules that is contrary to the refugee convention. If we were to include such a provision in the Bill, the effect may be to suggest that in any other legislation where it is not included, the intention is not to comply with such obligations. I am certain hon. Members will agree that is neither desirable nor intended.
Neil Coyle
The Minister has rather blithely dismissed our concern about the potential illegality of the measure. What is it that the Minister knows that UNHCR, Amnesty International, British Red Cross, UN Refugee Agency, Salvation Army, Refugee Council, Children’s Society, Law Society, RAMP or the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project, We Belong, Families Together Coalition, Refugee Law Initiative, British Overseas Territories Citizenship Campaign, Human Trafficking Foundation, Reprieve, Women for Refugee Women, British Association of Social Workers, Trades Union Congress, Mermaids, Stand with Hong Kong, One Strong Voice, Rights Lab, Public Law Project, Greater Manchester Immigration Aid Unit, Migrant Voice, Every Child Protected Against Trafficking or ECPAT UK, Justice and Peace, Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, Statewatch, Say it Loud Club, Logistics UK, Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law, European Network on Statelessness, National Justice Project, Asylum Seekers Advocacy Group, Helen Bamber Foundation, Modern Slavery Policy Unit, Centre for Social Justice, and Justice do not? They all say it is unlawful—what do they not know? Why does the Minister think they are all wrong?
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Gentleman for intervening again. I will come on to his point substantively when I speak to clause stand part. Meanwhile, I invite the Opposition Members to withdraw the amendments.
I do not intend to give a long stand part speech, because we have had a wide-ranging and substantive debate on the clause. It is fair to say that many views have been expressed. I do not remotely doubt their sincerity, but I hope that that acknowledgement of sincerity is extended to all Members, regardless of their views on the matter. When Members come to this House, at the forefront of their minds is wanting to do what they believe to be right. Members on the Government side have equally strongly and sincerely held views on the matters that we are debating, and we believe that the approach we are advocating is the right one.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am quite happy to say that all Members are doing what we think is right, though of course we might think each other misguided. I am concerned that the Minister is not going to go into detail about the issues—
Stuart C. McDonald
I thought the Minister was suggesting that the debate would no longer go on.
Tom Pursglove
That is precisely the point that I wanted to focus on before concluding deliberation of the clause. Views have been expressed about differentiation in the way that we are proposing and about its compatibility with our international obligations. I do not agree with the assessment expressed by various Opposition Members: I argue that the differentiation policy is in line with our international obligations, including the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights. Of course, it is for Parliament to determine precisely what is meant by our international obligations, subject only to the principles of treaty interpretation in the Vienna convention. That is precisely what we are doing in the Bill.
I want to say something briefly about people seeking asylum in the first safe country that they reach, the importance of that principle and its relevance in the international context, because there has been a lot of debate on the issue. It is self-evident that those in need of protection should claim in the first safe country that they reach. That is without question the fastest route to safety. The first-safe-country principle is widely recognised internationally, and has been for many years, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South alluded to in his intervention on the shadow Minister, who slightly surprised me by being so willing to condemn the approach taken by the last Labour Government on that principle. It is a long-established principle, which successive Governments have had at the forefront of their minds when looking at and legislating on such matters.
Stuart C. McDonald
Where does the Minister find this principle and what is it derived from? The overwhelming majority of refugees do claim asylum in the first safe country that they come to. Where exactly is he deriving the principle from?
Tom Pursglove
One thing that occurred to me throughout the debate was why any Member of this House would feel that it was necessary for anyone to get into a small boat on the French coastline in order to come to the United Kingdom. France is without doubt a safe country, and I like to think that we could recognise that across the House. Those journeys are completely unnecessary against that backdrop. I am staggered that that point is not recognised more widely. Based on some of the remarks we have heard, one might think that that was not the case. In my mind and those of my colleagues, there is absolutely no need for anyone to get into a small boat to try and cross the English channel or to take irregular journeys.
On the point about what this relates to, the principle is fundamental in the common European asylum system. Without enforcement of it, we simply encourage criminal gangs and smugglers to continue to exploit vulnerable people, and I make no apology for my determination, and that of the Home Secretary and the Government as a whole, to bring these evil criminal gangs to justice and to stop the dangerous channel crossings. We have to stop them, for the reasons that my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North alluded to. We have a moral obligation to do that, and that is what the measures in the Bill, and the wider package of measures that we talk about very often in the House, are seeking to achieve.
Bambos Charalambous
The clause does no such thing. It actually encourages people to make unsafe journeys and to contact criminal gangs, because there are no safe routes. That is the crux of it. If safe routes were available, fewer people would make the journeys, but nothing that the Government have said creates any safe routes. Since Dublin III ended, there are no safe routes for people to come to the UK to claim asylum.
Tom Pursglove
I am afraid that I just do not accept that characterisation. As I have said on several occasions in Committee, we continue to resettle genuine refugees directly from regions of conflict and instability, which has protected 25,000 people in the last six years—more than any other European country. It is central to our policy that we advocate safe and legal routes and put them at the heart of our policy making. I have talked about several of them. Of course, this is something that we keep under constant review as the international situation evolves and as needs require. I have no doubt that that will continue to be the approach that we take—establishing routes that are appropriate to the circumstances that we find ourselves in.
Anne McLaughlin
Earlier today, I asked about safe and legal routes. The Minister said that by the time the Bill is enacted, a safe and legal route from Afghanistan will be up and running. I asked him about the other ones. Did he mean just the one route to which he referred, or did he mean routes across all countries where they might be needed? He said he could not answer at that time because the Chair would be annoyed, as we were talking only about the amendment on Afghanistan. Will he now take the opportunity to tell me whether those safe and legal routes will be available to anyone who requires them, to prevent them from making dangerous journeys, before the Bill is enacted?
Tom Pursglove
I respectfully say to the hon. Lady that there are routes in place that people can avail themselves of in order to seek sanctuary in this country.
Tom Pursglove
We have now debated that with some regularity and in some detail. I do not intend to recover that ground, but of course we continue to offer family reunion, which has seen a further 29,000 people come to the UK over the past six years. As I say, the context in which we are debating these matters in Committee is that people are risking and losing their lives by making dangerous crossings of the channel. I argue that we need to do everything in our power to stop the criminal gangs and to break their business model.
Where people seek to join family or work in the UK, they should make an application via the appropriate safe and legal route. We are committed to safe and legal routes, which are the cornerstone of our immigration policy. They are one part of, but very central to, what we seek to achieve through the Bill, through our direct engagement with the French, and in our wider diplomatic programmes. With that in mind, I ask the Committee to agree that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
I would like to respond briefly to the debate, which has been wide-ranging. I have to express some frustration, because the Minister said he would address in detail the reasons he thought the provision is in compliance with the refugee convention. I do not think he said anything at all about that. I appreciate that he has already undertaken to write several letters. Could he write another that explains how article 23 of the refugee convention, which requires equal treatment with nationals in access to social security, can possibly be consistent with a clause allowing the Secretary of State to treat people unequally? All the points we have made about the lawfulness of the Bill have not been addressed. I would be grateful if the Minister would do so.
During the debate we lost sight a couple of times of what we are talking about, which is people who are refugees. Sometimes people refer to genuine refugees, and we are talking about genuine refugees, who, by definition, have been assessed by the Home Office as such. The clause enables the Secretary of State to essentially treat them like trash—to withdraw access to public funds, to leave them in limbo and keep them separate from their families. While we support all reasonable measures to stop the crossings, we draw the line at treating the victims of these people smugglers like trash.
In actual fact, the British public are with us. Public opinion polling shows that people are sympathetic to refugees, and I think they will be upset when they find out that this is how refugees will be treated. I ask the Minister to engage with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees on the legality of the measures. These are hugely important concerns for a number of reasons, so I hope he will engage with him.
Tom Pursglove
I have a meeting coming up with him in which I fully suspect we will talk about these measures.
Stuart C. McDonald
I have no doubt about it. That is appreciated. On the effectiveness of these measures, reference has been made to how this would disincentivise crossings. Again, there is no Home Office analysis to show that that would be the case. In fact, Home Office analysis is to the contrary. Where is the analysis to show that disincentives will work? We need to see analysis of what the Home Office think the incentives that make people do this are. As we have said, it is things like family, a history with the United Kingdom or speaking the language. None of those will be changed by the Bill. The Secretary of State will not change the incentives that bring people here in the first place.
The numbers are challenging, but in the grand scheme of things the number of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom is tiny. Most folk do not claim asylum here. That is not the issue. Yes, we want to stop them making dangerous journeys, because none of us want to see lives put at risk, but what has been proposed here goes way beyond what is acceptable.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 11, page 14, line 26, at end insert—
“(3A) In section 16 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Establishment of centres), at end insert—
‘(4) For the purposes of this Part, references to ‘persons’ do not include—
(a) children;
(b) women;
(c) individuals with a disability;
(d) individuals who have been referred to the National Referral Mechanism;
(e) survivors of torture;
(f) individuals who identify as LGBTQ+.;
(g) family members of any persons in the groups listed in paragraphs (a) to (f).
(5) For the purposes of subsection (4), ‘family members’ includes—
(a) dependent children;
(b) partners/spouses;
(c) in relation to children—
(i) their siblings;
(ii) any other individual who is the relevant child’s guardian.’”
This amendment would restrict the use of accommodation centres for accommodating people seeking asylum so that the state groups, and their family members, cannot be accommodated in them.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 99, in clause 11, page 14, line 26, at end insert—
“(3A) In section 16 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Establishment of centres), at end insert—
‘(2A) Accommodation provided under this section must—
(a) have a capacity of no more than 100 residents, and
(b) provide any unrelated residents at the centre with an individual room for sleeping.’”
This amendment would prevent accommodation centres from accommodating more than 100 people, and would ensure that residents were not required to share sleeping quarters with residents to whom they are not related.
Amendment 100, in clause 11, page 14, line 30, at end insert—
“(4A) After section 17 of that Act, insert—
‘17A Right of appeal for support under section 17
(none) If the Secretary of State decides not to provide support to a person under section 17, or not to continue to provide support to him or her under that section, the person may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.’”
This amendment would ensure there is a right of appeal against a decision by the Secretary of State to refuse or end support provided under section 17 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
Amendment 104, in clause 11, page 14, line 41, at end insert—
“(22B) Accommodation Centres, whether for supported asylum seekers or failed asylum seekers shall not allow for limitations upon a supported person’s right—
(a) to enter or to leave at any time;
(b) to receive visitors of their choice at any time; or
(c) to use communications equipment such as telephones, computers or video equipment.
(22C) Accommodation Centres shall provide supported persons with access to a complaints procedure and procedures for appealing any decisions that may restrict a supported person’s claim to freedoms not limited by their conditions of bail.
(22D) Persons supported in Accommodation Centres shall be informed of the conditions of their bail in writing, and shall be provided with means of identifying themselves are their place of residence.”
This amendment aims to distinguish Accommodation Centres from places of detention by introducing rights to persons supported at these Centres, and to require persons in Accommodation Centres to be informed of their bail conditions and provided with means of identifying themselves.
Amendment 130, in clause 11, page 15, line 1, leave out from “subsection” to end of line 2 and insert—
“(1) for ‘six months’ substitute ‘90 days’.”
Clause 11(8) currently amends the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to allow the Secretary of State to increase the maximum length of time someone can be accommodated in an accommodation centre from the existing limit of six months. This amendment would remove that power and instead reduce the maximum stay to ninety days.
Amendment 16, in clause 11, page 15, line 1, leave out subsection (8).
This amendment would prevent asylum seekers from being housed in accommodation centres for longer than nine months.
Amendment 17, in clause 11, page 15, line 2, at end insert—
“(8A) The Secretary of State must lay a report before Parliament each year setting out—
(a) the numbers of asylum seekers in different types of accommodation; and
(b) the steps the Government is taking to maximise the number of asylum seekers in dispersed community accommodation, including provision of financial support to local authorities.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the accommodation provided to asylum seekers.
Amendment 101, in clause 11, page 15, line 2, at end insert—
“(8A) In section 25 of that Act (length of stay in accommodation centre), in subsection (1), for ‘six months’ substitute ‘90 days’.”
This amendment would reduce the maximum length of time someone can be accommodated in an accommodation centre to 90 days in most cases.
Amendment 102, in clause 11, page 15, line 4, at end insert—
“(10) In section 38 of that Act (Local authority), after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State may not make arrangements under section 16 for the provision of premises within the boundary of a local authority unless consent has been given by that local authority.’”
This would amend section 38 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to prevent the Government from opening an accommodation centre within a particular local authority without the prior consent of that local authority.
Amendment 103, in clause 11, page 15, line 4, at end insert—
“(10) Leave out section 36 of that Act (Education: general).”
Section 36 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 prevents most children accommodated in accommodation centres from attending state schools. This amendment would remove that restriction.
Amendment 160, in clause 11, page 15, line 4, at end insert—
“(10) Before this section comes into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the implications of this section for local authorities, the Scottish Government, the Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive, and the report must be approved by a substantive vote in both Houses.
(11) A report under subsection (10) must include the following information—
(a) an assessment of the financial implications for the bodies listed in subsection (10);
(b) an assessment of the functions and powers of those bodies that will be affected by this section;
(c) details of any consultation and engagement with those bodies, and the outcome of such engagement and consultation;
(d) the Secretary of State’s findings, conclusions and proposed actions.”
This amendment would require the Government to report on the implications of clause 11 for local authorities and the devolved administrations, and to obtain Parliamentary approval for such a report, before the clause enters into force.
Clause stand part.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is good to see you in the Chair again, Sir Roger. I rise to speak in support of amendment 98 and the other amendments in this group, but against the clause standing part of the Bill.
Clause 11 brings us to the question of how we accommodate asylum seekers, including, of course, the Uyghur, the persecuted Christian and the Syrian I keep referring to. Precisely how they are accommodated can have a profound impact on them. When I had the pleasure to be co-opted on to the Public Accounts Committee for a day back in October 2020 for an evidence session with the permanent secretary of the Home Office, I asked him whether there was a commitment at the Home Office to return to a reliance on community dispersal and a target to end hotel use by a certain date, and to end the use of military barracks as detention centres. He responded:
“There is not a target date, but we are obviously keen to do those things as soon as possible. Both those measures—the use of hotels and the use of other assets owned by the Government, including by the Ministry of Defence—are temporary, to take account of the surge in demand.”
He went on to outline various measures through which that would happen, including faster decisions and fairer distribution models. When he came before the Home Affairs Committee recently, he maintained that that was still the Department’s intention.
It would be reassuring to hear from the Minister today that he and the Secretary of State intend to commit to that model and that goal. Community dispersal is definitely the best system, although I accept that its current operation is far from ideal, as reports from the Home Affairs Committee have made clear. The system gives local authorities immense responsibilities, but few powers and even less by way of resources with which to fulfil those responsibilities. At the same time, significant problems with inappropriate and poor-quality accommodation have been identified.
We need a Bill that addresses those challenges. If this Bill did so, it would undoubtedly expand the capacity in dispersed accommodation. If it did that, the Bill would have our support and I would stop defending councils that did not participate in dispersal. To that end, amendment 17 calls for the Secretary of State to report each year on the types of institution in which asylum seekers are being housed and the steps that are being taken towards realising the goal of maximising the use of dispersal accommodation, including the financial support being offered to councils. Surely the Minister cannot find anything objectionable in that, if maximising the use of dispersal accommodation is genuinely the Government’s goal.
The problem is that the Bill tends to suggest, as does a lot of other evidence, that the Government are not pursuing that goal and are more interested in taking a different route. The Minister has to explain why this clause exists if the Government want to opt for dispersal accommodation as their central goal. The available evidence tells us that large-scale institutional accommodation centres are, by a distance, a disastrous alternative. That is putting it far too nicely when it comes to what happened at Napier Barracks, and yet correspondence from the Home Secretary to the chair of the Home Affairs Committee, and the explanatory memorandum to the special development order that extended Napier’s use, expressly suggests that Napier is supposed to be treated as a model or a pilot for the accommodation centres that feature in the Bill.
That is a truly terrifying path to go down, as the totally inappropriate nature of Napier Barracks is well documented in numerous reports and the High Court judgment, which was described as finding that
“the arrangements and conditions in which asylum seekers were held, posed significant risks that their physical and mental health would be harmed.”
According to the findings, Napier Barracks was overcrowded and felt like a prison. For residents, the environment was reminiscent of previous experiences of detention in places where they were tortured. Dormitory accommodation meant there was no privacy or quiet, and sleep was interrupted repeatedly. Cleaning was poor, and the inadequate shower facilities were frequently broken, unusable, dirty or unsanitary. They were also communal, which was particularly difficult for those with visible scarring from torture.
The all-party parliamentary group on immigration detention has highlighted extensive testimony that backs up the judgment of the High Court. The group has identified problems with poor Home Office identification and safeguarding of vulnerable people, and repeated instances of self-harm and attempted suicide on site —in short,
“profoundly negative impacts…on the mental health of residents, many of whom were already vulnerable.”
That all shows precisely why we should not go down this route, and why this clause should not stand part of the Bill.
Most of the remaining amendments in this group challenge the Minister to outline more about what the Home Office has in mind on how these centres will look and operate. Amendment 98 poses a question to the Minister. Can he tell us who will be placed in these accommodation centres? Will it be women and children? Will it be people with physical disabilities? Will it be individuals who are suspected to be survivors of modern slavery or trafficking? Will it be survivors of torture? Will it be LGBT people?
A Home Office policy document suggests that such groups should not be accommodated at Napier, so I hope it will not be difficult for the Government to agree to such an amendment. However, there is a challenge; as I alluded to earlier, there have been multiple examples of where that policy does not appear to have been appropriately adhered to, and we require reassurance that that will be done properly.
Tom Pursglove
I hope I can provide the hon. Gentleman with some clarification at this early juncture. We have no intention to accommodate children in accommodation centres. More broadly, decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, as set out in policy, in relation to other individuals. I hope that gives him the assurance he seeks.
Stuart C. McDonald
It gives me reassurance that children will not be housed in such accommodation, and I think all hon. Members will welcome that. However, we are again being asked, essentially, to legislate blind. As parliamentarians, we are repeatedly told that all sorts of important information will be set out in guidance and in immigration rules, but before we give the Government the power to go ahead, we must least be told what they intend to put in that guidance and those immigration rules.
All sorts of other questions that I have asked—about people with physical or mental health problems, and survivors of modern slavery and trafficking—have yet to be answered. How soon do the Government want to put these people in such accommodation? I want to hear the answers before the Committee is asked to vote on whether the Bill should contain the protection that we propose.
Amendment 103—it is probably redundant in light of the Minister’s welcome reassurance—enables us to ask how, if there were to be children in accommodation centres, those children would be educated. Section 36 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 means that most children in such centres cannot attend state schools. This amendment would remove that restriction, but I am pleased to hear that that question will not arise.
Neil Coyle
The Minister said that it was not the Government’s intention, which does not necessarily mean it will not happen. It was not the Government’s intention to put people in unsafe accommodation, as happened with Napier, or to put people at risk in accommodation in my constituency, where there was an inevitable covid outbreak. Perhaps the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East is generous and I am cynical, but I would like something clearer than an intention from the guidance.
Stewart Malcolm McDonald
Perhaps I am not generous so much as realistic; given my form so far, I suspect I will not be able to win any votes in this place, so I will have to settle for what I can get, which is ministerial assurance. The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. As we know from our debates on nationality law and registration fees, Parliament’s intention in 1981 was for fees to be a certain price, but that intention has gone out the window because the Home Office was given the power to do something different, which it did. The intentions of the current Government and Minister are good, but that does not mean that we should not ask for these things to be in the Bill. Who knows what another Minister or Secretary of State might want to do in five, 10 or 20 years’ time?
Tom Pursglove
I would like to confirm that that is not relevant, as we are not proposing to accommodate anyone under section 17.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful, because that clarifies the issue. Amendment 104 is in the name of our Labour colleagues, but it has our full support. It makes the point that it is essential that accommodation centres are not de facto detention centres or prisons, in the way that Napier has been, with basic liberties and freedoms more theoretical than real. It raises a crucial question about how we can ensure that such places have accountability and oversight.
The Government will be using sections of the 2002 Act that are not yet in force to implement many of their policy goals, but there is still dubiety about precisely which ones. Section 33 of the Act would have created advisory groups for each accommodation centre, with powers to hear complaints from residents and report to the Home Office. Is that section to be commenced? If not, what alternatives do the Government propose to ensure that such centres are subject to appropriate oversight? I will leave it to the shadow Minister to flesh out that point.
Amendments 102 and 160 take us back to how the Home Office engages—or, rather, does not engage—with other tiers of Government. The Minister was perhaps asleep at the wheel earlier, because his answer was short on detail about engagement with local authorities, and in particular, the devolved Administrations. I accept that asylum is reserved, but these institutions touch on all sorts of powers and services that are the remit of devolved Governments and Parliaments or local authorities, including planning policy and the provision of health, social or other welfare services and education services. In particular, consistent with our championing of local government autonomy and the idea that local government should be seen as a partner rather than an assistant of the Home Office, amendment 102 demands that these centres not be built in a local authority’s territory without consent from that local authority.
The way in which local councils were treated in relation to both Napier and Penally was disgraceful. The Home Office did not even consult Folkestone & Hythe District Council and Kent County Council about the extension of planning permission at Napier because, it said, of urgency, and yet as the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee notes, it must have known for at least 12 months that planning permission would have expired. It had 12 months in which to carry out consultation, but that was still the excuse.
As I said at the outset, we pose all these questions with a view to ascertaining what precisely the Government intend and why there are not greater constraints in the Bill, but ultimately we believe that this is not the right direction of travel. We support community dispersal—improving that system, making it work better, and involving more councils. We hope that the Government come back to that view and make that system work instead.
Bambos Charalambous
I will speak to the three amendments that are in my name and the names of others, but I will start by speaking to amendment 104.
No one on this Committee can fail to have seen the extremely worrying track record of the Government when it comes to accommodation for asylum seekers. The appalling headlines in connection with Napier Barracks cannot have failed to reach anyone who takes any sort of interest in the news. We are deeply concerned, therefore, that in clause 11 there are provisions for creating asylum accommodation centres. The clause suggests a possible wide-scale replication of the type of accommodation seen at Napier Barracks. That is because clause 11 gives the Government powers to house different groups of asylum seekers in undefined accommodation centres. It seems that these centres will involve congregated living in hostel-type accommodation, which has been shown to be unsuitable to house people in the asylum system for long periods. Such a move away from housing in the community is likely to impede integration prospects and will make access to needed support and services more difficult.
Clause 11 also creates new powers to provide different types of housing—namely, accommodation centres—for those at different stages of their asylum claim, including those with “inadmissible” asylum claims. The rationale given in the explanatory notes to the Bill is that that will
“increase efficiencies within the system and increase compliance”,
although again no evidence is given to support that claim.
The term “accommodation centre” is not clearly defined, although the implication is that it will mean that more people seeking asylum will be living in large-scale congregated settings. It is important to state clearly that this represents a wholescale move away from the current dispersal system, whereby people live in homes in the community across the country.
There is therefore a clear indication that the Government are seeking to replicate the kind of inhumane accommodation that we have seen at Napier. As I will set out, this prison-like, isolated and dystopian accommodation provides an extremely poor environment for engaging with asylum claims. There is strong evidence that such accommodation is likely to retraumatise extremely vulnerable people and hinder future integration.
The Government may seek to deny that a punitive approach is part of their agenda, but such a denial would not tally with the actions of the Home Secretary in August, when she visited the notorious reception centre on the Greek island of Samos; campaigners have described it as “prison-like” and “inhumane”. It is shocking that, having visited the Greek reception centres in the summer, the Home Secretary appears to wish to emulate the system whereby more than 7,500 refugees, including 1,700 children, are being detained in refugee camps in unsanitary and inhumane conditions.
However, the evidence that that is indeed the intention seems clear, because in August the Home Secretary also published a prior information notice for the procurement of new accommodation centres, with initial submissions invited by the end of September 2021. The details of the tender are subject to commercial confidentiality and therefore the details are known only to potential contractors who have signed non-disclosure agreements. What is public is that the contract is to be delivered in accordance with part 2 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and it is stated that it is for housing up to 8,000 people for periods of up to six months. The tender raises serious concerns about how that approach will interact with provisions set out in clause 11, given that contracts will be awarded before the Bill receives Royal Assent. There are also clear concerns about how accountability and standards can be maintained in asylum accommodation when there is no public access to these contracts.
It is also worth stating for the record that since April 2020, the Home Office has been using two large-scale accommodation centres for asylum-seeking men who have arrived in the UK by boat—Napier barracks in Kent, and the Penally camp in Wales, which is now closed. A report by the all-party parliamentary group on immigration detention noted that, although legally speaking, those are not detention centres, they none the less replicate
“many of the features found in detained settings—including visible security measures, shared living quarters, reduced levels of privacy, and isolation from the wider community”.
Our amendment would take away the detention element of those accommodation centres, as we feel that those de facto detention conditions are completely cruel and wholly inappropriate, and will hinder future integration.
Neil Coyle
It is not just the detention centres. The Government seem to have learned nothing from Napier. Most recently, they put 500 men in a 73-bed hostel in my constituency.
Bambos Charalambous
That is deeply concerning and shows that the Government have not learned any lessons from Napier.
Before I come to the specifics of the amendment, I will first set out exactly why the Government’s record on Napier barracks, alongside the provisions in clause 11, sets such alarm bells ringing. In doing so, I will demonstrate why the amendment is so necessary.
Organisations from the refugee sector that have worked with people held in Napier have identified and documented the following conditions:
“A pattern of spiralling mental health among people placed at Napier. Many people arrive already struggling with self-harm and/ or suicidal ideation, so this is a profoundly harmful context for them.
Chronic sleep deprivation among residents at Napier.
Conditions that are cold and dirty and afford no opportunity for privacy or social distancing.
An isolated and prison-like setting.
A total lack of mental health support onsite; very minimal healthcare onsite, and problems for residents in accessing healthcare in the community.
A sense among residents, in line with HMIP’s observation, of being trapped on site.
Profound vulnerabilities and histories of trauma among residents at Napier are not always obvious on the surface and can be difficult for individuals to disclose in general. Napier is then a very poor context for disclosure, as the prison-like setting is not conducive to building trust. We are therefore concerned that it is not possible to create a screening mechanism for Napier that would pick up all relevant vulnerabilities.
There is very little communication with residents about their asylum case.
Additionally, it is very difficult for individuals to access adequate legal advice, and they frequently go ahead with asylum interviews without having consulted a legal adviser. Virtually no one placed at Napier is able to access face to face meetings with legal advisers, and this seriously obstructs identification and disclosure of trauma.”
Residents of Napier and Penally who have given evidence to the APPG on immigration detention have described the Napier and Penally sites as feeling “prison-like”. Prison conditions have a traumatising effect on people who are already vulnerable as a result of previous experiences that have forced them to seek protection. Ministers must surely be aware that there are bound to be serious concerns about the potential use of such draconian accommodation centres for asylum-seeking men.
Tom Pursglove
I might be able to help the hon. Gentleman. The accommodation centres that we are proposing are not detention centres. Individuals can leave the centres at any time—they may have obtained accommodation with friends or family, for example.
Bambos Charalambous
I welcome the Minister’s comments, but it would have been helpful if that information had been provided beforehand, because we are still in the dark about what the accommodation centres will be like.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
While acknowledging the Minister’s point, Napier and Penally barracks may not have been detention centres, but a number of freedoms and rights were impeded at those sites, and that is why we need to press this point.
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She is absolutely right: even if rights are only restricted, that is not acceptable.
Neil Coyle
On a quick point of clarification, I said “500 men in a 73-bed hostel”, but that is certainly not what the Home Office has done in my constituency. They are 73-bed rooms.
The Minister has made a claim that is not the lived reality of the people the Home Office has placed in my constituency, including those 500 men. They have stewards, in effect, who have been telling those people not to leave hotel and hostel accommodation. They were not provided with interpreters; they were not provided with any means of accessing the internet; and the Government have prevented inspectors from going in, including Bishop Paul Butler and the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project, who were promised access to Napier barracks and other accommodation by Ministers. The Government have rescinded that commitment. Perhaps the Minister could tell us why bishops and others are being kept out? What are the Government trying to hide?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend is right about those conditions not being conducive to being able to make a claim with any confidence or certainty.
I was talking about asylum-seeking women. As we highlighted in the debate on clause 10, many such women are survivors of rape and other forms of gendered violence, and such large-scale accommodation is characterised by a lack of privacy. The APPG on immigration detention further notes that at Napier and Penally,
“The lack of private space was also forcing residents to hold sensitive discussions, for example with lawyers, within earshot of other residents and/or staff.”
For many asylum-seeking women who have experienced rape and other gender-based violence, disclosure of their previous experience can be very difficult as a result of the shame and stigma they feel. Accommodation centres lacking privacy is likely to have a specific impact on them, and make it particularly difficult for them to get their claims to protection recognised.
Coupled with that, the punitive detention-type elements of the centres as they are currently run are likely to be retraumatising. We are therefore deeply concerned that clause 11 seeks to expand inappropriate large-scale detention-style accommodation centres. In short, it seems like a way of actively inflicting increased harm on already vulnerable people. Our amendment seeks to ameliorate some of those centres’ worst aspects.
Given everything that has been outlined, it is hardly surprising that the High Court made a damning assessment of Napier barracks. Mr Justice Linden ruled on 3 June 2021 that the accommodation at Napier barracks was inadequate, in that it did not meet the minimum standards required by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Both the process for selecting people to be sent to Napier barracks and the process for monitoring its ongoing suitability while those people were there were flawed and unlawful, and from 15 January 2021, the residents were given an order to not leave the site until they were permitted to do so. The claimants were unlawfully detained, both under common law and the European convention on human rights.
Similarly, the independent chief inspector of borders and immigration and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons’ report on Napier and Penally raised a number of serious concerns about Napier, including, inter alia, the following: the screening of potential residents for physical and mental health problems was “wholly inadequate”, with all of those interviewed at Napier reporting feeling depressed and a third feeling suicidal, and extremely poor communication with the people accommodated at Napier. Again, we argue that our amendment is necessary to ensure safeguards that will prevent similar future judgments.
Of course, we know why the Government are taking a more draconian approach to asylum accommodation: it is part of the continuing hostile environment ethos that takes a punitive, negative stance on all matters relating to asylum. Their approach is also clearly fuelled by the misguided idea that taking such a punitive stance will act as a deterrent to those seeking asylum. However, as we stated in the debate on clause 10, there is no evidence that that is the case. Desperate people who are determined to make dangerous journeys will not be deterred when their lives are at stake. The idea that the kind of accommodation awaiting them at the other end has any bearing on people seeking refuge is laughable. People escaping for their lives are not weighing up accommodation in the same way that Ministers might weigh up the merits of a Hilton hotel versus a Travelodge. The idea that making accommodation punitive could in any sense act as a deterrent shows a fundamental misunderstanding of why refugees are prepared to risk their lives to find safety.
However, the kind of accommodation that awaits refugees can do extreme damage if it hinders integration and retraumatises vulnerable people. When the accommodation provided—as in the case of Napier—dehumanises people, puts them in danger of covid-19 and is found to be unlawful, that corrodes the values that make us a civilised society, undermines our reputation as a tolerant and welcoming nation, and gives the nod to some of the most undesirable attitudes that would seek to demonise those in need.
Neil Coyle
Does my hon. Friend share my concern about increased criminality by gangs targeting the accommodation to get people involved in criminal activity? That is a direct result of policy from the Department that is meant to oversee law and order.
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. These are vulnerable people, and they are subject to being exploited if appropriate measures are not taken to prevent that from happening. Having them all in one place allows criminals to prey on them.
I come on to the specifics of amendment 104. As I have set out, we have the gravest doubts about the clause. I find it disturbing. Our amendment seeks to ameliorate some of the worst aspects. I will set out each of its aims in more detail.
Presently, persons held in barracks and hotel accommodation are sometimes prevented from entering or leaving their place of accommodation at certain times and some places of accommodation prevent visitors from entering. The amendment addresses this inappropriately draconian situation by inserting proposed new section 22B into the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It would qualify that the measure—in new section 22A, which relates to accommodation provided under sections 95A and 98A of the 1999 Act—to allow for the provision of accommodation in an accommodation centre, must allow for persons to be supported to enter or leave the accommodation centre at any time.
Although some controls on entry may be required to prevent persons hostile to residents of accommodation centres from entering, we believe that those held in such centres should be allowed to invite their own visitors. They should also not be precluded from communication with the outside world. The amendment would therefore introduce the right for the supported person
“(b) to receive visitors of their choice at any time; or
(c) to use communications equipment such as telephones, computers or video equipment.”
People working with persons supported in accommodation centres report that some persons in accommodation centres are unaware of their conditions of bail and may not have been provided with the conditions of their bail in writing. That places them at risk of arrest and detention for unknowingly breaching those conditions, or being unable to evidence their identity. The amendment would therefore introduce the provision that persons supported in accommodation centres must be provided with a written document setting out any conditions of bail.
Where controls or restrictions on freedom of movement of supported persons or their visitors are in place, a process for submissions by way of a complaints procedure needs to be in place, and the amendment would introduce a complaints procedure relating to the conditions of the accommodation and a procedure for appealing any decisions that may restrict the person’s freedoms, which will not apply to their bail conditions.
As has been argued, legal action taken against the Government over the suitability of Napier barracks for certain vulnerable groups has shown that the existing system has failed to maintain appropriate safeguards. The possibly widespread expansion of the system that the clause seeks to implement is very alarming and should be deeply concerning to any Member of this House.
The move away from community-based housing is poorly defined. Accommodation centres will unquestionably lower living standards for those seeking asylum. That is not an accident—it is the very design of the Bill and the clause. By the same measure, they will impede integration and advance a more draconian, prison-like setting for asylum seekers, who are, by their very definition, already traumatised individuals. If we do not agree our amendment, asylum seekers will find themselves in cold, dirty, isolated conditions, with all but no support services.
Given the widespread denunciations of the Home Office’s decision to house asylum seekers in Napier barracks, not least by the High Court, it is remarkable that the Government now seek to replicate it elsewhere. It should be noted that Mr Justice Linden criticised what he called the “detention-like” setting for the men there. Our amendment seeks to take away the detention element of the accommodation centres. They are de facto detention centres with prison-like conditions, which are cruel, wholly inappropriate and damaging to the individuals concerned. They can do nothing but increase harm and stress on already marginalised and vulnerable people whom we are beholden to protect under our international treaty obligations.
To speak plainly, the Government have got the wrong end of the stick. Clause 11 helps no one. They will find themselves on the wrong side of history with their ever-more draconian and hostile approach to asylum accommodation and, unamended, this clause starkly highlights that point. Amendment 104 should be supported to rectify that situation and ensure safeguards for the future. It would be utterly shameful if the clause, as it stands, enabled a repetition of the appalling situation at Napier barracks.
Without amendment, clause 11 will undermine the UK’s duty to support and protect those making asylum claims. We believe that the current dispersal system, whereby people seeking asylum live in regular housing in the community, is much better for supporting future integration and ensuring that people seeking asylum are able to access services that they need. We would rather see safeguards in place than the kind of appalling situation seen at Napier.
Anne McLaughlin
We heard that the devolved Governments were prevented from taking part in the consultation because it took place during purdah in the run-up to their elections. However, Shona Robison MSP, the Cabinet Secretary for Social Justice, Housing and Local Government in the Scottish Government, wrote a comprehensive response last month, in which she stated:
“This Government is clear that people should be supported to integrate within our communities from day one of arrival in line with the key principle of our New Scots refugee integration strategy. We are committed to the principle of community based integration for refugees and people seeking asylum. The New Scots approach is not compatible with use of remote and institutionalised camps. Such asylum accommodation will also not fix the underlying issues causing shortages in the asylum estate, which include the fairness, quality and timeliness of the asylum application and decision process.”
The position of the Scottish Government is the complete opposite of that of the UK Government, but their hands are tied. We cannot do what we want to do in Scotland to support our asylum seekers. That cannot be right.
Shona Robison also said:
“The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration’s report highlighted significant issues”,
as we have heard,
“with the management of Napier Barracks and Penally, their suitability, safety and the impact this type of accommodation had on people living there. The report also raised concerns about contingency of healthcare if people are moved around the asylum estate. I would add to this contingency of legal representation, essential services and support networks, which must be considered.”
However, we are not talking only about barracks; there are many other types of accommodation that people had to live in. People were taken out of their homes where they were settled and put into Glasgow hostels and hotels last year. The Minister says things like, “This is not our intention.” I do not imagine that it was anyone’s intention for the men I met in the hostel close to where I live to be living in dirty accommodation, but they were, because they had nothing to clean up after themselves with. What most upset them the day I first met them was that they had nothing to clean their toilets with. They were living in tiny rooms, and if they did their washing in the tiny sink in what we will call the en suite—the toilet was in the room—they had to leave their wet clothes on the bed to dry off. I can tell hon. Members that, in Glasgow, that does not happen quickly; our temperatures are slightly different. They said that they could not keep the toilets clean and that there was no support. They were not looking for people to clean up after them, but because their access to finance had been taken from them, they could not even go and buy a toilet brush and bleach. It was a pretty awful situation.
There is also the so-called mother and baby unit that Mears has set up on behalf of the Home Office in Glasgow. I spoke to women who, without any notice, got a visit and were told, “Pack your bags. You and the baby”—or the bump; some were pregnant, some had just given birth—“are moving”. They were settled in communities among friends, they knew where the GP and the shops were and they knew how much things cost, but they were taken out of those communities at almost no notice. Many of them were told that they could take two carrier bags’ worth of goods and no more. These people had babies. I do not know anybody with a baby who can leave the house with fewer than two bags, but they were told by agents acting on behalf of the Government that they could take two carrier bags of stuff.
One of them said, “I was living in Pollok”, on the south side of Glasgow, “and was surrounded by wonderful neighbours. It was my baby’s first Christmas and all the neighbours had come round with Christmas presents.” That is why we want community dispersal. We want people to be part of a community. It benefits not just asylum seekers but everybody in the community—and that community certainly supported that woman and her baby. They took round Christmas presents, but then she was told to leave them behind because there was no room for them in the mother and baby unit. She was devastated because those presents were a symbol of acceptance and love from her community.
Tom Pursglove
May I repeat the point that I made earlier about the policy approach that we intend to adopt in accommodation centres, which is that children will not be accommodated in them?
Anne McLaughlin
I was really glad to hear the Minister say that, but then my cynical friend the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark pointed out that this is not about the intention but about making it crystal clear in the legislation—and perhaps the way to do that is to accept amendment 98. I hear what the Minister says, and yet still we have babies accommodated in a mother and baby unit. I have been fighting since January to get them out and have been told, “Okay, we will take them out of there.” There is a fantastic campaign called Freedom to Crawl, which points out that the rooms are so tiny that the development of these tiny babies—some of them becoming toddlers—is stifled because they do not have the freedom or the room to crawl. The Minister can tell me that they are not going to house children in those centres, but that is what is currently happening. If he thinks that is wrong, I would be glad to have his support to put an end to it.
Tom Pursglove
I am talking very specifically about accommodation centres in relation to the clause. If the hon. Lady writes to me with the specifics of the mother and baby unit in her local area, I will take that away and look at it.
Anne McLaughlin
I know that we have said “another letter” a number of times today, but I appreciate that offer. I understand that the Minister might not have heard of the unit because it is in Glasgow—although his predecessor might have known about it—but I would be happy for him to look at it.
Along with Alf Dubs—Lord Dubs—I co-chair the all-party parliamentary group on refugees. We recently held a meeting to look at types of accommodation centres. We had a guest, a former politician from Belarus, who told us a story about why such accommodation does not work. He had to leave Belarus for political reasons in 2017. He had no choice. He was in serious fear of his and his wife’s safety. He said, “I am very grateful for the help and support that I have had, and I appreciate Britain taking me in.” He was really appreciative and not complaining, but he said now that he is settled he wants to make this point as much as he can so that other people do not go through what he went through when he initially got here.
They arrived in London and were put in shared accommodation in a hostel called Barry House, a big house full of, as he described it, “people like ourselves” who were seeking asylum. The people who lived in the house were from different backgrounds and cultures with different ideas about lots of issues. He said the staff did their best to make it comfortable, but it was not really possible to be comfortable. During the six months he was there, every day started and ended with some sort of scandal or argument. He described it as a powder keg, and we can understand why, because many of those people had post-traumatic stress disorder, and many of them spoke different languages, so we can imagine how stressful that would be. He said, “We tried to keep ourselves to ourselves—I couldn’t always tell what the arguments were about”, but he could feel the stress coming off other people. He said it was difficult for the staff to look after so many people; one thing he mentioned was everyone’s different dietary requirements, due to a number of things, including culture. He said the staff tried their best to provide a neutral menu, which meant that nobody was happy, but of course they did not feel they could complain, because they were grateful that they were no longer in their previous situation.
We have talked about not housing people with disabilities in that kind of accommodation, as mentioned in amendment 98. This gentleman had diabetes and is also a wheelchair user, and he said his health suffered because of the diabetes and he could not get access to the type of food he needs to maintain his insulin levels. He talked about using the toilets and said there was a limited number he could use, and because there were so many people in there, sometimes he had to wait for hours to use the few toilets he was able to get access to. He said it was like daily torture just trying to use the toilet, and a shower became a luxury for him.
This gentleman needed a specialist bed because of his mobility problems, but of course he could not get one because the rooms were so tiny he could not get one in. He said to me, “I knew I couldn’t go home. It wasn’t possible to go home. I thought I was safe, but I began to have suicidal thoughts at the centre. My life was at risk in Belarus, but it felt like my life was just disappearing in the UK.”
At the time, this gentleman said the stress and pressure was just enormous and that, had it not been for the Refugee Council in England, which provided a psychologist who gave him the belief he could get through it, he would not have survived. He said, “It was really difficult. I was a politician at home. I had what was considered a high standing in society, and I came here and I felt like absolutely nobody.” He said he was not underplaying everybody else’s problems; everybody else had serious problems, and when they are housed in accommodation together, the problems multiply. As I said, he described it as a powder keg and said that everybody had had negative experiences and everybody was scared of different things. Somebody is scared of noises, somebody is scared of something they see—people are all frightened, and that is the legacy of what they have been through. If they are put all together, it is extremely difficult.
I am strongly opposed to that type of accommodation, and the sooner people can get into community dispersal, the better. I know the Minister said he would ensure that the accommodation was not detention—or he said it would not be detention—but my question is whether it will feel like it. In the so-called mother and baby unit in Glasgow, for a time they were not allowed to leave without asking permission, and when they came back they were not allowed a key to the door. They had to wait, standing outside with their babies, until somebody came to let them in, which could be quite a while.
It is well documented how bad detention is for people seeking asylum who have mental health issues, which must be most asylum seekers after what they have been through. A lot of good work has been done by Professor Cornelius Katona and the Helen Bamber Foundation on mental health and detention. I am sure the Minister will be aware of the reports they have done.
I visited Dungavel detention centre in Scotland when I was a Member of the Scottish Parliament. I went in there and I felt like a criminal. They took my fingerprints and they walked about with big bunches of keys. Obviously, I was only there for a visit and I knew I was getting out again. The problem with detention is the indefinite nature of it.
The Minister said it is not indefinite accommodation, and if they can arrange other accommodation themselves they can get out, but I want to share the story of a mother and son I visited. The son was 10 years old. They were in detention, but I cannot help wondering whether we are going to find children in these accommodation centres feeling the same. At the age of 10, he said to his mum, “Mum, let’s not do this anymore. Please can we just find a way to let us die.” That is a 10-year-old boy. He is not dead now; things changed and their lives got a whole lot better, although he is very much impacted by his experience there. I am offering anecdotal evidence not to back up my claim, but to illustrate the detailed research that demonstrates that that child is not an isolated case. I know the Minister is saying that the intention is not for children to be placed in such accommodation—and certainly not in detention—but I want a guarantee that no children will be housed in these circumstances. I am sure he will agree with me that nobody wants to put children through what that child went through.
Holly Lynch
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North East. I rise to speak in support of this group of amendments to clause 11, and I agree with a great number of the points that have already been made. I join colleagues in raising grave concerns about the direction in which the provision of asylum accommodation has moved in recent months, and I fear that the measures in clause 11 will only make matters worse.
I will focus my comments on the increased use of so-called contingency accommodation—specifically, Napier and Penally barracks—to outline why the amendments are necessary if we are to avoid the failures of those centres being repeated with the proposed accommodation centres. In my former role, and along with many colleagues, I sought to raise serious concerns about the rising use of dormitory-style accommodation. The justification for their use was the pressures of the pandemic and increased numbers in the asylum system. However, clause 11 allows the Government to extend that style of institutionalised accommodation through the introduction of new accommodation centres.
Following reports of bad practice, I wrote to the Government back in December 2020 to raise concerns about the situation in initial and contingency asylum accommodation, and I called on them to commission a review of covid safety in all establishments being used for asylum accommodation. Those concerns became a reality in January this year, when there was a significant outbreak of covid in Napier barracks, with nearly 200 cases. In March, the then independent chief inspector of borders and immigration and Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons published their key findings from site visits to Penally camp and Napier barracks in mid-February. They confirmed that, given the cramped communal conditions and unworkable cohorting at Napier, a large-scale outbreak was virtually inevitable. Distressingly, inspectors visiting the site were informed by residents that, at the time of inspection, the barracks were at their best.
I submitted a freedom of information request to various authorities, which brought about the release of the Kent and Medway clinical commissioning group’s infection prevention report that was carried out at Napier barracks. It confirmed that the site does not facilitate effective social distancing. Every line of the report was devastating. The ICIBI and HMIP also raised serious safeguarding concerns, stating:
“There was inadequate support for people who had self-harmed. People at high risk of self-harm were located in a decrepit...‘isolation block’”
that was considered “unfit for habitation.” A survey conducted by the inspectors at Napier barracks found that one in three residents had felt suicidal during their time there.
As hon. Members have said, the report’s findings were further supported by the High Court judgment in June, which found that the Government’s decision to house asylum seekers in such a way was unlawful. It concluded that the condition of the site was inadequate and that it was irrational to house people in dormitory-style accommodation, yet the accommodation remains open and houses over 200 people at any one time. It was deeply concerning that during a recent meeting of the Home Affairs Committee, Home Office officials were unable to confirm how many covid-19 cases there had been since the accommodation reopened in April, yet we know there was another outbreak in August. The Home Office’s continued lack of oversight and engagement at ground level gives me no hope that the Government have learned from their failures, yet they wish to extend and continue that type of accommodation with accommodation centres, as outlined in clause 11.
The ICIBI report on Napier and Penally found that the Home Office did not exercise adequate oversight at either site, where staff were rarely present. It said:
“There were fundamental failures of leadership and planning by the Home Office.”
That is damning, so can the Minister say what assurances we have that things will be any different or any better in accommodation centres? The ability to deliver safe and appropriate asylum accommodation is a duty of any Government, but that just has not been the case in recent months.
The investigation highlights that the advice of Public Health England and the fire authorities was not acted on and was ignored before the sites were opened. The pressures of the pandemic would have presented challenges to any Government having to find solutions to problems at pace. However, we know that the Home Office is planning to extend the use of Napier barracks until 2026. We will be using the breadth of Parliament to challenge that, but I return to the point that the direction of travel in clause 11 is bad. Amendments 100, 104 and 130 are an attempt to ensure that rights and safety obligations are upheld.
Tom Pursglove
We have had an extensive and wide-ranging debate covering a host of areas. I thank hon. Members for their contributions. I turn to amendments 16, 17, 98 to 104, 130 and 160.
Amendment 16 seeks to disapply a key part of the clause. As I set out, one of the clause’s aims is to enable wider flexibility so that individuals are supported in accommodation centres for as long as that form of housing and other on-site support and arrangements are appropriate for their individual circumstances. We need flexibility to increase the period of residence in a centre—the current maximum allowed by legislation is nine months—if experience shows it to be too short a period to provide consistent streamlined support. The amendment would prevent that. The Government take seriously our responsibilities to asylum seekers, and I reassure hon. Members that those accommodated in the centres will receive the necessary support to meet their essential living needs.
Stuart C. McDonald
Will the Government not at least consider a maximum time limit on the duration of stay?
Tom Pursglove
There have been references during the debate to detention. As I set out in an intervention previously, the accommodation centres are not detention. It is very important to establish that again. I want to make the point clear: anyone in one of those accommodation centres is able to leave at any time. It is important to re-establish that.
Neil Coyle
On the point about transparency and accountability in the centres and all accommodation used by the Home Office, will the Minister tell us whether the Bishop of Durham and other members of RAMP will be able to visit the centres? Perhaps the Minister will encourage them to be more open to visits by parliamentarians. Perhaps he will visit some of the accommodation used in Southwark, where people were told they should be moving and were not provided with interpreters, which has caused problems for them and for the wider community. Furthermore, covid outbreaks at hotel and hostel accommodation have put those people and the wider community at risk and placed the NHS under greater stress.
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have not been in post for long—for just over a month—and the accommodation element of the Government’s work on immigration does not fall directly within my brief. However, I want to visit Napier, to see the situation myself and to understand the nature of the accommodation, and my officials are in the process of organising that. I might have done it sooner had we not had the Bill Committee proceedings over the next few weeks. I assure hon. Gentleman that that is something I very much want and intend to do, and I will certainly do it.
On the bishop visiting, I am not aware of any restrictions that would prevent that from happening. I hate to do this to the hon. Gentleman again, but if he furnishes me with the details of issues that have arisen, I will gladly ensure that that is looked at. As far as I can see, there is no good reason why those sorts of external visits cannot take place, but I would appreciate a little more detail.
Paul Blomfield
May I push the Minister a little further on the issue? He has been at pains to say that the Government’s plan is not for the centres to be where people are detained. Will he therefore put on the record that people are free to come and go as they wish, and to receive visitors as they wish in the centres?
Tom Pursglove
As I have said repeatedly now, my understanding is that people are under no obligation to remain within the accommodation facilities if they do not wish to do so. Of course, one of the reasons why people may be in an accommodation centre is that they are destitute. In such circumstances, we want to ensure that appropriate accommodation is in place for them to be accommodated and properly cared for in the centres. That is the intention behind the policy.
It is worth saying something about future oversight of accommodation centres, which has been alluded to. We will establish advisory groups for each centre. The group will visit the site, hear complaints and report any findings to the Secretary of State. I value the input that the advisory groups will have. It is important that we are responsive to the issues that arise and that where improvements can be made, they are made.
Neil Coyle
On the point about section 33 of the 2002 Act—the advisory groups—will the Minister tell us why such groups have not been established at other existing centres? It is all very well to make a promise about the future, but that section has not been used for existing examples.
Tom Pursglove
There has been a very clear undertaking in Committee to establish those advisory groups, which is welcome. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that various transparency and accountability measures are in place for accommodation within our immigration system more broadly. That is right and proper but, again, where that can be enhanced and where we can bring greater transparency and improvement, we should do that. That is why I welcome the Government’s commitment with regard to oversight over the accommodation centres to ensure that there is regular engagement and that a clear channel is established through which to raise and take account of any issues.
Neil Coyle
Who, specifically, will be responsible for bringing forward the advisory group for each centre? Where do the responsibility and duty lie?
Tom Pursglove
We are getting into very granular detail, as we would expect. I will need to take further advice on that specific point, which I will make clear to the Committee. However, our commitment to establish those advisory groups stands; those groups will play an important role in the oversight of the accommodation that we propose to bring about through the measures in the Bill. I give way to the hon. Gentleman again.
Neil Coyle
The Minister may regret that. He is asking us to accept on good will that the advisory groups will exist in the future, but he cannot tell us who will set them up, who will be on them, or why they have not been used in the past, despite being in the 2002 Act.
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that the people who organise my diary have confirmed that I am set to visit Napier in the not-too-distant future. I have been able to be responsive to that point pretty quickly. I will make some progress on his other point, and I hope to be able to visit it very shortly to provide him with the clarification he requires before concluding my remarks. That is my undertaking to him: I will, for the Committee’s benefit, establish the mechanism that will enact our commitment.
Contrary to what amendment 17 seems to imply, it is not the Government’s intention to maximise the number of supported asylum seekers accommodated in flats and houses in the community. I understand that SNP Members take a different view on the matter, so I appreciate that that will come as a disappointment to them. However, it may be more suitable to house certain cohorts of asylum seekers in accommodation centres, and that is why we are setting them up. Where, for example, their protection claims are likely to be found inadmissible and they can quickly be removed to the appropriate third country, it is likely to be much more efficient to place them in an accommodation centre so that the practical arrangements for facilitating their departure, such as dealing with the necessary travel documentation, can take place at the site. That efficiency benefits the individuals as well as the overall asylum system.
One point that has been overlooked during the debate is that the Government’s whole intention around the policy we are seeking to establish is to deal with cases in a much quicker, speedier and—I would argue—more humane way. I think being able to give people certainty sooner is a good thing, and I would like to think that, whatever the outcome of individual cases, spending less time in any form of temporary accommodation can only be a good thing. It is important to recognise that the whole intention of the policy we are trying to develop is to get on with adjudicating on cases sooner.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is not the type of accommodation that has led waiting times to spiral out of control. Only three years ago, there was a regular six-month target time—that was all within the dispersal system as well. Putting folk in the accommodation centres has no real impact on decision times. On the contrary, the Minister will know that since January, when the inadmissibility procedures came into place, virtually nobody has ended up being removed. It has just added six months to the waiting time; it has not accelerated anything. It is just a six-month block—that is it—so I do not understand where he is coming from.
Tom Pursglove
In the context of the Bill and in the course of our debates, we will revisit the various challenges in our asylum system many times. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North made the point earlier that the system is broken, and there is a wide acceptance of that. Undoubtedly, that means that people are left in a state of uncertainty around their circumstances for longer than any of us in this House wish to see.
I can provide clarity to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark on his point about the duty to appoint the group. The answer is that section 33 of the 2002 Act requires the Secretary of State to establish advisory groups for accommodation centres. Napier has not been deemed an accommodation centre at the moment. It is contingency accommodation to manage the high demand for housing that we are undoubtably seeing as a result of the pressures in the system that are a direct consequence of the channel crossings. However, he has that certainty on that particular mechanism.
Holly Lynch
Given the merits of these advisory committees which the Minister has set out, and given that, in relation to Napier and Penally Barracks, the Home Office ignored advice from Public Health England in a pandemic, the weight that the advisory committee would carry really does matter. He said that Napier Barracks is still contingency accommodation rather than an accommodation centre. Would he consider setting up an advisory committee for Napier Barracks?
Tom Pursglove
I will certainly take away the hon. Lady’s suggestion and feed that through to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who shares responsibility for immigration with me at the Home Office.
Neil Coyle
At what point is a centre of accommodation such as Napier deemed an accommodation centre by the Home Office in order to get an advisory group set up? How long will Napier be used before it is acknowledged that it is an accommodation centre?
Tom Pursglove
I dispute that interpretation of the situation at Napier, because Napier does not have the same wrap-around services that we envisage for accommodation centres. For example, the accommodation centres that we will seek to deliver will have significant caseworking functions built within them. That is a marked difference to Napier. Again, I am visiting Napier in a few weeks’ time and I will be interested to hear from the people there and to talk to the officials managing the accommodation to listen to their experiences. As I have said, and I think this is an important point, there is always a need to reflect on the appropriateness of the provisions in place and on whether governance and oversight arrangements remain adequate. That is something that we keep under constant review. I note with interest the suggestions that have been alluded to, and I will happily feed them back more broadly at the Home Office.
I want to make some progress, because I am conscious that time is marching on. The numbers of asylum seekers in different types of accommodation—if that is of interest to parliamentarians—can be obtained through existing channels, such as correspondence or parliamentary questions, so an annual report setting this information out is unnecessary. Amendment 98 is also unnecessary because there are no plans to place those with children in accommodation centres, and all other cases will only be placed in a centre following an individual assessment that the centre is suitable for them and that they will be safe.
Whether or not groups with the characteristics listed in the amendment are suitable to be supported at a particular accommodation centre will depend on a number of factors. These include their personal circumstances and vulnerabilities, and the facilities available at the particular site or in the particular area. It is not sensible to rule out large cohorts of cases from ever being placed in an accommodated centre in any circumstance, especially if their asylum case is more likely to be resolved quickly in a centre, which of course is in their best interests. I re-emphasise that our intention remains to get to a place where cases are processed quicker than they are at the moment, and that is something that we all should welcome.
Stuart C. McDonald
Where is the evidence that doing this in accommodation centres speeds things up? We have had dispersal systems for years and on some recent occasions the waiting times have been absolutely outrageous, but a few years back they were perfectly acceptable. We can have fast decision making and we all support that, but that does not require these terrible accommodation centres to be set up.
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Member and I fundamentally disagree on this point. I think that there is value in having accommodation centres that provide accommodation but also ensure that caseworking facilities are available alongside. That aids in the processing of cases more quickly. That is a sensible step forward, and something that I endorse. I think it is the right thing to do in these circumstances.
Amendment 99 would also undermine a key objective that we are trying to achieve through setting up accommodation centres, which is to resolve asylum cases more quickly by putting casework and other services on site. This speaks to the point that I have been making; there is therefore no rationale for restricting the number of people who will benefit from these improvements to 100 individuals per site.
Additionally, there is no reason why unrelated asylum seekers cannot share sleeping quarters, provided that they are the same sex. This is already allowed for in the asylum accommodation system. Those in flats or houses, for example, may be required to share bedrooms. Some asylum seekers might require their own room—for example, the current policy provides that those receiving treatment from the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture should generally not share sleeping quarters with strangers—but that is because of their individual circumstances. I re-emphasise that appropriate decisions must be made on a case-by-case basis and, where circumstances require, appropriate arrangements should be made.
Amendment 100 seems to be based on a misunder-standing—I intervened on the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East on this point earlier. We are not proposing to accommodate anyone in the centres under the powers in section 17 of the 2002 Act. Asylum seekers will be accommodated in the centres under section 95 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, or section 98 of the 1999 Act, pending consideration of an application for section 95 support. If the application is refused, there will be a right of appeal in the normal way.
Amendments 101 and 130 are both similar in theme to amendment 16. I disagree that the normal period of residence in an accommodation centre should be no more than three months. It may be that a three month period is appropriate in some cases, either because of the individual circumstances of the asylum seeker or the nature of the facilities at the site. However, as I have explained, we need the flexibility to increase the period of residence in a centre if experience shows this period is too short to provide consistent, streamlined support.
Amendment 102 would effectively give local authorities a veto on any proposals to set up accommodation centres in their areas. That is not appropriate. It is right, of course, that local authorities are fully consulted about such proposals and their views about local impacts and other matters given considerable weight.
Anne McLaughlin
I agree that it is right that local authorities are consulted, so the Minister will forgive me for being a little cynical that that will happen. When asylum seekers were put into a hotel in Falkirk a couple of weeks ago, Falkirk Council knew absolutely nothing about it and were not able to support them. He will forgive me for being a bit cynical about that pledge.
Tom Pursglove
I think it is absolutely essential that there is an open dialogue with local authorities about any measures that are proposed in their areas, and that those local views are properly taken into consideration and reflected in the decisions that are reached. That is a commitment that we make, and is already a feature of the current system.
Neil Coyle
On that point, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East says she is a little cynical. I am afraid that I am a lot cynical. In Southwark’s example, the local authority was given absolutely no notice of a total of—I think—more than 700 asylum seekers being placed in hotel and hostel accommodation. That was just in my constituency. There were others in other parts of Southwark. When I asked the Home Office what resources were being allocated to local authorities to ensure that they could manage such a significant number, it replied that it had provided some small resource to the clinical commissioning group.
Tom Pursglove
I take on board the point that the hon. Gentleman raises. However, as a general principle, I think it is right and proper—as I think all Members of this House would expect—for local authorities to be properly consulted.
Mr Goodwill
Let me reassure the Minister that when the Afghans came to Scarborough recently, not only was the local authority fully engaged with the process, but the local community was too.
Tom Pursglove
The interesting thing is that my right hon. Friend’s experience in Yorkshire accords with the experience that I think the local authorities in Northamptonshire, where I am proud to be a constituency MP, have had.
There has been that consultation in relation to the Afghan scheme and the Government’s intentions around delivery of that important work. Although not required to do so by legislation, our accommodation providers consult local authorities on any proposals to use accommodation that has not previously been used to house supported asylum seekers. But it is not realistic to assume that that consultation will always result in agreement.
Amendment 103 is unnecessary because asylum seekers with children will not be placed in accommodation centres at any stage of the asylum process and unaccompanied children are supported by local authorities under different arrangements. Both groups of children will therefore be educated under normal arrangements in the same way as a British child. As we are not proposing to use the power in section 36 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, there is no need to amend it.
Amendment 104 is unnecessary also. Individuals supported in accommodation centres will be expected to live at the centre as a condition of their support and be subject to a range of other conditions attached to the provision of their support that are set out in writing—for example, that they respect other residents and do not commit antisocial behaviour. This is already part of the normal process and applies whatever accommodation is provided to supported asylum seekers.
Those accommodated in the centres will also be able to receive visitors, to use communications equipment such as telephones or computers and to leave the site for personal reasons or because they have found alternative accommodation. I hope that that gives the hon. Member for Sheffield Central the reassurance that he sought. It builds on the earlier point that I made about the fact that people would be able to leave if that was what they wanted to do.
There is already a complaints procedure administered by Migrant Help, a voluntary sector organisation that also provides advice on individuals’ entitlements and how the immigration system works. Asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers are currently issued with written information about their bail conditions. They are also issued with an asylum registration card, which is used for identification purposes.
Amendment 160 is also unnecessary. Sections 40 to 42 of the 2002 Act already prevent the Government from making arrangements for the provision of accommodation centres in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales, unless they have consulted Ministers in the devolved Administrations. That consultation would include discussion of any financial or other impacts of introducing accommodation centres.
There are a few points that I have picked up in my main remarks but about which I want to say a few words in response to the questions that were put. In relation to Napier specifically, there have been extensive improvements to Napier since the High Court judgment. For example, all residents are offered a covid vaccination. Free travel is in place for them to get to medical appointments. There is a commitment to the availability of sports and recreation. A programme of works to improve the infrastructure is under way; that is along with weekly meetings to identify and act on any concerns that arise. Again, it is important to be responsive to issues that arise and to ensure that improvements are put in place. What I have referred to demonstrates that some of the issues that were raised previously have been taken very seriously and improvements have been made.
The judgment on Napier was reached on the basis of the conditions on the site prior to the significant improvement works that have taken place. The High Court did not make any findings that accommodation centres were not suitable for providing support.
Generally speaking, in the course of the debate on clause 11, we have talked about the difference that we hope accommodation centres will provide. I just want to restate the policy, which is to increase accommodation capacity, to try to get away from using hotels, which has been very, very challenging—I think everybody would accept that—and to achieve casework efficiency, for the reasons that I have previously set out. We think that co-locating services will be helpful in that regard, to try to process cases more quickly and try to give people the certainty that they are seeking. That is particularly beneficial to genuine refugees. Our policy is grounded in that basis.
A question was also asked about conditions in hotels and full-board centres. Full support is provided to meet essential needs, which includes food, toiletries and the means to communicate. Also, asylum seekers in full-board accommodation have access to legal aid, which pays for reasonable travel costs to see their solicitors.
Holly Lynch
Could the Minister update Members about how many people have been returned to safe third countries since those legal changes came into effect?
Tom Pursglove
I am afraid that I do not have those figures to hand, but I will take that request away—very gladly—and I will share that information with the Committee when I have it.
Clause 11 amends section 25 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, so that these periods of time may be changed, by order, to allow for longer or shorter periods. The clause will also provide the flexibility to ensure that individuals remain in accommodation centres for as long as that form of housing and the other support and arrangements on site are appropriate to their circumstances. I encourage the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to withdraw his amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
On this occasion, I certainly cannot complain that I have not had answers; I may absolutely despair about what those answers were, but the Minister has certainly provided the information.
I am genuinely sad that covid and the stress that it has put on the dispersal system means that the Home Office now appears to be abandoning that system altogether when it has not been justified that that is the correct option. I very much fear that in a few years’ time this will come back to cause the Government problems; more importantly, it will be devastating for lots of people who will be placed in this accommodation.
However, I have the answers, so I do not need to press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 104, in clause 11, page 14, line 41, at end insert—
“(22B) Accommodation Centres, whether for supported asylum seekers or failed asylum seekers shall not allow for limitations upon a supported person’s right—
(a) to enter or to leave at any time;
(b) to receive visitors of their choice at any time; or
(c) to use communications equipment such as telephones, computers or video equipment.
(22C) Accommodation Centres shall provide supported persons with access to a complaints procedure and procedures for appealing any decisions that may restrict a supported person’s claim to freedoms not limited by their conditions of bail.
(22D) Persons supported in Accommodation Centres shall be informed of the conditions of their bail in writing, and shall be provided with means of identifying themselves are their place of residence.”—(Bambos Charalambous.)
This amendment aims to distinguish Accommodation Centres from places of detention by introducing rights to persons supported at these Centres, and to require persons in Accommodation Centres to be informed of their bail conditions and provided with means of identifying themselves.
Nationality and Borders Bill (Ninth sitting)
Tuesday 26th October 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 October 2021 - (26 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Before we start, I ask Members to ensure that their electronic devices are either switched off or on silent. Members are encouraged to wear masks at all times, except when speaking, but I entirely accept that it is a matter of personal choice, and of necessity in some cases. I understand from the usual channels that we might sit past 5 o’clock. I put that on the record so that Members can adjust their diaries accordingly should that be necessary, although it may not be. The reason, as some Members might not understand, is that come 4 November at 5 o’clock, the guillotine comes down, which means that anything undebated in the Bill remains undebated in Committee, so it is necessary to pace the pitch backwards. We hope to get through all the work in a timely fashion, but we are putting down a marker. If Ms McDonagh is not available to take the Chair this evening, I shall. Hansard and the Doorkeepers have been informed as well.
Clause 14
Asylum claims by persons with connection to safe third State: inadmissibility
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 56, in clause 14, page 17, line 31, at end insert—
“(d) there are in law and practice—
(i) appropriate reception arrangements for asylum seekers;
(ii) sufficient protection against serious harm and violations of fundamental rights;
(iii) protection against refoulement;
(iv) access to fair and efficient state asylum procedures, or to a previously afforded refugee status or other protective status that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2-34 of the 1951 Convention;
(v) the legal right to remain during the state asylum procedure;
(vi) a grant of refugee status that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2-34 of the 1951 Convention for those found to be in need of international protection;
(e) it is safe for the particular claimant, taking into account their individual circumstances.”
This amendment modifies the definition of a “safe third State”.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 18, in clause 14, page 17, line 33, leave out “5” and insert “3”.
This amendment is consequential on a later amendment about the definition of “connection”.
Amendment 19, in clause 14, page 17, leave out lines 35 to 38.
This amendment removes subsection (6), which states that a claimant whose asylum claim has been denied by virtue of their connection to a particular safe third State may be removed to any other safe third State.
Amendment 20, in clause 14, page 17, line 40, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
In cases where it is unlikely to be possible to remove the claimant to a safe third State, or in other exceptional circumstances, this amendment would require otherwise inadmissible claims to be considered under the immigration rules.
Amendment 21, in clause 14, page 17, line 41, leave out line 41 to line 2 on page 18 and insert—
“(a) in the absence of a formal, legally binding and public readmission agreement between the United Kingdom and the State to which the person has a connection;
(b) as soon as the proposed State of readmission refuses to accept the person’s return or if the person’s readmission has not been agreed within three months of the registration of their asylum claim, whichever is sooner;
(c) if, taking into account the claimant’s personal circumstances, including the best interests of any children affected by the decision, it is more appropriate that the claim be considered in the United Kingdom;
(d) in such other cases as may be provided for in the immigration rules”.
This amendment broadens the circumstances in which the Secretary of State must consider an asylum application, despite a declaration of inadmissibility.
Amendment 22, in clause 14, page 18, line 13, leave out line 13 and insert—
“(a) has been granted refugee status or another protective status in the safe third state that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2 to 34 of the 1951 Convention”.
This amendment would strengthen the safeguards in place before a “connection” can be relied on for the purposes of inadmissibility.
Amendment 23, in clause 14, page 18, leave out lines 16 to 24.
This amendment changes the definition of a “connection” to a safe third State.
Amendment 24, in clause 14, page 18, leave out lines 35 to 37.
This amendment changes the definition of a “connection” to a safe third State.
Amendment 25, in clause 14, page 18, leave out lines 38 to 43 and insert—
“(6) For the purposes of this section, a “relevant claim” to a safe third State is a claim for refugee status or other protective status that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2 to 34 of the 1951 Convention.”
This amendment changes the definition of a “relevant claim” to a safe third State.
Amendment 26, in clause 14, page 18, line 46, at end insert—
“80D Conditions for implementation of section 80B
(1) The Secretary of State may not make a declaration under section 80B(1) in relation to any State unless there are in place reciprocal arrangements with that State by which—
(a) that State has agreed to receive from the United Kingdom a person with a connection to it; and
(b) the United Kingdom has agreed to receive from that State a person who has made an asylum claim in that State who has a connection to the United Kingdom.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1), any reciprocal arrangements must provide for the period within which a State is to receive a person from the United Kingdom; and any declaration made under section 80B(1) shall cease to apply if that period has passed and the person remains in the United Kingdom.
(3) The period to which subsection (2) refers must not be longer than 6 months from the date the asylum claim to which it relates is first made.
(4) Notwithstanding subsection (3), the passing of the period shall not prevent the transfer of a person from the United Kingdom to another State in which the person has a family member and to which the person wishes to be transferred.
(5) The Secretary of State may not make a declaration under section 80B(1) in relation to any person who—
(a) has a family member in the United Kingdom;
(b) has been lawfully resident in the United Kingdom;
(c) has worked for or with any United Kingdom Government body or other body carrying out work for or sponsored by the United Kingdom Government; or
(d) has a family member who has been lawfully resident in the United Kingdom or worked with or for such a body.
(6) In this section—
“a family member” means a child, grandchild, parent, grandparent, brother, sister, uncle, aunt, nephew or niece.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from rejecting asylum claims on the grounds that the claimant has a connection to a safe third State unless the UK has reciprocal arrangements with that State.
Clause stand part.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Roger. I will speak to amendment 56 and the other amendments in the group, and against the clause, as currently drafted, standing part of the Bill. The clause allows the Secretary of State to declare asylum claims inadmissible on the grounds that she considers the person has a connection to a safe third state. That brings us to another provision in the Bill in relation to which we allege profound inconsistencies with the refugee convention—no doubt those will have been discussed when the Minister met with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees last week.
That inconsistency is one of the reasons why we believe the clause should not stand part of the Bill. Another reason is that we already know it does not work, because a version of this scheme has been in place in the immigration rules since the start of the year. It is incumbent on the Minister to provide the evidence that the provision has achieved anything remotely along the lines of what was intended. From the information that I have seen, it has achieved nothing of the sort.
Those immigration rules were put in place because, with the end of the transition period, the applicability of the EU’s Dublin rules came to an end. That created a significant problem for the Government as they had no replacement agreement in place with the EU under which individuals who would more appropriately have their asylum claim processed elsewhere could have their case transferred there. The clause is not a replacement for Dublin, but a dreadful, one-sided, pale imitation of it, and it is incompatible with the refugee convention.
The Dublin regulations were far from perfect but, first, they included important safeguards that are totally absent from the Government’s scheme, and they contained some restrictions on the grounds for transfer, whereas here the connection can be flimsy indeed, including mere transmit. Secondly, the Dublin rules are two-way. People could be transferred here from the EU or could remain here if they had connections to the UK, such as family, that made it appropriate for asylum claims to be considered in this country. Under the rules that the Government are offering, it is one-way only. The absence of such provision means that, unlike Dublin, this is not about responsibility sharing; it is about responsibility offloading.
The UK is failing to live up to its international obligations and hoping that somebody else will pick up the slack. More often than not, that will be a country that already supports larger numbers of refugees and processes far more asylum claims, including France, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, Italy and Greece—all highlighted by the Home Secretary at Second Reading.
Thirdly, the Dublin rules represented an agreed framework between member nations. Other countries had actually agreed in principle to take people back. In contract, the scheme set out in the immigration rules and in this Bill, as it stands, is a Home Office pipe dream. There are no agreements with our neighbours to take back those whose claims have been deemed inadmissible. In essence, the Home Office is suspending consideration of asylum claims for six months, even with no realistic prospect of removing more than an handful of people to have their claims considered by other countries. It simply adds another six months of limbo to these people’s lives, at a time when there is already a massive waiting time.
The latest figures I have read showed that something like 4,500 asylum seekers had been subject to the inadmissibility procedures since they came into effect in January. I think seven had ultimately been found inadmissible, and nobody had been removed. Those figures will have changed since then, and I look forward to receiving the updated figures, but what a disaster that represents. Freedom of information requests have confirmed that thousands of cases, including hundreds of Eritreans, Syrians and Afghans, have been served with inadmissibility notices, even though the Home Office knows that, for all intents and purposes, it will not be possible to remove them to so-called connected safe third states.
This is a waste of officials’ time, adds six months to the backlog and adds to, rather than resolves, the problems with the UK asylum system. I would ask the Minister, in responding, if he has calculated how much money the Home Office has spent supporting and accommodating people declared inadmissible only for the Home Office then to start assessing their claims six months down the line. As it stands, clause 14 should not form part of the Bill.
The amendments in this group prompt the Government to think about safeguards that could enable the clause to be consistent with the refugee convention, including restrictions and reciprocity. Amendment 26 tries to do that in a comprehensive but succinct way, while the other amendments probe more deeply into certain aspects of the clause as drafted.
Amendment 26 would basically add a new clause into the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, alongside the Home Office clauses, to fix the failures highlighted. Subsections (1) to (3) would require that an arrangement is in place with the third country, so there is no mass service of inadmissibility notices on people who there is no prospect of removing. Subsection (1) would also address the absence of reciprocity by ensuring that the agreement is a reciprocal one, so the Home Secretary can operate an inadmissibility regime only in relation to countries that are able to send people here or transfer claims here as well. Thus, for example, people with a family connection to the UK are able to have their claims considered in this country, and other examples are given in the amendment. As it stands, people’s connections, such as with family—even their closest family members—as well as language, previous residence in the UK or working for UK entities, including the British Army, are all totally overlooked by the Government’s scheme.
The remaining amendments in this group probe in more detail how the Government will ensure various other vital protections are in place. They take into account the published legal opinion of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees on the concept of inadmissibility and some of the criticisms raised there. Amendment 56 seeks to ensure that the rights of asylum seekers will be fully protected in the country to which the Government are seeking to transfer the claim.
As it stands, the definition of a safe third state is really pretty pathetic. So long as your life and liberty are not at risk for a refugee convention reason and that some sort of asylum process is in existence, off you go. There could be an almost certain risk of human rights breaches, albeit falling short of a threat to life or liberty, and that would not matter. There could be a threat to life, but for a non-convention reason, and again it seems that it does not matter, and the country is still deemed safe.
The wording of the safe third state definition is troubling from all sorts of angles. For example, the clause states that a country is safe if “a person” can apply for refugee status and “a person” will not be removed in contravention of the convention, without specifically asking the question, “Will this individual that we want to declare inadmissible be at such a risk?” It is not robust enough either in what it requires for access to asylum and refugee procedures. It simply says that a person may apply and receive protection in accordance with unspecified principles of the convention.
As I read clause 14 just now, if I was at risk in a proposed country I had a connection to because of new autocratic rules or a ruler who decided they wanted capital punishment for people with red hair, it would still very likely meet the definition of a safe country, because my life would not be threatened for a convention reason—arguably, it could be a particular social group, but it is not clear—and if I had previously made a claim there and it had been refused, apparently I am connected enough to be required to go back there. If I am wrong about that, I look forward to the explanation of how that would apply in these particular circumstances.
Amendment 56 therefore surely sets out totally unobjectionable safeguards about which we can all agree, so that—not just on paper, but in practice—fundamental rights are going to be respected, there are appropriate reception arrangements for asylum seekers, there is access to fair and appropriate asylum procedures, and the full convention of refugees must be available if accepted as a refugee.
Amendment 19 again seeks information from Ministers about their intentions in relation to a new provision that allows them to deny an asylum claim on the basis of a connection to country A, but instead remove that person to country B, even when, it seems, there is no connection. I guess that is a foretaste of the debate we will have on clause 26, but this is an extraordinarily wide provision and it is not constrained by any assessment of the appropriateness or otherwise of the transfer in the circumstances of the individual person.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that any country that meets the Copenhagen criteria, by virtue of being either a member of the European Union or an accession country, would be, by definition, a safe country?
Stuart C. McDonald
It almost certainly would, and it would meet the criteria in the Bill. However, that is not really the issue, because, as drafted, the definition of “safe country” goes way beyond who would meet those criteria in the EU. That is what I am driving at. Again, we struggle to see how clause 14 can be justified and how it can possibly be said to be appropriate or consistent with the convention. As the UNHCR put it:
“This would be a significant break from…international practice”.
Amendment 20 would simply mean that if there is no reasonable likelihood of removal to a third country in a reasonable period or there are exceptional circumstances that mean that the Home Secretary should consider the claim, then she “must” do so. As it stands, she “may” do so, but she also may not. Surely it is odd to want to give the Secretary of State the power not to consider a claim when she has decided that
“the claim should be considered”.
The amendment should probably also have taken out the reference to “exceptional circumstances”. After all, if the unexceptional circumstances suggest that the claim should be decided here, where is the logic in not doing that?
Amendment 21 sets out circumstances in which claims should, on any reasonable view, be processed here rather than attempts made to move them elsewhere. In short, if there is not an agreement with a third country that will allow for the transfer of cases, the Home Office should just get on with considering it. If the third country refuses the transfer or does not reply in three months, the Home Office should, again, just get on with considering the case. And if in the circumstances, including the best interests of any children affected, it is better for the claim to be decided here, the Home Office should get on and do it.
Amendments 18 and 22 to 24 take us to the current definition of “connection” to be introduced into law by clause 14. Amendments 23 and 24 remove from the Bill two circumstances in which it is currently said that a connection is sufficient for the purpose of the inadmissibility regime. Amendment 24 would remove what is termed “condition 5”, which is so vague as to be almost incomprehensible and allows the Secretary of State to decide that a connection has been established in an almost unlimited number of scenarios. There is reference to “the claimant’s particular circumstances” but no explanation of what is meant by that.
Amendment 23 takes out “condition 2”, so that a connection can be provided only by proper and full-blown refugee status in accordance with the convention, and not a substandard or pale imitation of it. Amendment 22 puts the full-blown refugee status as a possible connection in the clause.
Amendment 25 is similarly motivated. In short, if the making of an asylum claim in another country is to establish the connection necessary for an inadmissibility declaration, it must be the case that the protection status offered in that other country to a refugee is fully compatible with the 1951 UN refugee convention. Again, it is absolutely not enough for a substandard asylum regime to be in place, and it would be outrageous for the UK Government to say otherwise and to be seen to be tolerating the watering down of refugee rights across the globe.
All these amendments provide ways to fix the flaws in the scheme. We could also have tabled other amendments to fix the inability of anyone to challenge inadmissibility decisions on any grounds. The Government say that this is all about deterring onward movements from France and other neighbours, but the clause is drafted in a way to allow removal to any old regime, regardless of how they treat asylum seekers and refugees. That is not remotely good enough, so the Minister must accept the flaws in the drafting and engage with the UNHCR on changing them.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I speak in support of the Scottish National party amendments and against clause 14 standing part. Once again, we are faced with a draconian, punitive clause that we the Opposition believe risks putting vulnerable people in danger and depriving them of the protection that they deserve under international law. I will begin by setting out what clause 14 does. Again, I thank the many sector organisations that have helped us to analyse the likely impacts of the clause.
Clause 14 puts in the Bill an existing immigration law on inadmissibility that makes any asylum claim inadmissible in a number of circumstances, including if the claimant has passed through a safe country or if they have a connection to a safe third country. The result of a finding of inadmissibility is that, unless the Secretary of State decides that there are exceptional circumstances, the claimant will be denied access to the United Kingdom’s asylum system for a “reasonable period”—currently defined as six months by Home Office policy—while the UK seeks to transfer them to “any other safe country”.
Before getting to the extremely problematic moral and legal aspects of clause 14, I want to draw hon. Members’ attention to the unworkable practical aspects of it. Members know that the current regime is unworkable even as it stands because the UK Government do not have returns agreements with European Union member states, namely the “safe third countries” that refugees are most likely to have passed through. With the huge backlog and delays currently in the system, it is truly impossible to understand how adding another six months to the asylum process will help an already dysfunctional system.
Any Member who is familiar with dealing with asylum cases will be only too familiar with cases that have dragged on for years and seemingly been lost in the system, and the many refusal cases that are overturned on appeal. The current system is not working and by adding extra time to it before a case can even begin suggests a huge increase in the processing backlog. As an ex-lawyer, I know that justice delayed is justice denied, and therefore I have grave reservations about the time stipulations in the clause.
To put the Government’s actions so far into greater context, it is worth noting that in the first six months after implementation of the inadmissibility provisions of the immigration rules—they are echoed in the statutory provisions we are currently considering—the asylum claims of more than 4,500 people were put on hold by the issuance of notices of potential inadmissibility. Incredibly, the UK sought to transfer only seven of those cases—seven out of 4,500. Surely that demonstrates that the concept of inadmissibility is deeply flawed, and that attempts to enforce it by statute, as currently envisaged in clause 14, are equally flawed.
To make matters even worse, the inadmissibility rules set out in clause 14 have a far broader reach than anything that has gone before. First, let us consider the clause’s reference to a “safe third country”. The clause creates a disturbingly low standard for when a state would be considered safe for a particular claimant. The criteria are that their
“life and liberty are not threatened there by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”
That state must be one from which “a person” will not be removed in breach of a non-refoulement obligation under the refugee convention or the European convention on human rights, and that “a person” may apply for refugee status there and, if recognised, receive protection in accordance with the refugee convention. According to clause 14, therefore, a country could still be considered safe even if the applicant had been, or perhaps continues to be, at real risk of being subjected to human rights violations in that country which either fall short of threats to life or liberty, or to which they were not exposed for reasons of a refugee convention ground.
Equally worrying is that, according to clause 14, although that safe state must be one in which in general a person “may” apply for refugee status and receive protection
“in accordance with the Refugee Convention” ,
it is not clear from the terms of the Bill that that possibility needs to be available to the particular applicant. Given the reference in the Bill to “a person”, it appears that it may be sufficient that, in general, there is the “possibility” of applying for refugee status in that state. That is hardly reassuring. In fact, it means that the supposed “safe” third country might not be at all safe for any particular individual. That surely makes a mockery of the term “safe” as commonly understood.
In addition, in order to be found to have a connection to a safe third state, the particular applicant need not have had a reasonable opportunity to access refugee status there. It is worth examining that in more detail. The terms of the clause imply that although the state would have to be one in which, in general, the possibility existed for a person to apply for refugee status, an individual claimant could be found to be inadmissible because they had received nothing more than protection against removal, in violation of the refugee convention or article 3 of the ECHR, or had made or had a reasonable opportunity to make a “relevant claim” for such protection in that state.
Furthermore, we need to look at the use of the term “connection” in clause 14. The clause makes it clear that the mere presence in a safe state where it would have been reasonable to expect the applicant to make a “relevant claim” would be sufficient to establish a “connection”. That in turn would be enough to trigger inadmissibility. Overall, the use of the term “connection” is nothing short of Orwellian. The framing of that term suggests that it could be an otherwise unelaborated connection—in other words, in the claimant’s particular circumstances, it would have been hypothetically reasonable for them to have gone to a given state to make such a claim, even if they had never been there.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I thank hon. Members for tabling their amendments. I have listened carefully to the arguments that they have put forward.
Amendments 18 to 26 and amendment 56 seek to amend the Bill provisions relating to the inadmissibility of asylum claimants with a connection to a safe third country. This Government are clear that people should seek asylum in the first safe country they reach rather than make dangerous journeys to the UK to claim asylum here. Inadmissibility is a longstanding process designed to prevent secondary movements across Europe, and these measures are being introduced to support that. The amendments seek to significantly weaken our ability to treat these individuals as inadmissible, and therefore weaken our ability to focus our resources on those most in need of our help. I make no apologies for prioritising the protection of the individuals most in need of help over those who could have claimed asylum elsewhere.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Will the Minister indicate where in international law there is a requirement on an individual to make such a claim in the first safe country they reach? Or is the UK seeking to impose its domestic law on the international community?
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that the Committee had an extensive debate about this issue last week in relation to earlier clauses. I would refer the hon. Member to the comments read out in the Committee from a previous Bill Committee under the last Labour Government, where the principles we are talking about here were very firmly established and endorsed. They have underpinned the approach that has been taken on these matters under successive Governments in this country, and we continue to believe that they are applicable.
I wholeheartedly agree with the importance of the UK continuing to meet its obligations under the refugee convention, including through the rights that we provide to refugees in the UK. I understand the spirit of amendment 56 in defining a safe third state in a way that ensures that an individual removed to that country is provided with adequate protection and their individual rights as a recognised refugee under the refugee convention. However, the definition of a safe third state as set out in clause 14 already ensures that the principles of the refugee convention should be met if we are to remove an individual to that country.
Stuart C. McDonald
The term “the principles of the refugee convention” is vague. What do the Government mean by that?
Tom Pursglove
As we have repeatedly made very clear during the passage of the clauses we have already debated, our obligations are being properly upheld through the provisions of this Bill. We believe that the Bill is fully compliant, and I maintain that that remains the case. The approach is not new; it has been part of our previous legislation on safe countries. We will only ever return inadmissible claimants to countries that are safe, so I do not agree that the amendment is necessary.
Neil Coyle
Defining what is safe is very important. It is not adequately set out in the Bill. Does the Minister believe that Afghanistan is a safe country?
Tom Pursglove
I refer the hon. Member to our earlier exchanges during the passage of the clauses we debated previously. In relation to Afghanistan, as that situation has evolved, the approach that we have taken has also evolved, and quite rightly so. No one is being returned to Afghanistan at the moment. That fully reflects the in-country situation in Afghanistan, of which we are incredibly mindful, as the hon. Member and people of this country would quite rightly expect.
Neil Coyle
The Home Office has published updated guidance that suggests that it is open to question as to whether there continues to be a situation of international or internal armed conflict in Afghanistan, and that should indiscriminate violence be taking place, it is only in some areas and to a far lesser extent following the Taliban takeover. Therefore, the Home Office is saying that Afghanistan is becoming safer because the Taliban are now in control. Does the Minister accept that position?
Tom Pursglove
I will repeat this point again: we are not returning individuals to Afghanistan at the present time. I believe that is the right decision and I believe it fully takes into account the circumstances within the country at the moment. That is an approach that Members across this House can support.
Mr Goodwill
Does the Minister agree that situations in different countries can change? I have a constituent who was granted asylum from Iran, but subsequently has gone on a package holiday to Turkey and visited his family in Iran. As far as he is concerned, the situation in Iran has obviously improved.
Tom Pursglove
It is of course the case that situations in countries change. That is why the approach we take is flexible and means that we keep under constant review the circumstances in individual countries. We then make judgments on the approach that we take in response.
Neil Coyle
The Government’s resettlement scheme for citizens of Afghanistan is not even open and they are paving the way for Afghanistan to be redetermined as a safe country. Based on the previous example, if an Afghan asylum seeker ever gets to come through the scheme in this country and then goes back to visit Pakistan to see relatives—probably in one of the refugee camps there—they may be deemed to be okay to go back to Afghanistan.
Tom Pursglove
I can only the refer the hon. Gentleman to the point that I have now made several times about Afghanistan.
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman says from a sedentary position that it is not a convincing argument. The bottom line is that we are not removing people to Afghanistan based on the current circumstances. I think that is the right approach.
The ability to return an individual declared inadmissible to any safe country, and not just the safe third country they have a connection to, has formed a part of our inadmissibility process since the changes to our immigration rules in December 2020. In seeking to remove that ability, amendment 19 would remove a provision that Parliament has already been provided an opportunity to scrutinise.
Stuart C. McDonald
We all know that there is no scrutiny with these things in any real sense, but that is not a justification for the change. On what possible grounds can a connection with a country A justify removal to country B? What is the point?
Tom Pursglove
Again, we have had extensive debates in Committee about the approach that the Government are seeking to take on these matters. We have to stop these dangerous, unacceptable crossings of the channel. We believe that the deterrent effect is very important.
Amendments 18 and 22 to 25, taken together, seek to narrow the meaning of whether we consider an individual to have a connection to a safe third country, and therefore whether it is appropriate to consider them inadmissible. If individuals have travelled via or have connections to safe countries where it is reasonable to expect them to have claimed asylum, they should do so, rather than making dangerous and unnecessary onward journeys to the UK.
We already have in place a well-established process, should it become clear that an individual cannot be returned to a safe country or if after a reasonable period no return agreement has been possible. Where that is the case, the individual’s asylum claim will be considered in the UK. The Bill provisions will not change that. Therefore, I do not agree that amendments 20 and 21 are required.
Agreements by a safe third country to accept an asylum seeker may not always be via a reciprocal arrangement. I believe it is right to also seek returns on a case-by-case basis where appropriate.
Neil Coyle
Will the Minister set out how many reciprocal arrangements we have at the moment? Will there be more detail in the Bill documents about what those arrangements might be?
Tom Pursglove
As I have said, there are case-by-case agreements that are reached in relation to returns. The Government are ambitious about the approach we want to take through the Bill. We want to try and forge fresh returns agreements with countries. The hon. Gentleman will note that this year we reached a returns agreement with Albania. That is a positive and welcome development. I will not give a running commentary on the negotiations we might be having with countries to forge returns agreements, and he would not expect me to do that.
Mr Goodwill
We certainly have a returns agreement with Nigeria, where we have biometric evidence that the person concerned is indeed the person who came to the UK. I know that because I signed it myself.
Tom Pursglove
It is fair to say that my right hon. Friend was a proactive Immigration Minister. That was a significant achievement during his tenure.
Neil Coyle
While we are celebrating this one reciprocal arrangement that can be used, and having trashed the Dublin Accord and all that it provided, can I just remind the Minister that Albania provided, in the last full year we have stats, the second highest number of successful asylum claims to the UK? The Albanian Foreign Minister has described the Government’s approach to negotiations on offshoring with Albania as “fake news”.
Tom Pursglove
As I said, I am not going to get into a running commentary about negotiations that the Government may or may not be having with individual countries. What I would say more generally on returns arrangements is that we are seeking to negotiate readmission arrangements with key EU member states. Where we do not have broad return agreements, we will seek returns on a case-by-case basis—a long-established process that we will continue to follow.
Mr Goodwill
I note the point made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, but is it not the case that Albania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey are in negotiation with the European Union, under article 49 of the 1992 Maastricht treaty? That means that they will have to meet the 1993 Copenhagen criteria on human rights, and respect for and protection of minorities. If they meet those criteria regarding accession to the EU, they must meet the criteria for returns.
Tom Pursglove
The simple reality is that we will not return people to countries where to do so would put them in danger, or where their rights would not be respected and upheld. That is a perfectly correct approach to take, and entirely in line with what people would expect.
Tom Pursglove
I will give way, but I am very conscious that I want to make some progress.
Stuart C. McDonald
I absolutely accept that that is the Minister’s intention. He is not going to remove people; he is going to do all he can not to remove people to unsafe countries. The problem is: what about the next Minister responsible for immigration? As drafted, this definition of safe third state allows his successor to remove somebody to a place where they are at risk of serious human rights abuses, albeit falling short of a threat to life and liberty—it could be torture or whatever else, just as long as it is not a convention ground. I accept that the Minister is going to do the right thing, but we need a Bill that has proper constraints on the next Minister to come along, and that is not clear.
Tom Pursglove
The provisions, as drafted, define safe countries as states where people would not be at risk of persecution or a breach of their article 3 ECHR rights. The provisions are considered and consistent with our obligations under the refugee convention. An individual will have an opportunity to raise specific ECHR claims against removal under schedule 3 provisions.
I am confident that the measures in place are appropriate and sufficiently robust. We know it may not always be appropriate to apply inadmissibility to all claimants. Any oral or written representations from a claimant about why inadmissibility processes should not be applied in their case, including any connections they may have to the UK, will be considered ahead of any removal to a safe third country. However, if an individual has family in the UK, there are family reunion routes available. These amendments should not be used to circumnavigate those provisions. For those reasons, I do not support the suggested addition of proposed new section 80D in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, under amendment 26, and I invite hon. Members not to press it to a Division.
Turning to the clause overall, an increasing number of people are risking their lives to get to the UK, using unseaworthy vessels, putting at risk not only their lives but those of the UK Border Force and rescue services. Those routes are often facilitated by criminal gangs, seeking to arrange those dangerous journeys for profit. We are determined to make the use of small boats to cross the channel an unviable option for reaching the UK. We are determined to send a clear signal that it is unacceptable for individuals to travel through multiple safe countries to then claim asylum in the UK.
To stop people risking their lives on those dangerous crossings, reduce the unsustainable pressure on the asylum system and protect those most in need, we must be clear that many of those coming to the UK by irregular means will not be admitted into our asylum system. Inadmissibility is a long-standing process, designed to prevent secondary movements across Europe, and these measures are being introduced to support that. People should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, rather than make dangerous journeys to the UK to claim asylum here.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
What consideration has the Minister given to the impact on the system of international protection for those fleeing conflict and persecution if the entire world adopted that principle, so that the responsibility only ever fell on the countries on the frontline of conflict and persecution?
Tom Pursglove
I have heard the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I would make the point that this country has and will continue to make a significant contribution to the global effort to tackle the challenges that we face around displacement. We would argue that that must be achieved through safe and legal routes. That is the cornerstone of our policy, and I think that is the right approach. We must render these dangerous channel crossings unviable.
Paul Blomfield
I thank the Minister for giving way again. I want to press the issue, because it is helpful to have an answer that reflects the question. The question did not ask him to reiterate his belief, but to articulate what the Government feel would be the consequences for the international protection system if every country adopted the same approach.
Tom Pursglove
The point that I would make is that we need to establish a clear principle that people should come to this country through safe and legal routes. We would argue that the best and most effective contribution that we can make as part of the global effort is to establish those safe and legal routes—there are many past and current examples. We think that is the right approach; we cannot in any way support or endorse people making dangerous and unacceptable crossings.
As a result, we strongly believe that the approach that we are taking in the Bill is right and builds on our proud traditions in this country of providing sanctuary to those who require it. That gets to the heart of the hon. Gentleman’s question. It is not about this country refusing to participate in the global effort, but about establishing clear expectations around how we intend to do that. We will continue to build on the proud traditions that we have in this country.
Neil Coyle
I am finding the Minister’s answers increasingly disappointing. Could he come back to the specific legal question from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate about article 33 of the refugee convention and the principle of non-refoulement?
Tom Pursglove
Again, I refer back to the point that has been raised, which is that we will not return individuals to countries where they would be unsafe as a consequence. Of course we would look at cases on an individual basis and at the concerns that have been raised. If there are concerns, it is important that they are properly taken into account. I am confident that the approach we are taking addresses that issue.
We know, however, that it may not always be appropriate to apply inadmissibility to all claimants. For example, we will not apply those procedures to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. The introduction of the clauses on inadmissibility aims to strengthen our position on inadmissibility, further disincentivise people from making those dangerous journeys, and encourage them to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. Those who fear persecution should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. Parliament has already had an opportunity to scrutinise the measures when they were placed in the immigration rules in December 2020.
Stuart C. McDonald
I just do not think that the significant legal questions that have been asked have been answered appropriately, and there are all sorts of questions about the safeguards around the description of a safe third state, so I want to press amendment 56 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Bambos Charalambous
I beg to move amendment 36, in clause 16, page 20, line 8, at end insert
“, subject to subsection (1A)”
This amendment is consequential to the amendment which would remove the ability to serve an evidence notice on certain categories of person.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 37, in clause 16, page 20, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may not serve an evidence notice on a person—
(a) who has made a protection claim or a human rights claim on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity;
(b) who was under 18 years of age at the time of their arrival in the United Kingdom;
(c) who has made a protection or human rights claim involving sexual or gender-based violence; or
(d) is a victim of modern slavery or trafficking.”
This amendment would remove the ability to serve an evidence notice on certain categories of person.
Amendment 153, in clause 16, page 20, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must not serve an evidence notice on a person—
(a) who has made a protection claim or a human rights claim on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics;
(b) who was under 18 years of age at the time of their arrival in the United Kingdom;
(c) who has made a protection or human rights claim on the basis of gender-based violence;
(d) who has experienced sexual violence;
(e) who is a victim of modern slavery or trafficking;
(f) who is suffering from a mental health condition or impairment;
(g) who has been a victim of torture;
(h) who is suffering from a serious physical disability;
(i) who is suffering from other serious physical health conditions or illnesses.”
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from serving an evidence notice on certain categories of people.
Bambos Charalambous
We are extremely worried about the implications of clause 16 and its possible effects on vulnerable people. We tabled these amendments because we wish to further understand the Government’s intention with regard to certain particularly vulnerable groups. We believe that the impact of this clause, if it remains unamended, will further retraumatise vulnerable people.
As the Committee will know, clause 16 provides for an evidence notice to be issued to a claimant requiring them to provide evidence in support of their claim before a specified date. If they fail to do so, the provision of evidence will be deemed to be “late” and the claimant will be required to provide a statement setting out their reasons for providing that evidence “late”. The consequence for not complying with the evidence notice without good reason is that a decision maker may give minimal weight to the evidence. Apart from potentially impacting on a claimant’s credibility, the late provision of evidence in respect of evidence notices, under clauses 16 and 17, and priority removal notices, under clauses 18 and 20, may prejudice the weighting that a decision maker may give to the evidence. As we will see later, clause 23 states:
“Unless there are good reasons why the evidence was provided late, the deciding authority must, in considering it, have regard to the principle that minimal weight should be given to the evidence.”
It is unclear what “minimal weight” or, indeed, a decision maker having “regard to” this principle would mean in practice.
We are therefore extremely concerned that this clause and the others alongside it may potentially compound discrimination faced by people with protected characteristics. It is well established that people with different traumatic experiences may find it more difficult to disclose on demand their experiences of persecution, especially if they lack effective access to legal advice. Indeed, the Government’s message about legal aid to PRN recipients is insufficient amid the broader gutting of legal aid for the immigration sector since the legal aid cuts in 2013. This on its own is reason to doubt that individuals are likely to receive adequate legal support in terms of submitting evidence.
The situation may be compounded for people with protected characteristics. For example, women who have experienced sexual and/or gender-based violence may find it particularly difficult to disclose information about their experiences. The Home Office itself acknowledges the particular difficulties that LGBTQI+ asylum seekers may have in substantiating their claim or providing full disclosure, including experiences of discrimination, hatred, violence and stigma.
The stipulation about late evidence in clause 16 also has profound implications for the victims of trafficking and modern-day slavery. Frontline anti-trafficking organisations have previously highlighted how lack of identification is compounded because victims of trafficking are often unaware that there is a system to protect people who have experienced exploitation. The Government’s own guidance on the national referral mechanism provides that
“Victims may not be aware that they are being trafficked or exploited, and may have consented to elements of their exploitation, or accepted their situation.”
It is highly concerning that an individual could potentially be punished for failing to give evidence on time, in that such late disclosure might affect the credibility and/or weighting given to their evidence, which in turn would adversely affect their chances of a protection or human rights claim succeeding. It is clear that this is likely to lead to compounding of the discrimination experienced by certain groups, and make it harder for them to make the best possible case for themselves.
The Chair
In his opening remarks the hon. Gentleman referred in some depth to clause 16 in addition to speaking to the amendment. I have no problem with that whatever, but I remind the Committee that you cannot have two bites of the cherry. In the light of the line that has been taken, I suggest that we treat this as a stand part debate as well. If anyone has anything to say, now is the chance.
Stuart C. McDonald
May I confirm, Sir Roger, that there are two groups of amendments to this clause?
Stuart C. McDonald
Thank you, Sir Roger. In relation to the first group, we fully support the shadow Minister and amendments 36 and 37, which would limit the range of applicants who might face those notices, including children survivors of trafficking and those who need protection because of gender-based violence or sexual orientation. Amendment 153 simply excludes a number of additional groups of people, including those suffering from mental ill health. The shadow Minister explained exactly why it can be very difficult to demand disclosure by certain deadlines from certain applicants. The same arguments apply in relation to our amendments. If we go down this route, there must be a recognition that disclosure of evidence for some can be an incredibly difficult process. How will that be taken into account?
Paul Blomfield
Taking account of your suggestion, Sir Roger, I wanted to make a few comments, although my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate made a substantial contribution. We need to pay close attention to this clause and those that follow it, because they cut across a basic principle of English and Scottish law: the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. Underlying the clauses is an assumption of disbelief—everybody is playing the system. Of course, there are people who do, but we do not design our justice system on that assumption, nor should we design the asylum system on that basis.
Instead, we should look at the practical application, because as I said when I spoke to clause 10, we need to understand the journeys taken by those seeking refuge in our country as they flee persecution and conflict, and understand the trauma that led them to uproot themselves from their homes and the trauma that they experience on their journeys. That should give the Government serious pause for thought.
Clauses 16, 17 and 23 prejudice the system against survivors of violence, including sexual and gender-based violence, and reduce access to refugee protection. Clause 16 permits the Home Secretary to serve an evidence notice on a person who has made a protection of human rights claim, forcing them to provide evidence before a specified date. That needs to be looked at in terms of the consequences set out in clause 23 diminishing the weight of their evidence. We are returning to a theme here, because this is in conflict with the Home Office’s own asylum policy, which recognises that there are many good reasons why women who have survived sexual and other gender-based violence would be late in applying for asylum or in submitting evidence.
Let me quote the Home Office’s policy:
“There may be a number of reasons why a claimant, or dependant, may be reluctant to disclose information, for example feelings of guilt, shame, and concerns about family ‘honour’, or fear of family members or traffickers, or having been conditioned or threatened by them…Those who have been sexually assaulted and or who have been victims of trafficking may suffer trauma that can impact on memory and the ability to recall information. The symptoms of this include persistent fear, a loss of self-confidence and self-esteem, difficulty in concentration, an attitude of self-blame, shame, a pervasive loss of control and memory loss or distortion.”
That policy—the policy of the Home Office—states that
“disclosure of gender-based violence at a later stage in the asylum process should not automatically count against their credibility.”
Yet that is precisely what the Government are trying to do in these clauses, in conflict with their own policy.
The Women for Refugee Women charity, which does extraordinary work supporting those fleeing gender-based violence, says:
“because there are so many legitimate reasons for why a woman who has survived gender-based violence may submit evidence late, we do not think there is a way in which these evidence notices can be implemented fairly in respect to these highly vulnerable individuals.”
Let me return to the Home Office’s own assessment of the proposals, which found that the Bill’s
“policies could indirectly disadvantage protected groups”,
such as
“children, disabled people and people who are vulnerable for reasons linked to other protected characteristics—including but not limited to gender reassignment, pregnancy and maternity, sexual orientation and sex.”
That disadvantage, which the Home Office has identified, to vulnerable people and victims of huge trauma and violence will be hardwired into our law by these clauses, so I urge the Government to withdraw them.
Neil Coyle
On a day like this, I really do regret giving up coffee. I remind Members of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and of my support for the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project.
I had not planned to speak but I was very disappointed with the first set of answers I received. The only reason our debating time is limited is that the Government set an artificial timeframe for a very controversial piece of legislation. Yesterday morning I visited an asylum hostel set up in Southwark without giving prior notice to the council or to local organisations that would be willing, and have the network, to support asylum seekers. In the course of my discussion with asylum seekers in my constituency, I asked what specific support they had received in making their applications. They said, “Nothing apart from an interpreter.” When I asked if they had been given access to legal aid, they said they did not know what it was. The Home Office officials and the charity present said that legal aid information had been included in their induction materials, which are in several languages, but nobody had bothered to explain to them in their first language what legal aid meant, and no one had pointed out how someone could get access to legal aid in Southwark. Members should bear in mind that some of them were being told, especially when they first arrived, that they should not leave the premises. Access is a crucial point.
If the Home Office actually bothered to get out of bed and talk to local authorities before making such impositions on local communities, it would find that there is a willingness to better co-ordinate support and to help. There are some brilliant organisations, such as the Southwark Law Centre and the Southwark Day Centre for Asylum Seekers, which are there, willing and able to support those asylum seekers—if the Home Office just bothered to communicate. Instead, we have a more expensive system, with duplication and the Home Office imposing new contracts, commissioning new services and ignoring networks and systems that are already there, at substantial cost to the taxpayer—something that the Government seem to ignore. That is the context of clause 16: people do not have access to sufficient support to make the best application possible at the first point.
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman accept, however, that there will be cases where the reason evidence is presented late is that the initial reason for an asylum claim was exposed as a complete pack of lies, and therefore the claimant, maybe following the advice of people who understand the system, casts around for another reason why he or she might want to make an asylum claim?
Neil Coyle
I think the right hon. Gentleman makes the point that I am making, which is that we need a fast, fair and effective system up front. If we had such a system, those bogus claims would be weeded out pretty early on, and we would not have a Government desiring to implement a new set of impositions on children who have gone through trauma. The Government’s own statistics show how many cases are actually proven and upheld, so he does an injustice when he suggests that there might be some volume to the level of the claims he described.
I want to come back to the point about legal advice. It is poor legal advice, in addition to trauma, and an inability, not through any deliberate purpose but just through a lack of understanding, that lead—I am trying to find my place.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I just want to support the incredibly powerful contribution that my hon. Friend is making, following our hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central. As we have heard, it is often those who have been subject to the most trauma and who are most deserving of sanctuary who will take the longest to disclose. Those are the people who will be really negatively impacted if we allow these provisions to go ahead.
Neil Coyle
My hon. Friend is not only right; she is also a jolly good egg for helping me out.
All too often with asylum-seeking children and young people, poor legal advice, in addition to trauma, can lead to an inadequately prepared case and the rejection of their claim—in the small number of cases that are rejected. Having a good solicitor can make all the difference in enabling young people to give instruction, and to anticipate a thorough and full asylum claim, which negates the need to present at later stages.
In the hostel I visited yesterday, I was told that there is a Home Office list of legal aid providers that can be used. It would be really helpful if the Government agreed to publish the list so that it could be expanded and improved. Other local organisations that do this—often on a pro bono basis but obviously with professionals—could provide the best advice up front, so that we do not end up with lengthy cases, with stuff added later that could have been added up front, and the individuals could then have the best support possible. I think we should be committed to having a first-class, up-front service.
I will give one example, provided by the Children’s Society, of a child who went through the process:
“My solicitor did nothing, it was horrible. They didn’t even prepare a witness statement for my interview. I had to do everything myself. I had my social worker but she didn’t know how to help me with my asylum case. The interviewer told me she had no information and that I had to tell her everything”.
Of course, we have had a decade of legal aid funding cuts, with many asylum-seeking children and young people struggling to access quality legal advice. The availability of high-quality legal advice under the legal aid contract or on a charitable basis is both patchy and frequently limited. We are very fortunate to have some excellent organisations in Southwark but I know that that is not the case across the country, where there is a dearth of legally aided advice for asylum seekers. That is the system that exists and that has been attacked for a decade because the failure to provide up-front support necessitates further stages. Clause 16 will make that worse.
Another example from the organisations that have briefed us is the fact that many asylum seekers change solicitor. That is not because they have hundreds of thousands of pounds in their pocket and are looking for a different lawyer who might get a better result but because of the process. It is because the Home Office has moved them and because they rely on free legal aid contracts. They do not have the funds to stick with one solicitor and visit them by train if they move from city to city as part of the accommodation process that the Home Office requires. The Home Office is not doing this because it is deliberately trying to upset the legal support but because it is moving people and takes too long to make decisions. If it committed to a timeframe to make decisions up front, perhaps we would be in a stronger position and would be more supportive of legislation that makes such demands, though I doubt it very much in this case.
Last week, I asked the Minister about the extension of legal aid and I did not get a particularly precise answer, if I may put it delicately. I also tabled a named-day question––I think it was 58412––to the Ministry of Justice because the equality impact assessment suggests that legal aid will be extended. I asked the Minister whether it would be and I did not get an answer last week. Nor is there a commitment to extended legal aid for these cases in the answer from the Ministry of Justice, so I am confused and surprised. There must be a cost attached to this. The Department must have some more information, which I hope the Minister can share today, on how this new extension for legal aid will be paid for, where exactly it sits and who is delivering it. Is the Home Office again going to seek to extend its empire and build new services and contracts rather than working better with the Ministry of Justice? Councils often get dumped on by the Home Office rather than being supported and worked with. They have contracts with legal aid solicitors and experts on the ground who could provide a valuable service that speeds things up and cuts costs for the Home Office, rather than having the Home Office suddenly impose a new contract. I hope that the Minister can shed some light on that.
I am concerned about the clause’s potential cost and damage to the UK’s reputation, and about the potential breach of Home Office duties. Hon. Members have already touched on this, so I shall just whizz through. The Secretary of State bears a duty
“to safeguard and promote the welfare of children”
under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. It is through section 55 that the spirit of the UK obligation to the best-interest principle set out in article 3 of the 1989 UN convention on the rights of the child in respect of asylum-seeking children has been translated into UK law.
The Home Office’s own casework guidance for assessing claims from asylum-seeking children makes it clear that decision makers are to take account of what it is reasonable to expect a child to know or relay
“in their given set of circumstances.”
That is crucial to the children we are discussing. It is inappropriate for authorities to question the credibility of a child’s claim if they omit information, bearing in mind the child’s age, maturity and other reasons that may have led to those omissions, which may be many, given the people we are talking about. The guidance sets out distinct factors that decision makers are to take into account, including age, maturity, the time of the event, the time of the interview, mental or emotional trauma experienced by the child, educational level––bearing in mind that many children will have had a fractured education––fear or mistrust of authorities given the experience many of them will have come through, and feelings of shame and painful memories, particularly those of a sexual nature.
Once again, we look set to have a Government, who have already been found to be acting unlawfully, failing to take into account the best interests of children. We have had that in the High Court. The Government want to spend hundreds more millions of pounds going through legal cases. Let us not do that. Let us get the system right and ensure that first-class legal aid and support are there for children at the soonest point rather than requiring them to fail because they do not understand the system and because no legal aid is there, and then punishing them for their failure, which is actually a state failure.
I have one more example from the Children’s Society—again, from a child:
“My first court hearing was horrible, my solicitor advised me to not answer every time anyone asks you any questions. However, when I got the refusal letter from the judge, it said it was because I hadn’t answered any of the questions. As soon as I changed solicitor, my solicitor told me to appeal, prepared an expert report and told me to speak in court this time round and finally my case was accepted.”
The Chair
Before I invite the Minister to respond, I need to clarify something. At the start of his remarks, the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark indicated that there had been a lack of time to consider the Bill. I cannot recall whether he was a member of the Programming Sub-Committee, which I chaired, but the programme motion was agreed by its members, from both sides of the House. The motion was then put to the whole Committee at the start of the first evidence session, and was again agreed without dispute. I am sure that no criticism of the Chair was intended, but I think it is necessary to clarify that.
Let me also make it absolutely plain that this Chair, and I am sure Ms McDonagh, is at the service of the Committee, as are the Officers of the House. It may be unpalatable, inconvenient or undesirable, but if it is necessary for the Committee to sit late into the evening, or even into the night, and that is what the Committee desires, then we are at your disposal. Clearly, we have to expedite the business, and believe me that this Chair, at least, understands the difference between a filibuster and a contribution, and I will say so, but no Member on either side of the Committee should feel constrained by time. We have an important job to do, and it is vital that we do it thoroughly. I hope that is absolutely clear.
Tom Pursglove
Thank you for that clarification, Sir Roger. I thank hon. Members for raising these important issues. I will start by addressing amendments 36 and 37.
We all recognise that young or particularly vulnerable claimants, sufferers of trauma such as sexual violence or ill treatment on account of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and survivors of modern slavery or trafficking need to be treated with care, dignity and sensitivity. It is important that they are able to fully participate in the asylum process so that, in the case of a genuine applicant, their claim for protection can be recognised and their status settled at the earliest opportunity. That is in the best interests of the claimant and the overall functioning of the asylum system.
At the same time, we recognise that it may be harder for some people to engage in the process. That may be because of their past experiences, a lack of trust in the authorities, or because of the sensitive and personal nature of their claim. That is why clauses 16, 17 and 23 provide for good reasons why evidence might be provided late. What constitutes “good reasons” has not been defined in the Bill, as that would limit the discretion and flexibility of decision makers to take factors into account on a case-by-case basis. It would be impractical to legislate for every case type where someone may have good reasons for not previously disclosing evidence in relation to their protection claim.
Good reasons may include objective factors such as practical difficulties in obtaining evidence. That may be where the evidence was not previously available or there was a lack of availability for an expert report. Good reasons may also include subjective factors, such as a claimant’s particular vulnerabilities relating to their age, sexual orientation, gender identity or mental health. Decision makers, including the judiciary, will be better placed to identify and assess those factors on an individual and case-by-case basis.
Rather than facilitate engagement in the process, amendments 36 and 37 would exclude claimants from it. They would artificially limit the circumstances in which the evidence notice would apply, favouring certain groups above others, who may have genuinely good reasons for providing late evidence. The amendment could create a perverse outcome, whereby it takes longer for the particulars of a genuine claim to be surfaced and to receive favourable consideration. Furthermore, this would create a situation in which unscrupulous claimants could cynically abuse the process by falsely claiming to be within one of those categories. That would tie the hands of decision makers, who are able to look at the facts of a case in detail and make an appropriate decision based on the facts before them. That would perpetuate the issues that the clauses are designed to address, to the detriment of genuine claimants.
Neil Coyle
I did point out earlier that 23% of these applications come from children. Is the Minister suggesting that they are making bogus claims and are cynical? Those are the words he is using. I urge him to distinguish more carefully between children and adults, and would make the case again that children should be exempt, specifically because of their age.
Tom Pursglove
I will develop my remarks a little further. I will come back to some of the points raised in the debate, but to start with I want to get through the rationale behind our thinking on the various amendments before the Committee.
Amendment 37 also fails to fully understand the remit of clause 16. The evidence notice applies solely to evidence in support of protection and human rights claims. The new slavery and trafficking information notice, covered in clause 46, will require a person to provide any information relevant to their status as a victim of modern slavery or trafficking.
On amendment 153, the Government take their responsibility towards those seeking international protection seriously. We recognise that particularly vulnerable claimants and survivors of modern slavery need to be treated with care, dignity and sensitivity. Individuals may be particularly vulnerable as a result of their age, their health, the experiences they have lived through or a range of other factors. It is because these factors can be so wide ranging that I am resisting this amendment.
Clause 16 and the new evidence notice will require those who make a protection or human rights claim to provide evidence in support of their claim before the date specified in the evidence notice. This clause works in parallel with clauses 17 and 23. Where evidence is provided late, claimants will be required to provide reasons for that. Where there are no good reasons for the late provision of evidence, this should result in damage to the claimant’s credibility, and decision makers must have regard to the principle that little weight should be given to that evidence.
By introducing a statutory requirement to provide evidence before a specified date, clause 16 will contribute to the swift resolution of protection and human rights claims, enabling decision makers to consider all the evidence up front and, where appropriate, grant leave. However, we recognise that it may be harder for some people to engage in the process. That may be as a result of trauma they have experienced, a lack of trust in the authorities, or because of the sensitive and personal nature of their claim. That is why clause 16, together with clauses 17 and 23, allows for good reasons why evidence might be provided late. As I say, what constitutes good reasons has not been defined in the Bill. It would be impractical to legislate for every case type where someone may have good reasons for not previously disclosing evidence in relation to their protection claim.
Stuart C. McDonald
Nobody is arguing for an exhaustive list, but if we are all agreed that these are examples of good reasons, why not include them as a non-exhaustive list, just to make sure that these people are protected?
Tom Pursglove
Of course, the situation will be set out clearly in guidance. We think that is the better approach, because it allows greater flexibility on the sorts of factors that might be relevant to the disclosure of late information, and obviously on matters that are relevant to individuals circumstances.
We tend to think that taking a less prescriptive approach than what the hon. Member is suggesting is the best way to address that, because we want to focus on individual cases and on ensuring proper consideration on a case-by-case basis, which is very difficult to capture in the circumstances being suggested here or by adopting the approach necessary to achieve that. That is why clause 16, together with clauses 17 and 23, allows for good reasons why evidence might be provided late.
As per the amendments directly commented on, rather than facilitate engagement in the process, amendment 153 would exclude claimants from it. This would have the perverse impact of some vulnerable claimants facing different evidential requirements simply because their particular vulnerability was not included in the list of exceptions. In addition, the amendment could create a situation where individuals who do not fall into one of the categories identified by the amendment were able to abuse the process by falsely claiming that they did. This would perpetuate the issues these clauses are designed to address to the detriment of genuine claimants, undermining their usefulness.
I am mindful that a number of detailed points were raised during the debate that I want to come to. The issue of deviation from the Home Office’s existing policy was raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central. I would not accept that depiction. I would say that the Home Office will have discretion over who is served an evidence notice and the extent to which credibility is damaged by late evidence. Where there are good reasons for late evidence, credibility will not be damaged. There is nothing automatic about this. Credibility is also not by itself determinative.
Building on that point, there are various safeguards in the clauses that mitigate a decision that could lead to removal in breach of the rights afforded by the conventions. First, claimants who raise matters late will have the opportunity to provide reasons for that lateness—and where those reasons are good, credibility will not be damaged. Decision makers will have the discretion to determine the extent to which credibility should be damaged, and that determination need not by itself be determinative of a claim, as I have already said.
The point was raised, understandably and quite rightly, about how we intend to deal with potential victims of trauma. Of course, how decision makers reach decisions is important in all this, and they should treat claims from vulnerable people in accordance with the guidance that we will set out. Extensive training will of course be put in place alongside that. Decision makers are already accustomed to ensuring that complex factors relating to trauma are properly considered.
Neil Coyle
How will this training operate in practice, given the points already made about how long it can take for PTSD symptoms and impact to emerge? No training on the planet can force those symptoms to emerge sooner, unless the Home Office is developing a particularly pernicious system.
Tom Pursglove
I do not accept the hon. Gentleman’s latter point. I would expect there to be extensive training for decision makers on guidance when it is issued. Again, I make the point that the approach we are adopting is intended to be responsive to individual circumstances, and cases should be considered on a case-by-case basis. That is the entire approach we are taking here.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate, raised the issue of refoulement, and I just want to be clear on this point. Again, individuals will not be removed if there is a risk of refoulement, and the provisions are drafted to ensure this.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark about legal aid, it is generally not available to individuals who are seeking advice or assistance with citizenship applications or on nationality matters. That is because it is not an issue within scope of the legal aid scheme—in other words, it is not an issue that Parliament has expressly provided for in statute as something for which legal aid can be provided.
For any issue where legal aid is not available, individuals can apply for exceptional case funding. The test for this is whether, without legal aid, an individual’s human rights might be breached. The only group of people who can routinely receive advice on nationality and citizenship are separated migrant children, as that is provided for in statute. We will come on to later clauses in which the legal aid provisions in this Bill, which relate to priority removal notices, will no doubt be debated as part of our consideration.
The hon. Gentleman also asked me whether a child rights impact assessment has been carried out on clauses 16 to 23. As part of our obligations under the public sector equality duty, equality impact assessments have been completed in respect of these clauses, and those assessments incorporate a consideration of the impacts on children.
Bambos Charalambous
Having looked at the amendments, I think amendment 153 is more substantive than my amendments 36 and 37. On the understanding that the spokesperson for the Scottish National party, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, will be pressing amendment 153 to a vote, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
I have had no notification that amendment 153 is going to be pressed to a vote, but, in the spirit of the Committee’s operation, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to move it perhaps he would like to say so now.
Stuart C. McDonald
I thank you for your indulgence, Sir Roger.
Amendment proposed: 153, in clause 16, page 20, line 8, at end insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State must not serve an evidence notice on a person—
(a) who has made a protection claim or a human rights claim on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics;
(b) who was under 18 years of age at the time of their arrival in the United Kingdom;
(c) who has made a protection or human rights claim on the basis of gender-based violence;
(d) who has experienced sexual violence;
(e) who is a victim of modern slavery or trafficking;
(f) who is suffering from a mental health condition or impairment;
(g) who has been a victim of torture;
(h) who is suffering from a serious physical disability;
(i) who is suffering from other serious physical health conditions or illnesses.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from serving an evidence notice on certain categories of people.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stuart C. McDonald
I rise to speak to amendment 27, in clause 16, page 20, line 9, leave out “requiring” and insert “requesting”.
Under this amendment, evidence notices would “request” (rather than “requiring”) the provision of supporting information for a protection or human rights claim.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 28, in clause 16, page 20, line 14, leave out “must” and insert “may”.
This amendment would remove the obligation for applicants to provide supporting information for a protection or human rights claim.
Amendment 40, in clause 18, page 22, line 4, leave out “requiring” and insert “requesting”.
Under this amendment, priority removal notices would “request” rather than “require” the recipient to provide information.
Stuart C. McDonald
We have had an extensive debate on these clauses, so I can be brief. Amendment 27 would cast the evidence notices that we have just debated in the form of a request, rather than a requirement. Amendment 28 would mean that an explanation for late evidence could be provided, rather than it being mandatory, so that we were explaining these rights and responsibilities instead of imposing inappropriate penalties. Amendment 40 would provide for similar changes to the priority removal notices instituted by clause 18.
The previous debate was essentially about whether those notices should extend to various groups of people, but in this group of amendments we are attempting to challenge the principles behind them.
Like other hon. Members, we agree that this is just a rehash of the one-stop process, which will achieve little and risk harm to claimants who need refugee protection. It is a distraction from the real issues that the Home Office needs to get a grip of. People who are at risk of persecution are generally desperate to provide evidence if they can, and if they are aware of and understand the processes that they are involved in. There is no advantage to them in providing evidence late, but there are often very good reasons why that happens. On the other hand, if evidence is provided late, it is still ultimately going to have to be looked at; if it proves someone is a refugee, it will have to be recognised, so it is time for the Home Office to get on with fixing the real problem in the asylum system, which is the appalling delays and backlogs in that system. That is why we have tabled these amendments. However, rather than putting them to a vote, I beg your leave to withdraw them, Sir Roger. I will vote against the clause standing part instead.
The Chair
That is unusual. The amendment cannot be withdrawn, because it has not been moved.
Question put, That clause 16 stand part of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 39, in clause 17, page 20, line 22, at end insert—
‘(1A) For subsection (1) substitute—
In determining whether to believe a statement made by or on behalf of a person who makes an asylum claim or human rights claim, a deciding authority shall take into account any behaviour to which this section applies.”
This amendment would mean that – whilst attempts to conceal information, mislead, or delay the processing of a claim would still be taken into account – it will be for the deciding authority to assess what impact this has on the claimant’s credibility.
Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration 2004 is hugely controversial, both on a point of principle and in its practical effect. It tells decision makers, whether at the Home Office or an independent judge, that if an applicant behaves in a certain way that must be taken as damaging their credibility. Clause 17 adds to the list of behaviours.
Amendment 39 would take us back to the point of principle by saying it is not for Parliament to tell decision makers, judges of fact, what to think about evidence that they have seen and we have not. Are the Government saying that they do not trust them to do their job properly? If we take a step back, the clause would represent the Home Office using legislation to tell decision makers what to think about evidence, in a dispute that it is party to itself. In that light, it is an outrageous principle.
The amendment would mean that those decision makers are asked to take into account the behaviour, rather than being told what to think about it. It is up to them to decide what they should read into late provision of evidence. What if the late provision of evidence is not the claimant’s fault? What if the lawyer made the mistake? What if a medical expert took too long to finalise a report? Ultimately, decision makers have to decide whether the person is at real risk of persecution. If late evidence provides compelling proof of that, they need to be recognised as refugees. Again, get on with fixing decision-making times and quality. From the point of view of principle, we should leave decision makers to weigh up the evidence themselves, without direction from legislators. It is as simple as that.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that this will also be considered a clause stand part debate.
Bambos Charalambous
As with clause 16, the Opposition are deeply concerned that clause 17 will contribute to a culture of disbelief that will harm vulnerable people who deserve our support. We will oppose the clause because we do not believe there is any way that it can be amended to be more reasonable. Clause 17 builds on the false premise established by clause 16 that evidence given after a certain date lessens the weight and, in turn, the credibility of the claimant. Clause 17 would extend that to the possible use of evidence in appeals.
Before I go further, I would like to draw the Committee’s attention once again to the startling statistics I referred to in the debate on clause 16. I do not believe they can be stated enough to illustrate the fallacy inherent in the culture of disbelief being pushed by the Government. Let me state again for the record: the proportion of successful asylum appeals allowed in the year up to March 2021 was 47%, and that has been steadily increasing over the past decade.
That is in a context where legal aid has been decimated. The Home Office is notoriously floundering with delays and a sclerotic process within the context of the hostile environment encouraged by the Government. If with those factors, nearly half of appeals are successful, how on earth can the Minister think it is fair to introduce another arbitrary hurdle for vulnerable people? What kind of civilised society implies that people who have escaped the most horrific situations imaginable are likely to be acting in bad faith? Clause 17, along with clause 16, will shame us and UK values if it reaches the statute book.
All the arguments that apply to clause 16 apply once again. As Ministers well know, there are many reasons why people who are escaping sexual abuse, gendered violence, torture and trauma cannot produce evidence by a particular date. Well-known psychological processes, such as dissociation, PTSD and denial of sexual trauma, militate against the so-called efficient delivery of evidence. That is before we get to the dysfunctional lack of legal aid and advice available, and the broken nature of the asylum system as a whole, as we discussed with reference to clause 16. Again, the Government seem to want to blame their own failings on vulnerable people, and scapegoat them for 11 years of a broken asylum system.
I will give an example of how unfair clause 17 is, and why someone’s credibility is in no way contingent on their ability to provide evidence by an arbitrary date. The example, concerning someone I will call “Gloria”, is a real case that was described to me by the excellent organisation Women for Refugee Women.
Gloria and her husband were supporters of the Opposition political party in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. When the Government started to suspect that her husband was talking to journalists about human rights abuses, they targeted both him and Gloria. Gloria was raped by soldiers and taken to prison. Upon release, she and her husband fled the Congo, but they were forced back into the DRC and targeted by the Government again. Gloria was violently raped again by several soldiers and held in a detention centre from where she was trafficked to the UK.
When she arrived here, Gloria was detained in a house and forced to have sex with several men for weeks, until a cleaner helped her to escape. This woman encouraged her to claim asylum, but Gloria was too scared to talk about her traffickers in the interview, so she could not explain why she had not claimed asylum earlier. Her male interpreter at the interview did not speak Lingala fluently and got angry with her when she tried to clarify points. She had no mental health support so was unable to discuss the extreme sexual violence she had experienced, and her lawyer never explained to her that the experience of being trafficked was relevant to her claim.
Gloria was refused asylum and taken to Yarl’s Wood, which she found highly traumatic, given her previous experience of incarceration in the DRC. She was released from Yarl’s Wood and then came to seek help from Women for Refugee Women, as she was homeless. She joined one of the organisation’s creative projects and, over time, began speaking about her story. Gloria now has a positive reasonable grounds decision and is preparing further submissions for a fresh asylum claim. Under clauses 16 and 17, Gloria could be prohibited from presenting evidence of the violence that she faced, with the ultimate risk of being returned to her persecutors. Gloria continues to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, depression and suicidal thoughts.
Surely when hearing of cases such as Gloria’s, Ministers must pause and realise that provisions such as clause 17 are inappropriate. Worse than that, calling into question the credibility of people who are traumatised is severely harmful. As discussed with reference to clause 16, the ultimate risk of undermining the credibility of applicants and denying the validity of their evidence is refoulement and is in contradiction of the refugee convention.
The one-stop process being proposed in the group of clauses that include clause 17 would force traumatised women to raise all the reasons why they need protection at the outset. If they fail to do so, their credibility could be damaged, according to the clause. It is worth stating again that, as with clause 16, this goes directly against the Home Office’s guidance, which states that late disclosure should not automatically prejudice a woman’s credibility.
As highlighted, moreover, many women do not realise that their experiences of gendered violence may constitute an asylum claim. Poor legal advice compounds that problem, so women do not raise these experiences in their initial claim. Clauses 16, 17 and 23 will result in more women being wrongly refused protection and so becoming liable for detention.
Clauses 16, 17 and 23 create a mechanism that forces people to produce relevant evidence by a fixed date. If that deadline is missed, the evidence could be given “minimal weight”, which will impact on a decision maker’s assessment of an applicant’s LGBT+ status and/or whether they have a well-founded fear of persecution. That would be acutely detrimental to LGBT+ people because of the difficulties in gathering and providing evidence that helps to confirm their sexual orientation or gender identity. Many LGBT+ people may have spent a long time trying to hide their sexual orientation or gender identity from other people not only in their countries of origin, but in the UK. Further, it can be an enormous challenge, if not impossible, to obtain supporting evidence from former partners, friends or family members in their country of origin, who can be too afraid to write a witness statement. For trans people specifically, many are unable to access healthcare in their countries of origin and to receive timely support in the UK, and, again, struggle to offer supporting evidence as a result.
If LGBT+ people get evidence such as letters from those who can testify to their sexual orientation or gender identity, proof of membership of LGBT+ organisations or photos at Pride, it may not be until they are more comfortable and confident in being open about their sexual orientation or gender identity, and therefore easily after any deadlines for evidence are imposed by the Home Office.
Clauses 17, 20 and 23 direct or encourage decision makers, including immigration judges on appeal, to exclude evidence or reject the credibility of a claimant. That exclusion or rejection is arbitrary. It is not on the basis of the decision maker’s assessment of the relevance or probity of the evidence or truthfulness of the claimant. It is not on the basis of any individual assessment of all the relevant material and circumstances.
The Chair
The Chair has no desire to curtail comment, particularly from the Front Benches, but we do have to remain within the scope of the matter under discussion. I am conscious that that is difficult when there are related clauses, but the hon. Gentleman has strayed into referring to clauses 20 and 23. The Chair will bear that in mind when we come to those debates; I would not expect repetition on the subject.
Tom Pursglove
Amendment 39 would render clause 17 inoperable. Clause 17 introduces two new behaviours into section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. That section provides that a decision maker shall take account, as damaging the claimant’s credibility, of the behaviour to which the section applies. Without the consequent amendment to section 8, which amendment 39 seeks to remove, there is no penalty for late evidence or not acting in good faith, which would make such a measure inappropriate for primary legislation and would also render it pointless.
Clause 17 is not prescriptive as to how decision makers, within both the Home Office and the judiciary, determine credibility or the claim itself. It has always been the case that decision makers must consider egregious conduct by the claimant. It is then open to the Home Office or the courts to decide the extent to which credibility should subsequently be damaged. Amendment 39 simply seeks to do away with that well established principle.
Let me build on the point about the judiciary and the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. He asked, “Aren’t judges best placed to determine the credibility that evidence should have? Why be prescriptive?” The point that I will make in response is that clause 17 is not prescriptive as to how judges determine credibility or the claim itself. It adds two new behaviours to the existing section 8 of the 2004 Act. That section provides that a decision maker shall take account, as damaging the claimant’s credibility, of the behaviour to which the section applies. I think it is important to clarify this. It should be noted that clause 17 applies to all decision makers. That includes Home Office staff who make the initial decision on protection and human rights claims. Clause 17 adds new behaviours to the existing behaviours that should already be taken into account as damaging to credibility under section 8 of the 2004 Act. The concept that certain conduct should be damaging to credibility is nothing new. It has always been the case that decision makers must consider egregious conduct by the claimant. It is then open to the Home Office or the courts to decide the extent to which credibility should subsequently be damaged.
Clause 17 will also not be determinative of a claim. Decision makers will still be required to consider the claimant’s credibility in the round, as they would currently as part of their decision-making processes.
Neil Coyle
Clause 17 further compounds the damage potentially arising from clause 16. When answering the question about a child rights impact assessment, the Minister seemed to talk about an equality impact assessment. I wonder again whether a child rights impact assessment, as developed by his colleagues in the Department for Education for schools, would benefit the Government, to prevent them from imposing conditions that fall foul of other Government legislation—
The Chair
Order. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern, but we have gone past clause 16; we are now on clause 17.
Neil Coyle
But having a child rights impact assessment would prevent the Government from implementing clause 17 in a way that harms children and causes the Government to lose legal cases further down the line, so I believe it is relevant, Sir Roger.
Tom Pursglove
Thank you, Sir Roger. I want to pick up on a couple of other points that were raised in responding to amendment 39. I should clarify that clauses 17 and 23 do not apply to consideration of modern slavery referrals. Claims are considered holistically, and credibility is not by itself determinative of a claim. It is important to emphasise that point. The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate raised the case of Gloria. Obviously, I am mindful of talking about individual cases because of the difficulties associated with that, as I am sure that he will appreciate, but clauses 17 and 23 do not prevent someone from providing late evidence. Late evidence will still be considered in full. Where there are good reason for lateness, a person’s credibility will not be damaged and clause 23 will not apply. I wanted to provide clarity on that point. With that, I ask that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East withdraw amendment 39, and that the Committee agree that clause 17 stand part of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
As a point of principle, I object to Parliament telling decision makers what to think, but having made my point I am happy to leave it there for now, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That clause 17 stand part of the Bill.
Tom Pursglove
I beg to move amendment 60, in clause 18, page 22, line 26, leave out “10(1) or (2)” and insert “10”.
This amendment is consequential on clause 43 of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 61.
Clause stand part.
Tom Pursglove
It is often the case that those facing removal or deportation from the UK raise late protection or human rights claims that could have been provided at an earlier juncture. That causes unnecessary delay and expense to the taxpayer. The clause strengthens the existing one-stop process by establishing a priority removal notice, or PRN, which may be issued to a person who is liable to removal or deportation from the UK. The PRN will require a person to raise any new or additional grounds for why they should remain in the UK before the date specified in the notice. That includes information relevant to whether the person is a victim of modern slavery or trafficking. Any supporting evidence must be provided at the same time. That will ensure that all claims can be considered sufficiently in advance of the person’s removal, reducing the extent to which removal can be frustrated, and allowing those in need of international protection to be identified and supported as early as possible.
Factors that may lead to a person being issued with a priority removal notice will be set out in guidance and will include, for example, where a person has previously made a protection or human rights claim. Where information or evidence is provided on or after the PRN cut-off date and without good reason, it should be damaging to the person’s credibility. Those reforms will drive efficiencies across the system, decreasing the cost of unnecessary litigation and failed removal attempts, while maintaining fairness, ensuring access to justice and upholding the rule of law.
Amendments 60 and 61 are minor amendments to reflect a change to clause 43 and to remove a superfluous paragraph in subsection (7) of the clause that has no material impact.
Nationality and Borders Bill (Tenth sitting)
Tuesday 26th October 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 26 October 2021 - (26 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I have been asked to remind Members and staff that they are asked by the House to have a lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary estate. That may be done either at the testing centre on the estate or at home.
Clause 18
Priority removal notices
Amendment moved (this day): 60, in clause 18, page 22, line 26, leave out “10(1) or (2)” and insert “10”.—(Tom Pursglove.)
This amendment is consequential on clause 43 of the Bill.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Government amendment 61.
Clause stand part.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I was about to conclude by saying that paragraphs (a) and (c) of subsection (7) suffice to capture every scenario. Removing paragraph (b) does not affect how the clause operates or who it impacts. I commend the amendments and the clause to the Committee.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
We intend to oppose the clause standing part of the Bill. The clause is an entirely new provision. Its stated aim is to reduce the extent to which people may frustrate removals through sequential or unmeritorious claims, appeals or legal action. It does so by providing for a priority removal notice, or PRN, to be served on anyone who is liable for removal or for deportation. Factors might include where a person has previously made a human rights or protection claim.
According to the explanatory notes, subsection (3) defines a PRN. It states that the notice imposes a duty on the claimant to provide a statement setting out the reasons for wishing to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, any grounds on which they should be permitted to do so, and any grounds on which they should not be removed or required to leave the United Kingdom. The notice also requires them to provide any information relating to being a victim of slavery or human trafficking as defined by clause 46.
The notice also requires them to provide any evidence in support of any reasons, grounds or information. The statement, grounds, information and evidence must be provided before the PRN cut-off date included within the notice. Intended as a warning to the person that they are being prioritised for removal, the notice gives them a period of time—the cut-off period—within which to access legal advice and to inform the Home Office of any grounds or evidence that they want to provide in support of a claim to be allowed to remain in the UK.
The clause and the introduction of priority removal notices are part of wider proposals to fast-track claims and appeals, and to create a one-stop process for claims to asylum to be brought and considered together in a single assessment up front. The consequences of the clauses related to priority removal notices will make it harder for people to bring evidence after making an initial asylum claim and penalise delayed disclosure. Indeed, if anything required by the PRN is provided after the specified cut-off date, a decision maker—when determining a protection or human rights claim, or making a decision as to whether the person is a potential or actual victim of trafficking—will treat it with scepticism and it will be considered damaging to the person’s credibility and their claim.
The requirements related to the PRN are extensive. It requires all manner of claims and evidence to be provided, covering all grounds for resisting removal and all evidence in support. When implemented, that could have incredibly damaging consequences for people seeking asylum, as it requires them to provide extensive supporting evidence by a specified date. For example, it will seriously disadvantage vulnerable people and victims, such as those who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, or those who have been trafficked, as well as those who are LGBTQ, as I have mentioned previously.
The introduction of priority removal notices fails to acknowledge the reality of situations that people seeking asylum may encounter. There are many reasons that evidence may be provided late but in earnest, as we have explored already, for example with traumatised victims. The ultimate consequence of people not being able properly to present evidence relating to their claim, or being deemed to lack credibility as a result of failing to present such evidence on time, is that claims may be rejected and people may be wrongly subject to removal. The Opposition are very concerned that these measures may give rise to a significant risk of refoulement and will consequently abandon the UK’s obligations under international law.
In short, the proposals are unacceptable. They form a package of measures that seek to create a one-stop process for asylum claims and fail to do so in a fair or humane way. They are widely condemned by the sector. The Opposition are vehemently opposed to the introduction of priority removal notices and, when they are taken in conjunction with the series of clauses in part 2, are incredibly concerned about these measures. Its potentially strict application risks having a severe impact on asylum seekers and refugees, in terms of both procedural fairness and ensuring that people are protected by the refugee convention. We therefore oppose the clause.
Amendment 60 agreed to.
Amendment made: 61, in clause 18, page 22, line 28, leave out paragraph (b).—(Tom Pursglove.)
This amendment removes a superfluous paragraph (any person within paragraph (b) would in any event fall within either paragraph (a) or (c)).
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Tom Pursglove
I beg to move amendment 62, in clause 19, page 22, line 43, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert—
“(a) the PRN cut-off date, or
(b) if later, the day on which any appeal rights of the PRN recipient in respect of a relevant claim are exhausted.”.
This amendment and Amendments 63 and 64 provide that a priority removal notice will remain in force for 12 months after a PRN recipient’s appeal rights are exhausted in relation to any protection or human rights claim brought while the notice is in force.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 63 to 66.
Clause stand part.
Tom Pursglove
This clause is supplementary to clause 18, which we have just discussed. It makes provision for the validity and effect of a priority removal notice. A priority removal notice imposes requirements to provide any reason and supporting evidence as to why a person should be allowed to remain in the UK. This will reduce the extent to which removal can be frustrated.
Where a priority removal notice has been issued, it will remain in force for a period of 12 months after either the cut-off date specified in the notice or after the recipient has exhausted their appeal rights. A period of 12 months will provide sufficient time for the person’s removal to be enforced. Following the service of a priority removal notice, any previous evidence notice, slavery or trafficking information notice, or notice under section 120 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, will cease to take effect. Any appeal right arising from a protection or human rights claim received after the cut-off date will be subject to the expedited process as provided for by clause 21, unless the claimant provides good reasons for late disclosure.
The amendments are minor and technical and are intended to ensure that the new priority removal notice will work as effectively as possible. Amendments 62 to 64 provide for a priority removal notice to remain in force for a period of 12 months after the recipient’s appeal rights are exhausted. Amendments 65 and 66 clarify that a priority removal notice will remain in force where the recipient is no longer liable to removal or deportation from the UK. This makes it clear that where the recipient of a priority removal notice makes an application to the EU settlement scheme that is later refused, they will remain subject to the priority removal notice.
Bambos Charalambous
The Opposition will oppose the clause standing part of the Bill. It forms part of the Bill’s new PRN regime, as initially set out in clause 18, and states that the PRN will remain in force until 12 months after the cut-off date or the person’s appeal rights become exhausted, whichever comes last. The Opposition believe that preventing people from being able to bring further evidence for 12 months after they have been issued with a PRN is wrong. It is unfair and it fails to consider the reasons for delayed disclosure, which range from psychological and cultural barriers to the crucial fact that those who are seeking asylum have fled their homes and may not have access to evidence immediately.
When applied narrowly and in conjunction with other clauses in part 2, the proposed provisions potentially risk significant breaches of the refugee convention and the principle of non-refoulement. For those reasons, and reasons discussed in the debate on clause 18, we will be voting against clause 19.
Amendment 62 agreed to.
Amendments made: 63, in clause 19, page 23, line 3, at end insert—
“(1A) In subsection (1) ‘relevant claim’ means a protection claim or a human rights claim brought by the PRN recipient while the priority removal notice is in force.”
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 62.
Amendment 64, in clause 19, page 23, line 4, after “rights” insert
“in respect of a claim”.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 62.
Amendment 65, in clause 19, page 23, line 11, at end insert—
“(2A) A priority removal notice remains in force until the end of the period mentioned in subsection (1) even if the PRN recipient ceases to be liable to removal or deportation from the United Kingdom during that period.”
This amendment clarifies that although a priority removal notice can only be served on a person if they are liable to removal or deportation, the fact that the person ceases to be so liable does not mean that the notice will cease to have effect.
Amendment 66, in clause 19, page 23, line 23, leave out subsection (6) and insert—
“(6) Expressions used in this section that are defined for the purposes of section 18 have the same meaning in this section as in that section.”—(Tom Pursglove.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 65.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 139, in clause 20, page 23, line 40, at end insert—
“(3A) For the purposes of subsection (3) ‘good reasons’ include, but are not limited to—
(a) evidence of post-traumatic stress,
(b) potential endangerment to the PRN recipient caused by collecting evidence for anything mentioned in subsection (1)(a) before the PRN cut-off date.
(3B) The Secretary of State must publish guidance including a non-exhaustive list of ‘good reasons’ within the meaning of subsection (3) within 30 days of this Act receiving Royal Assent.”
This amendment would illustrate potential interpretations of “good reasons” for late compliance and require the Home Secretary to publish a non-exhaustive list of potential “good reasons” to aid asylum decisions.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 154, in clause 20, page 23, line 40, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State or competent authority must accept that there are good reasons for the late provision of anything mentioned in subsection (1)(a) where—
(a) the PRN recipient’s protection or human rights claim is based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics;
(b) the PRN recipient is suffering from a mental health condition or impairment;
(c) the PRN recipient has been a victim of torture;
(d) the PRN recipient has been a victim of sexual or gender based violence;
(e) the PRN recipient has been a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery;
(f) the PRN recipient is suffering from a serious physical disability;
(g) the PRN recipient is suffering from other serious physical health conditions or illnesses.”
This amendment defines “good reasons” for the purposes of subsection (3).
Amendment 41, in clause 20, page 23, line 38, leave out
“, as damaging the PRN recipient’s credibility,”
This amendment would mean that – whilst late provision of information would still be taken into account – it would not necessarily be deemed as damaging the claimant’s credibility.
Paul Blomfield
I will try to be brief, because the amendments cover ground similar to our previous discussion. Clause 20 seeks to damage the credibility of claimants producing evidence outside the time period dictated by a priority removal notice. There is a general point to make here. As we all know well, completing processes in time is not really the Home Office’s strong point. What is worrying is that the provision makes things worse. As Women for Refugee Women has pointed out:
“As well as causing harm to women in desperate need of safety, these clauses are likely to lead to greater unfairness in the system, an increasing number of incorrect decisions and ultimately therefore an increase in the backlog of asylum cases.”
That is something we all seek to avoid.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that not all the delays are down to the Home Office? In many people’s view, the thousands of judicial reviews that are done, the vast majority of which fail, are there to buy more time for the applicant possibly to come up with a reason for an article 8 application.
Paul Blomfield
There is an exception to every rule, so I am prepared to accept that not all the problems are down to the Home Office. We discussed that issue earlier. The fact that some people may seek to abuse the system does not mean that the system should be changed to focus on those cases. We should operate on the basis that everybody has a right to access and utilise the judicial processes that are available.
As I was saying, the backlog has risen at a time when the number of asylum applications for the year ending June 2021 fell. We know that is reflected across the system; it is not just a problem with asylum. In the relatively straightforward area of EU settled status, recent data from the Home Office in response to a freedom of information request showed that, in June, more than 26,000 EU citizens had been waiting for more than a year for a decision; more than 216,000 had been waiting for more than six months; and more than 680,000 had been waiting for more than three months.
The problem of delays is endemic in the Home Office, and there were no JRs involved in those numbers. In the asylum process, delay is not only seriously detrimental to the individuals, but—we have returned to this point a number of times, and will again—hugely costly to the taxpayer, so any measure that will exacerbate rather than correct the issue is unconscionable.
The assumption behind the measures in clause 20 and related causes is that those trapped in the system are to blame, as was echoed in the exchange we just had. Blaming others is a common approach of the Government on a wide range of issues such as covid, where GPs are the lightning rod for discontent, and Brexit, where we blame everybody going other than those who negotiated the deal. That ignores the reality that those trapped in the system want decisions to be expedited as soon as they can. They want to move on with their lives. Those who are successful want to take the opportunity to work and contribute to our society.
We need more resources from the Home Office to tackle the backlog. It is welcome that there has been some acknowledgement of that. I saw that the permanent secretary said at the Home Affairs Committee last month that the Home Office is planning to almost double the number of caseworkers, which is extremely positive. It is delayed recognition of where the problem might lie, but they should not be seeking to undermine applicants, which subsection (3) of clause 20 does by specifying that the Secretary of State or the competent authority must consider evidence being brought late as damaging to a claimant’s credibility unless there are good reasons why it was brought late. We come again to this issue, which we debated in relation to an earlier clause, of good reasons.
As there is no explanation before us, either in the legislation or in the explanatory notes, of what might constitute good reasons, amendment 139 seeks to help the Government, in a collegial spirit, by inviting the Secretary of State to publish a framework that allows the consideration of the effect of post-traumatic stress and potential endangerment on the provision of evidence. I do not think that any of us could object to the idea that post-traumatic stress and potential endangerment would be good reasons, so I will be interested to hear the Minister explain, if in fact he does not embrace the amendment, why that is the case, because we go on to suggest that he might also publish the other factors that would be seen to be good reasons.
The clause serves to shift from a presumption of guilty until proven innocent, again echoing an earlier discussion, back to our legal system’s norm of innocent until proven guilty. As it stands, unamended, it is not in the spirit of the law or of British values, and it should not be in the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Ms McDonagh. As the hon. Member for Sheffield Central said, clause 20 instructs decision makers to take into account
“as damaging the PRN recipient’s credibility…the late provision”
of information and evidence. I absolutely support the hon. Gentleman’s amendment to explore “good reasons” for evidence, including post-traumatic stress. Our amendment 154 provides other examples, such as mental health issues or where a person has been a victim of torture or other crimes that can impact on their ability to provide information. That is similar to debates we have already had.
Amendment 41 revisits earlier arguments about taking into account all the evidence, including lateness in providing it, when assessing a case. It is not appropriate to tell decision makers what conclusions to draw. We say decision makers will often find people to have credibility if lots of new information is provided with respect to that explanation. That is a matter that should be left to them. It is not for parliamentarians to tell decision makers how to analyse claimants.
Bambos Charalambous
Clause 20 introduces the concept of a priority removal notice and, under subsection (3), specifies that the Secretary of State or the competent authority must consider evidence being brought late as damaging to a claimant’s credibility, unless there are good reasons why it was brought late.
As we have made clear during the course of the Bill’s passage, the Government are trying to make it harder for refugees and asylum seekers to gain protection here in the UK. That is undeniable. The priority removal notices regime is part of a package of measures and provisions to achieve that end, both in deterring refugees from seeking protection and in making it more difficult for refugees admitted to the UK to be recognised as such.
One of those measures is directing decision makers, including judges, to doubt an applicant’s credibility if they fail to provide evidence under the strict conditions described in clauses 18 and 19. It is worth noting that the Home Office and the courts have always been able to consider the timing of a claim as a factor in determining credibility, and that might determine an appeal. None the less, clause 20 seeks to reduce the weight that is given to any evidence that is submitted after the cut-off period stipulated by the PRN.
According to the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association:
“Rather than allowing decision-makers to sensibly consider whether the late provision of evidence is a reason to doubt its credibility, weighing all the evidence on the whole, the government proposes to strait-jacket decision-makers with a series of presumptions. The caveat that decision-makers will be allowed to use their own judgment if there is a ‘good reason’ why evidence was provided late does not mitigate these concerns.”
Indeed, there are many so-called bad reasons that evidence might be provided late that do not indicate dishonesty, and many more reasons that it may not be possible for someone to present all relevant information in support of their claim at the earliest opportunity. We have already heard in detail the problems felt by certain groups and individuals with this approach, such as LGBTQ asylum seekers and victims of torture, sexual or gender-based violence, or trafficking.
One long-standing concern for the sector, which we have yet to cover in detail, is failings within the asylum process itself, particularly poor-quality, shortened or inadequate interviews. The consequences of poor interviews conducted with an individual can be devastating in the moment and potentially have grave long-term effects, including the risk of being returned to persecution because the Home Office did not have the information it needed to make a fair and informed decision.
For the Home Office, asylum appeals have been rising steadily over the last decade, which points to the importance of protecting asylum appeals as a vital safeguard for the most vulnerable and to the fact that the Home Office often gets decisions wrong first time. More widely, a system that relies on the appeal process to correct its errors is inefficient, costly and inhumane. For that reason, we can describe the asylum system in the UK as broken, and we can point to the last 11 years of Conservative government as a reason for us having that broken system.
Mr Goodwill
Would the hon. Gentleman include foreign national offenders who are being removed, who may have committed crimes including rape and murder or been involved in the drugs trade, among the people who should be given the sort of latitude he is talking about?
Bambos Charalambous
Priority removal notices will apply to all people to whom they apply. If they qualify, they will qualify under that regime. I do not think people can be distinguished on the basis on their offences.
Clause 20 and the wider proposals around priority removal notices will penalise the most vulnerable and those who have been failed by the system by reducing the significance of any evidence submitted after the applicant has been through the one-stop process. That could include independent expert medical evidence, such as medico-legal reports, which often prove determinative in asylum appeals.
Ultimately, the provision around late compliance risks people not being given protection even though they deserve it and are in need of it. For the reasons I have specified, we will oppose clause 20 standing part of the Bill.
Tom Pursglove
By introducing the statutory requirement to provide information or evidence before a specified date, clauses 16 and 18 will contribute to the swift resolution of protection and human rights claims, enabling decision makers to consider all the evidence up front and, where appropriate, grant leave. It is right that where evidence or information is provided late, that should impact on a person’s credibility, and that the decision maker must consider whether to apply the minimal weight principle, unless there are good reasons why it was brought late.
Clauses 20 and 23 both recognise that it may be harder for some people to engage in the process and provide evidence before a specified date. That may be the result of trauma they have experienced, a lack of trust in the authorities or the sensitive and personal nature of their claim. Amendment 41 removes the possible credibility implications stemming from late evidence in response to a priority removal notice. It is right that where evidence or information is provided late, that should impact on a person’s credibility, unless there are good reasons why it was brought late. Where there are good reasons that information or evidence was provided late, the penalties in clauses 20 and 23 will not apply.
Clause 20 recognises that there may be good reasons that evidence was provided late. Where there are good reasons, the associated credibility provisions in clauses 20 and 23 will not apply. Therefore, amendment 41 is unnecessary, as the clause already meets its aim that late evidence should not necessarily be damaging to the claimant’s credibility. As with amendment 39, by removing the possible credibility implications stemming from late provision of evidence, amendment 41 would make such a measure inappropriate for primary legislation and render it pointless. Amendment 154 places a statutory obligation on decision makers to accept that there are good reasons for late evidence where an individual’s claim is based on certain factors, or the individual falls into a particular category. That would apply to Home Office decision makers and, under amendment 154, the competent authority as well as the judiciary.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
This comes back to the point that we were discussing this morning about PTSD. The Minister seems to be saying that if PTSD were on the list and someone could not prove that they had it that would advantage those who could prove that the condition had been diagnosed while disadvantaging those who had not had a diagnosis. However, they would not get a diagnosis within the timeframe specified in the legislation. Perhaps a means to address that anomaly is the Government providing their own list of good reasons that could be used to distinguish between cases—on a case-by-case basis—based on how long someone has been in the process and whether they are undergoing assessment for PTSD. That could be a way to resolve that predicament. As it stands, the Minister seems to be saying that he cannot accept the amendment because it would advantage those whom the Government’s plans disadvantage.
Tom Pursglove
Our intention is to publish guidance to help operationalise the measures in the Bill that will set this out in more detail. We would expect, as I have said in relation to several amendments and clauses, that caseworkers will consider those factors properly when reaching judgments about individual cases.
Mr Goodwill
I am sure the Opposition understand that when someone is given a police caution when they are about to be arrested they are told, “It may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something you later rely on.” Is the clause not basically about the same principle being applied to immigration cases?
Tom Pursglove
I will take an intervention from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central.
Paul Blomfield
I am trying to explore the contradiction in what the Minister has just said. He said that the Government intended to produce guidance that set out what good reasons were subsequent to the legislation, but he cautioned against requiring good reasons, because that would exclude some people from justice. Would he square that circle for me?
Tom Pursglove
We think that the appropriate place to be clear about these matters is in the guidance, rather than the Bill. As I say, I would expect decision makers to take into account all the relevant factors at play in an individual case when making decisions relating to it. Rather as we have discussed in relation to other clauses and amendments, there is flexibility in certain circumstances, where good reasons can be shown as to why evidence would not be produced sooner. We recognise that people may be in difficult circumstances and that issues arise in their lives. We want the system to be responsive to that and to take proper account of it, which is why we are proposing to proceed as we are doing.
To return to the point that I was making on amendment 139, it would perpetuate the issues that the clauses are designed to address to the detriment of genuine claimants, undermining their usefulness. Amendment 139 would also introduce a requirement to publish guidance on good reasons within 30 days of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. That is an arbitrary deadline and it is not necessary to include it on the face of the Bill. As I have indicated, good reasons will be set out in published guidance for decision makers and will be made available when the measures come into force.
Neil Coyle
It is a brief intervention. I am reminded of what the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby said about being cautioned by the police. Will the good reasons clauses cover children specifically? We need to know, given that they represent almost a quarter of asylum claims, and given the issue of age and maturity.
Moreover, what evidence would a gay man trying to escape Iran or another oppressive have to provide in order to prove his circumstances? What would the threshold be, given how hard it has been to provide proof in multiple cases under the existing system?
Tom Pursglove
I can confirm that it will refer to children. To conclude my remarks, I respectfully invite the hon. Member for Sheffield Central to withdraw the amendment.
On clause 20, the unnecessary provision of late evidence, statements and information delays justice for those with genuine claims, and wastes valuable resources. Clause 20 will work in parallel with clauses 18 and 19 to support the new priority removal notice. Its focus is on encouraging persons liable to removal or deportation to provide at the earliest opportunity any information or evidence in support of their protection or human rights claim, or, for potential victims of modern slavery, in relation to a decision by the competent authority. Where information or evidence is provided on or after the cut-off date, as set out in the priority removal notice and without good reason, it is right that that should be taken into account as damaging to the person’s credibility. I hope that the Committee will agree to the clause standing part of the Bill.
Paul Blomfield
I am afraid that I am unconvinced by the Minister’s response, so I wish to press amendment 139 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 155, in clause 21, page 24, line 21, at end insert—
“(2A) The Secretary of State must accept that there are good reasons for P making the claim on or after the cut-off date where—
(a) the PRN recipient’s protection or human rights claim is based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics;
(b) the PRN recipient is suffering from a mental health condition or impairment;
(c) the PRN recipient has been a victim of torture;
(d) the PRN recipient has been a victim of sexual or gender based violence;
(e) the PRN recipient has been a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery;
(f) the PRN recipient is suffering from a serious physical disability;
(g) the PRN recipient is suffering from other serious physical health conditions or illnesses.”
This amendment defines ”good reasons” for the purposes of section 82A(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (as inserted by this Bill).
If someone makes a protection claim after the PRN cut-off, then unless the Secretary of State is satisfied there are good reasons, she must certify the appeal right and it will be subjected to an expedited appeal straight to the upper tribunal. Tribunal procedure rules, then, must make provision for this. If it is in the interests of justice for an appeal not to be expedited, the tribunal may order that it is no longer subject to that process. This, too, prevents any onward appeal.
In the next debate I will set out our opposition to the clause as a whole, but amendment 155 sets out a situation where the Secretary of State must accept there has been a reasonable excuse, similar to before. It would surely be wrong to subject survivors of human trafficking, or gender-based violence or torture—to use but three examples—to an accelerated appeal, simply on the grounds that they were late making a claim in response to a PRN. We have heard very powerful reasons already today, including in Home Office guidance, why that can be an incredibly difficult process.
I suspect the Minister will again reject this amendment on the same grounds as before, but it is at least useful for him to state on record that these are the types of claimant that he envisages should not be pushed through any accelerated appeal process. I will listen carefully to what he has to say in that regard.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling amendment 155, which seeks to define good reasons for the purposes of proposed new section 82A(2) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. I appreciate the concerns this amendment is attempting to address but the Government must oppose it. The amendment would result in all individuals who meet any of the descriptors listed being exempt from the expedited appeal process, even where their reason for lateness may be completely unrelated and make redundant any need to submit a claim by the date specified in the PRN.
I acknowledge that the experiences and circumstances listed in the amendment can inform why a person has made an application late. However, the duty on the Secretary of State will see all and any reasons for lateness being considered. Guidance for decision makers will be published and made available when these measures come into force. For that reason, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Tom Pursglove
I beg to move amendment 67, in clause 21, page 24, line 27, after “are” insert “brought and”.
This amendment and Amendment 68 clarify that the Tribunal Procedure Rules establishing the new expedited appeals process must aim to ensure that both the bringing of an appeal and its determination are expedited.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 68 and 69.
Amendment 42, in clause 21, page 24, line 37, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment would protect the right to an onward appeal from an expedited appeal decision by the Upper Tribunal in certain cases.
Clause stand part.
That schedule 2 be the Second schedule to the Bill.
Tom Pursglove
The Government propose three amendments to clause 21. Two amendments relate to the timeframe for bringing an expedited appeal. Accordingly, they clarify that the tribunal procedure rules must provide that an expedited appeal is brought more quickly than a standard appeal. That will ensure that individuals bring appeals promptly. The third amendment provides that, where the upper tribunal exercises its discretion to order that an expedited appeal should not be treated as such, the appeal will be transferred to the first-tier tribunal. This amendment provides an important clarification about the impact of the upper tribunal’s discretion to remove a case from the expedited appeal route. I therefore urge the hon. Members to support the Government amendments.
I thank the hon. Members for tabling amendment 42, which concerns the finality of decisions by the upper tribunal in expedited appeals. However, the Government oppose the amendment. The expedited appeal process provides effective access to justice while protecting the appeals system from abuse by individuals who deliberately act to prolong their case, thereby delaying a final decision.
We believe that where recipients of a priority removal notice who have received an offer of enhanced legal advice bring a late human rights or protection claim without good reason, any subsequent appeal should be dealt with expeditiously by experienced senior judges, and that their decision should be final. We believe that that strikes a balance, ensuring that appellants have access to justice, while protecting the appeals system from abuse. Section 13 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 provides for various upper tribunal decisions to be excluded from onward appeal. It is appropriate that expedited appeals are included within the list of excluded decisions that are not appealable.
Mr Goodwill
When we discussed the previous clause, there were a lot of complaints about the time it took to process people whose claims were rejected and who were removed, and those who had genuine claims. Should the hon. Gentleman not welcome the expedited process because it will enable people to get their decisions more quickly and stop those whose vexatious use of the law delays things?
Bambos Charalambous
There is such welcome generosity from Conservative Members. The measures will do no such thing; all they will do is clog up the upper tribunal system, which I will address later.
The Bill’s system of penalisation includes curtailing appeal rights, as set out in clause 21. The clause creates an expedited appeal route for those who have been served with a priority removal notice and who have provided evidence or a claim after the PRN cut-off date. Most importantly, the right of the appeal will be limited to the upper tribunal.
According to the Law Society, the proposals would essentially result in single-tier appeals with increased pressure on judges and more appeals to the Court of Appeal, as well as undermining access to justice, which is crucial in asylum cases. The Government’s proposals on priority removal notices and expedited appeals risk impinging on people’s rights and access to justice. In many instances, asylum seekers are highly vulnerable and may experience difficulties when it comes to the legal intricacies of the asylum process—studying legal determinations, gathering evidence and preparing submissions for appeals, for instance.
It is also worth clarifying that when unfounded or repeat claims are made, accelerated procedures as part of the asylum process are necessary and important safeguards. The difficulty is that more complex cases—where there are legitimate reasons for evidence being provided at a later date, for example—may be included in those accelerated processes, with devastating consequences. The Committee has heard some of examples of that today.
The Committee heard from Adrian Berry of the Immigration Law Practitioners Association about clause 21 during our evidence session. It is worth revisiting his evidence and the severe concerns that he raised on 23 September. First, he spoke about the expedited appeal, which begins in the upper tribunal. Therefore those who introduce a claim for asylum and provide evidence after the cut-off date in a priority removal notice receive an expedited appeal and lose their right of appeal and a hearing in the first-tier tribunal. Secondly, he raised concerns that the upper tribunal hearing is final. There is no onward appeal to the Court of Appeal. That is wrong for a number of reasons.
Mistakes, unfortunately, do happen in asylum claims, but under the current provision, individuals would be left, in the words of Adrian Berry, “one shot” to appeal and correct the mistakes. The fact that the first instance tribunal decisions cannot be reviewed has serious implications for the rule of law. It also creates a wider time-pressured, accelerated decision-making process operating on the tribunal system, which is likely to have a negative effect on the quality of decisions made. That is well documented and an issue that we have touched on previously, but it is worth repeating for the benefit of the Committee.
Appeals have been rising for many years. Between 2016 and 2018, 57% of first-tier tribunal asylum appeals were dismissed. It was only 52% in 2019-20. The right of appeal is fundamental in protecting individuals’ rights and preventing potential miscarriages of justice.
I should like to cite an example to illustrate that point and wider concerns about the priority removal notices regime introduced in part 2. I will call my example AT, a Gambian national who unsuccessfully sought asylum in the UK. He was married to a Gambian woman who had been granted indefinite leave to remain in July 2016 as she was unable to return to Gambia. His wife was heavily pregnant with their child but their relationship had not been raised or considered by the Home Office as part of his asylum claim. He was given a “notice of liability to removal” and was detained after the notice period had ended. Before his detention, he was unsuccessful in securing an appointment with his solicitors.
During AT’s detention, his wife gave birth to their son—a British citizen. The Home Office refused AT’s human rights claim based on his family life, focusing on the late stage at which he raised it. He was removed from the UK before he could access legal advice and challenge that decision. His subsequent judicial review proceedings were successful and he was allowed to return to the UK to exercise his right of appeal to the first-tier tribunal against that decision. The Home Office subsequently conceded his article 8 family life claim, and granted him leave to stay in the UK with his wife and son. If the priority removal notice provisions of the Bill had been in force in this case, AT’s right of appeal, even after he had succeeded in a judicial review, would have been severely circumscribed. He would only have been able to appeal directly to the upper tribunal. The appeal would have been decided on an expedited basis and the tribunal would have been required to treat AT’s claim to a family life as lacking credibility. If the upper tribunal had found against him, he would have had no right of appeal to the Court of Appeal.
That case highlights some of the severe consequences of clause 21. Are Committee members, on all sides of the debate, happy to put speed over justice? That is what the Bill’s attempts to expedite appeals seeks to do, and without acknowledging the harm that that will cause. It risks people having their human rights violated as a result of a truncated appeals process for asylum claims.
Clause 21 has serious consequences for the rule of law, procedural fairness and the rights of individuals. It will inevitably lead to the wrong being decisions made that will then go unchallenged. Closing off avenues for appeals risks closing off access to justice. An incorrect decision can cost an individual their safety, security and livelihood. Therefore the clause presents an unacceptable risk of breaching the UK’s non-refoulement obligations under the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights. As such, the Opposition will oppose that clause 21 stand part of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
I agree with everything the shadow Minister said. I want to speak in support of amendment 42, which would preserve onward rights of appeal in certain circumstances.
The overall danger of clause 21 is that it risks expediting appeal processes so that mistakes are made and people are denied justice. Given the dangers that are posed by speeding up such processes, it is all the more important that there is access to the supervisory jurisdiction of the higher courts in case errors are made. We are not talking about minor issues; these are matters of life and death. Assessments have been made about a risk of persecution. Errors will have catastrophic consequences for individuals concerned.
All tribunals make mistakes, so in such circumstances, it seems reckless not to have any right of appeal. I absolutely accept that there can be restrictions and that the grounds for such an appeal can be phrased in a way to try to prevent abuse, but to exclude it altogether goes way beyond what can be justified. Expedited appeals without any possibility of onward appeals creates a double danger of getting those decisions wrong. The fact that claims are made late does not remotely mean that they are necessarily without merit, nor does it mean that they can be decided any quicker than another claim and it should not automatically lead to accelerated appeals processes.
Again, I think that all this is missing the point. The tribunal was actually functioning pretty well. It is the Home Office that has to focus on getting its house in order, and the whole clause is completely misconceived.
Amendment 67 agreed to.
Amendments made: 68, in clause 21, page 24, line 28, after “be” insert “brought and”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 67.
Amendment 69, in clause 21, page 24, line 32, leave out from “is” to end of line 33 and insert
“to be continued as an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal and accordingly is to be transferred to that Tribunal”.—(Tom Pursglove.)
This amendment is a drafting amendment to clarify that where the Upper Tribunal is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so it has power to order that an expedited appeal is instead to be heard subject to the usual procedure by the First-tier Tribunal.
Amendment proposed: 42, in clause 21, page 24, line 37, leave out subsection (2). —(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This amendment would protect the right to an onward appeal from an expedited appeal decision by the Upper Tribunal in certain cases.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Tom Pursglove
Clause 22 provides for legally aided advice to be available to all individuals who have received a priority removal notice. The priority removal notice is designed to give advance notice to individuals who are being prioritised for removal from the UK, and requires them to raise any reasons why they should not be removed. It is essential that individuals have access to free and impartial legal advice upon receipt of a priority removal notice. Those individuals need to understand what the notice is and what it is asking them to do, and they need the opportunity to go through their individual circumstances with a qualified lawyer and confirm whether there are any reasons why they should not be removed from the UK, and how to raise those reasons. Access to this legal advice will be free to the individual, with the only criterion for the advice being receipt of the priority removal notice.
Bambos Charalambous
Clause 22 provides for up to—but no more than—seven hours of legal aid to be available to those served with a priority removal notice, enabling them to receive advice on their immigration status and removal. This provision is necessary due to the new priority removal notices regime introduced in part 2 of the Bill, and while we welcome the introduction of the legal aid requirement in the Bill, it does not go far enough. Seven hours is not enough time for a legal representative to take instructions from, advise and represent individuals who are often among the most vulnerable people in society.
The Government’s one-stop approach to asylum claims means that there is a significant risk of claimants being unable to obtain legal advice properly despite the provisions set out in the clause, because they have not been given enough time to develop a relationship of trust with their legal advisers and the legal authorities. We know about the difficulties many asylum seekers—for example, those who are victims of torture, sexual gender-based violence, or trafficking—face in disclosing evidence, and the time constraints imposed by clause 22 will likely negatively impact people who have difficulty disclosing information related to their claim due to an initial lack of trust in the advisers or authorities.
More widely, organisations in the sector have rightly made the connection between the Government’s offer of legal aid to the recipients of PRNs in this clause and the broader cuts to legal aid in the immigration sector that have become the hallmark of the Government’s time in office. According to Bail for Immigration Detainees,
“This meagre provision comes after the gradual decimation of the legal aid immigration sector since the legal aid cuts in 2013”,
and the clause
“will not be a sufficient safeguard to ensure access to justice”.
It is, of course, essential that people who need legal advice can access that advice in practice, and support must be provided for those who need help navigating the system. In many instances, asylum seekers are highly vulnerable, and may experience difficulties when it comes to the legal intricacies of the asylum process, such as studying legal determinations or preparing submissions for appeals. It is equally clear that the wider proposals in part 2 of the Bill will not achieve the Home Office’s aim of creating an immigration system that is fairer and more efficient. As we know from reading the Bill, clause 22 comes alongside a set of sweeping legislative changes that, for example, limit access to appeals, speed up the removal process and penalise late submissions of relevant evidence. These measures can hardly be described as fair, and they fail to make the system more efficient.
We must take the proposals about legal aid in clause 22 in conjunction with other clauses in part 2 that seek to fast-track asylum claims and appeals, and make conditions harder for asylum seekers and refugees here in the UK. When implemented together and in strict draconian fashion, the Bill’s provisions therefore inhibit access to justice, risk inherent unfairness, are contrary to the common law and violate procedural requirements. Most importantly, they may give rise to a significant risk of refoulement, which would violate the UK’s internal obligations.
While we welcome the introduction of legal aid, we do not believe that the clause goes far enough: we believe that much more should be done to provide more legal aid, particularly in relation to the immigration sector.
Neil Coyle
Members will be pleased to know that I will be brief, not least because my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate has been so comprehensive, but also because I spoke on this issue a lot this morning. However, I would like to ask some specific questions—three, I think.
If children are covered by clause 22, perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity—despite failing to do so on the two previous chances I have provided—to outline what the equality impact assessment means when it says,
“We will also provide increased access to legal aid.”
As I have explained, the Ministry of Justice seems to be unaware of this extension, and there are previous answers I have yet to exploit. However, it would be useful to know—indeed, I believe we are entitled to know—what cost to Government this will have. What is the cost of this extension to the taxpayer? Is it relevant to clause 22, and how many children or people will benefit from such an extension as we go forward? I hope that the Minister will be able to answer that or, at least, send another letter. I am enjoying our correspondence so far.
My second question is about the organisations that might be providing this advice. Is it the Government’s intention, under clause 22, to have a defined list of organisations that will be willing to provide it? As I mentioned, at an asylum hostel in my constituency yesterday, there appeared to be a Home Office list of legal aid providers that is given to asylum seekers in an induction pack. That should be made public, so that we can explore whether those are the best organisations and whether the list could be expanded. I hope the Minister will tell us whether that list will be published, and whether clause 22 will involve a defined set of organisations.
Thirdly, if the Government are serious about genuinely tackling the delays and the pace of these cases, perhaps they would consider expanding legal aid to all cases to make it a genuinely fast, fair and effective system. That is sadly not what we have before us today.
Paul Blomfield
Similarly, I want to ask a couple of questions of the Minister on why the opportunity has not been taken to go beyond the provisions in the clause, because there is a real problem with access to legal aid. Research by Refugee Action has shown that, since the changes introduced in 2012, it has been much more difficult to secure legal aid. There is also a vast difference in provision across the country, with provision concentrated in metropolitan areas such as London and Birmingham, and not in dispersal areas, where it is particularly difficult to access legal aid. Refugee Action’s report recommended that the Government should commit to ensuring that everybody in the asylum system who is eligible for legal aid representation has access to it. What are the Government proposing in respect of that?
If the clause is about ensuring that issues are resolved at the appropriate stage, why are the Government not extending legal aid to all stages of the process? If cases are successfully resolved at an earlier stage, surely it is to everybody’s benefit.
Tom Pursglove
I will try to respond to the various points that have been raised as best as I am able. I will, of course, happily feed through the views that have been expressed to Ministry of Justice colleagues who have direct responsibility for legal aid within their portfolio.
On the initial point about the seven hours, it is worth saying that the power we are proposing will allow the Lord Chancellor to amend the number of hours of advice available under the clause. The Lord Chancellor will have to lay affirmative legislation to ensure that Members of this House and the other place have full sight of the proposed changes. That power is necessary because the priority removal notice is a new process and, as with all new operational processes, it will take time to bed in. We must be able to change the number of hours to ensure that the purpose of the clause works how we intend in practice. Providing individuals with access to free legal advice ahead of their potential removal from the UK is clearly important. That is why we are making that commitment in the Bill.
I was asked what this extension of legal aid will cost. The estimates are in the region of £4 million to £6 million, so it is a significant increase to meet the need resulting from the new measures we are introducing. If, at the end of the seven hours, more advice is needed—and there are circumstances which dictate that—there is legal advice available for asylum claims and appeals.
Neil Coyle
Is that £4 million to £6 million just for the civil legal services under clause 22 for people under priority removal notices?
Tom Pursglove
Yes. That provision is made precisely for those in receipt of a PRN. I was making a point about the extension. It is worth making the point that, if people find that they require further advice at the end of the seven hours, any individual needing more legal advice on an immigration matter can apply for in-scope legal aid, such as for asylum advice or through the exceptional case funding scheme, subject to passing the relevant means and merits tests. I will make sure that colleagues in the Ministry of Justice are aware of the points raised today on legal aid more generally within the immigration and asylum system.
There was a question about access to justice in dispersal areas. The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark asked where information about legal aid provision is provided. My understanding is that it is published online, so it is readily accessible to people. As hon. Members would expect on the issue of dispersal areas, the MOJ monitors the market capacity and works with the Home Office to ensure supply in dispersal areas. If the hon. Member for Sheffield Central wants to write to me with specific concerns on that matter in his community, I would be glad to look at those and make sure that they are considered by Ministers appropriately.
Paul Blomfield
I will take the Minister up on his offer, but I want to press him on another point. He talks about legal aid being made available for the new provision for a priority removal notice. However, the Home Secretary has the opportunity to issue a priority removal notice, but is not required to do so—it might not be done in all cases. There will potentially be people who are served with a notice of removal who have never received a priority removal notice. They will not have the opportunity to access the seven hours of free legal aid. What is the justification for that?
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Member is seeking to extend the provision we are proposing in the Bill. We are very clear that the clause makes the legal advice available to those who have been served with priority removal notices. We do not propose to extend the offer beyond that. However, I will make sure that his concerns are flagged with ministerial colleagues in the Ministry of Justice.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 22 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 23
Late provision of evidence in asylum or human rights claim: weight
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 43, in clause 23, page 26, line 38, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) Where subsection (1) applies, the deciding authority must have regard to the fact of the evidence being provided late and any reasons why it was provided late in considering it and determining the claim or appeal.”
This amendment would remove the provision which states that “minimal weight” should be given to any evidence provided late.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 38, in clause 23, page 26, line 40, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (2) does not apply where—
(a) the claimant’s claim is based on their sexual orientation or gender identity; or
(b) the claimant was under 18 years of age at the time of their arrival in the United Kingdom.”.
This amendment would remove the direction to the deciding authority to give minimal weight to evidence provided late in cases where an asylum claim or human rights claim is based on issues of sexual orientation or gender identity; or where the claimant was under 18 when they arrived in the UK.
Amendment 131, in clause 23, page 26, after line 40, insert—
“(2A) The deciding authority must accept that there are good reasons why the evidence was provided late where—
(a) the claimant’s claim is based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics;
(b) the claimant was under 18 years of age at the time of their arrival in the United Kingdom;
(c) the claimant’s claim is based on gender-based violence;
(d) the claimant has experienced sexual violence;
(e) the claimant is a victim of modern slavery or trafficking;
(f) the claimant is suffering from a mental health condition or impairment;
(g) the claimant has been a victim of torture;
(h) the claimant is suffering from a serious physical disability;
(i) the claimant is suffering from other serious physical health conditions or illnesses.”
This amendment sets out the circumstances where the deciding authority must accept that there were good reasons for providing evidence late.
Amendment 44, in clause 23, page 27, line 13, at end insert—
“(6B) This section does not apply where the evidence provided proves that a claimant is at risk of persecution by the Taliban.”
This amendment would disapply Clause 23 (under which minimal weight is given to any evidence provided late) in respect of claimants who are at risk of persecution by the Taliban.
Clause stand part.
Stuart C. McDonald
The clause is similar in nature to clauses we have debated already, and most of the amendments address similar issues. It is about penalties for providing evidence after a specified cut-off date. Amendment 43 makes the point, again, that we regard it as legitimate to ask a decision maker to take account of the fact that evidence was provided late and the reasons for that, but it should not tell a decision maker what to conclude. We have also added our names in support of amendment 131, which seeks to ensure an acknowledgement of how difficult the process of the provision of evidence can be for certain categories of claimant, and the inappropriateness of fixing hard and fast deadlines.
Bambos Charalambous
I will speak to amendments 38 and 131, and will seek to press amendment 131.
We do not believe that it is fair that some evidence is deemed to have minimal weight when there are practical and psychological reasons that it cannot be disclosed by a particular date. We have grave concerns about the clause, in particular because of the awful impact it could have on vulnerable women and other groups such as the LGBT+ community. That is why we have tabled the amendments. We want a cast-iron and legal guarantee that groups who have good reasons for late evidence are protected under the law. Otherwise, there is a danger that the persecution they have fled will be compounded by the inappropriate disregard of their late evidence.
The clause instructs decision makers to give regard to the principle that minimal weight be given to later evidence unless there are good reasons, which are undefined in the Bill and are therefore left entirely to the discretion of the Home Secretary. There are many good reasons why, for instance, women who have fled sexual and gender-based violence cannot share relevant experiences right away. This is even acknowledged in Home Office guidance that refers to
“guilt, shame, and concerns about family ‘honour’, or fear of family members”.
The same guidance acknowledges that women who have been trafficked to the UK may be facing threats from their traffickers at the time of their interview, such that they are unable to speak openly. Some women who have fled persecution because of their sexual orientation are not able to disclose their sexuality during the time of their initial claim. They may still be coming to terms with it themselves—a process that can take years. Other women or people who have fled sexual violence or torture may be suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, and may experience disassociation from their experiences, which is a well-known psychological phenomenon in the aftermath of sexual violence.
Women therefore already face significant barriers to the full investigation and recognition of their protection claims. The clauses on late evidence will worsen those obstacles if they are not given additional protections. As well as causing harm to women in desperate need of safety, if unamended the clause will lead to greater unfairness in the system, an increasing number of incorrect decisions and ultimately, therefore, an increase in the backlog of cases.
With reference to women and late evidence, the Bill taken as a whole goes directly against Home Office policy, which states that late disclosure should not automatically prejudice a woman’s credibility. The backlog of asylum cases urgently needs addressing, but restricting the ability of vulnerable women or other vulnerable people to bring evidence is neither a fair nor an effective solution. That is why we believe the amendment that provides the specific categories as set out is so needed.
Introducing a rigid deadline for providing evidence and penalising those who provide late evidence also risks negatively impacting trans people specifically from applying for asylum. Trans people already face difficulty in “proving” their gender identity, due to the innateness of someone’s gender identity together with social expectations and stereotypes ostracising a population of trans people from protection. We see a similar difficulty in respect of other LGBT+ identities in so far as it is by nature next to impossible to prove something so intimate, without its becoming disproportionately invasive. Therefore we believe that these groups, too, are adversely impacted by the provisions around late evidence.
For people under 18, there are obvious reasons why their evidence may be late. It seems ridiculous that without amendment, the clause seriously suggests that we punish children by giving their evidence less weight if they cannot meet an arbitrary date. How on earth is it appropriate that children who may have escaped the worst imaginable situations, and who are likely to be suffering from trauma, are then further traumatised with arbitrary conditions placed on evidence and its weight?
Clause 23 creates the principle that a decision maker must give minimal weight to evidence raised late by a claimant, unless there are good reasons why that evidence was provided late. We are deeply concerned about the clause and the impact of the Bill’s measures around delayed disclosure in part 2. There are many reasons why it may not be possible to present all information in support of an asylum claim at the earliest opportunity. Women who have been trafficked to the UK may be facing threats from their traffickers at the time of interview. Others who have fled persecution because of their sexual orientation may be unable to disclose their sexuality during the time of their initial claim. They may still be coming to terms with themselves—a process that can take years.
If implemented, the Government’s proposals would adversely impact those vulnerable people. We propose that the Government introduce a cast-iron legal guarantee that groups that have a good reason for late evidence are protected under the law. Failing to do so risks penalising the most vulnerable people and those who have been failed by the system.
Neil Coyle
Clause 23 is deeply pernicious and comes at a time that suggests that the Government have rushed this legislation. Last Tuesday, there was a meeting between the Prime Minister’s special envoy for freedom of religion or belief and the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). That meeting was to discuss the case of Maira Shahbaz, a 15-year-old Christian who has fled Pakistan having been kidnapped, forced to convert religion and forced to marry one of the men who kidnapped her. She managed to escape and is seeking asylum, but she was held for a significant time, so she would not necessarily meet the original timeframe and she might fall foul of the measures in this legislation.
For the Prime Minister’s special envoy to be willing to meet and discuss that case suggests that there should be a process by which someone in those circumstances is able to avoid the provisions of this legislation. I am deeply concerned that one bit of the Government are off having discussions elsewhere, while the Home Office is bringing forward plans that could prevent someone in those exact circumstances from benefiting from any exemptions they might have discussed in that meeting last Tuesday. It suggests once again that this is more about culture wars and headlines than it is about the practical reality of the system that exists or building towards a system that is fairer, more effective and faster.
I wanted to quickly raise issues around sexuality. I am deeply grateful to Rainbow Migration, who provided some examples and evidence for the Committee to all members. It said that clause 23 specifically
“would be acutely detrimental to LGBT+ people because of the difficulties in gathering and providing evidence that helps confirm their sexual orientation or gender identity. Many LGBT+ people may have spent a long time trying to hide their sexual orientation or gender identity from other people…in the UK”,
never mind in regimes where it is specifically illegal or unlawful, and could be punished.
Earlier, I asked the Minister what a gay man would need to provide to meet the initial evidence threshold, to avoid PRNs and to avoid being punished by clause 23. If someone has been persecuted on the grounds of their sexuality—persecuted for having the temerity to fall in love with someone of the same gender—in their country of birth, they may inevitably worry about revealing that identity, having managed to escape such an horrific regime.
I ask the Minister again to explore some of the practical realities of those circumstances before penalising someone specifically on the grounds of sexuality, because I think that it will fall foul of existing UK law, if not other international obligations. I am very mindful that I have a live case of a gay man trying to flee Lebanon where he is being forced, as the only son in a family, to marry against his wishes. He is seeking to escape Lebanon in order to not be forced to subjugate his sexuality in the interests of his family’s wishes.
I hope that the Minister can give more information on what the burden of proof would be, because I do not understand. Producing a boyfriend or girlfriend, or a love letter from someone still living in a regime where it is impossible to do that, will not necessarily be possible; yet the Government are legislating to penalise people in exactly those circumstances. Members across the House are deeply worried about the implications of such a measure.
On 3 February 2020, the Home Office was asked in question 11509 when it
“plans to update the House on the progress of the review into the way asylum claims based on religious grounds and LGBT+ grounds are assessed.”
The response was:
“The review into the way asylum claims on the basis of religious and LGBT+ grounds are assessed has been completed.”
That review has never been published. The Government refused to publish it in February last year, and they have refused to do so in answer to many subsequent questions. It is troubling that, while the Government withhold information on how existing processes have not necessarily dealt with faith and sexuality-based cases very well, we now have measures before us that deliberately penalise people who will find it harder to prove discrimination or persecution on faith and sexuality grounds. I hope that the Minister will agree that the review should be made public during the Bill’s passage, and certainly before anyone is penalised and has their case impeded on those grounds.
We talked about PTSD. Under clause 23 someone could face having their case undermined before their PTSD symptoms were, importantly, fully diagnosed. I will not repeat what I said this morning, but it would be ludicrous to legislate that someone be forced to have that diagnosis when they cannot access healthcare and not all symptoms will necessarily be evident.
Finally, the Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit has provided a case of a Nigerian woman whom it has just listed as “X”. Promised a career in the UK as a hairdresser, she was forced into sex work, when in the UK, for nearly a year before she managed to escape. She was unable to meet the time limit, could be subject to a PRN and could be subject to clause 23 if she finally makes a case. The Minister had said that trafficking victims would not be subject to those provisions; but the Home Office initially declared that specific woman, X, not to be a victim of trafficking. By the time the Home Office had admitted its mistake, she could have gone through that process. She could have had the PRN imposed before the Home Office was willing to accept that, and before she had the legal advice to support her to make the case that proved she was the victim of human trafficking. I see no safeguards before us today that would prevent her from being subject to clause 23, and having less weight applied to her case or being removed from the country before she could make that case. The Government need to come forward with more safeguards before they progress these measures any further.
Tom Pursglove
I thank hon. Members for raising these important issues. We all recognise that young or particularly vulnerable claimants, sufferers of trauma such as sexual violence or ill-treatment on account of their sexual orientation or gender identity, and survivors of modern slavery or trafficking need to be treated with care, dignity and sensitivity. It is important that they are able to participate fully in the asylum process so that, in the case of a genuine applicant, their claim for protection can be recognised and their status settled at the earliest opportunity. That is in the best interests of the claimant and the overall functioning of the asylum system.
At the same time, we recognise that it may be harder for some people to engage in the process. That may be because of their past experiences, because of a lack of trust in the authorities or because of the sensitive and personal nature of their claim. That is why clause 16, together with clauses 17 and 23, provides for good reasons why evidence might be provided late. What constitutes “good reasons” has not been defined in the Bill, because to do so would limit the discretion and flexibility of decision makers to take factors into account on a case-by-case basis. It would be impractical to legislate for every case type where someone may have good reasons for not previously disclosing evidence in relation to their protection claim.
Good reasons may include objective factors such as practical difficulties in obtaining evidence—that may be where the evidence was not previously available, or where an expert report is not available. Good reasons may also include subjective factors, such as a claimant’s particular vulnerabilities relating to their age, sexual orientation, gender identity or mental health. Decision makers, including the judiciary, will be better placed to identify and assess those factors on an individual and case-by-case basis.
Amendment 43 would effectively remove the minimal weight principle; it would disapply the requirement for a decision maker to have regard to the principle that minimal weight should be given to late evidence for two categories of people. The amendments fail to take into account the fact that decision makers will have discretion in how they apply the principle that minimal weight should be given to late evidence, and that they may choose not to apply the principle in any given case. Clause 23 does not create a provision whereby decision makers are required to give late evidence minimal weight; they are required only to have regard to the principle, which they can choose to disregard.
Amendment 131 would place a statutory obligation on decision makers to accept that there are good reasons for late evidence where an individual’s claim is based on certain factors, or the individual falls into a particular category. That would apply to Home Office decision makers as well as the judiciary. Compelling a judge to accept good reasons for late evidence based solely on the grounds of the person’s claim raises significant issues and interferes with their fact-finding role. It also ignores the possibility that a claim may fall within a particular category or a person may identify as one of the listed categories, but their evidence may be late for unrelated reasons. The amendment would therefore create a blanket acceptance of late evidence in specific prescribed circumstances, and yet a vulnerable individual who did not fall within the specified groups might have late evidence and face a different test for whether or not they have good reasons. We feel that is unfair.
On amendment 44, this country has a proud history of welcoming with open arms those who require its protection. That includes circumstances where, as in Afghanistan, a significant change in circumstances means a sudden shift in a country’s security situation. Where evidence is brought late on account of such a change, that is clearly capable of falling within the “good reasons” consideration, so there is no need to make specific provision in relation to a fear of the Taliban.
Stuart C. McDonald
But what would happen in the hypothetical example I gave, where there was not good reason? The guy was a bit stubborn and did not think he should have to go through this process; he thought he should have had some automatic leave. I am still at a loss to understand what it means for the decision maker to have regard to the principle that minimal weight should be given to the evidence. I do not understand the expression. How does that work in the context of the hypothetical example I gave?
Tom Pursglove
I will come back to that point and try to give the hon. Gentleman some further clarity, which I hope will be helpful. I will make the point again that, in the current circumstances that we find ourselves in regarding Afghanistan, people are not being removed there.
Of course, all the relevant information is taken into consideration when reaching decisions on individual cases. For example, if there is an assessment that a particular country is safe but for a particular individual there are grounds whereby it is not safe for them in their circumstances, that is reflected in the decisions that are taken.
To finish the point about amendment 44, it would create a system where those with a fear of the Taliban were treated differently from all other asylum seekers, no matter the risks they faced or the vulnerabilities of the individuals involved, simply on the basis of where they were from. That is discriminatory and cannot be right.
On the point about how decision makers can be told that they must apply minimal weight to evidence, clause 23 does not create a requirement for Home Office decision makers or the judiciary to give late evidence, following the receipt of an evidence notice or a priority removal notice, minimal weight. In protection and human rights claims, decision makers must have regard to the principle that minimal weight will be given to any late evidence, but they can consider the principle and determine that it should not be applied in a particular case.
Tom Pursglove
I have made that point previously and I have reiterated it now for the record. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I have made the point pretty clear.
Neil Coyle
The Minister suggests there is clarity where no clarity exists. If the clause is not to reduce the weight that the evidence is given, what exactly is it there for? Is he suggesting that he will withdraw it?
Tom Pursglove
No, that is not for a moment what I am suggesting. The point that I am making is that, as I have alluded to on many occasions in relation to the clauses that we have considered, we want decision makers to have the appropriate discretion within the framework that we are establishing through the Bill. We think that is the right approach to reach the right decisions in individual cases, taking into account all the relevant circumstances and all the relevant information that is provided. We think that is the right way to proceed. More detail will of course be set out in the guidance.
The hon. Gentleman earlier alluded to very difficult circumstances that a particular individual has found challenging to talk about and disclose. I repeat that caseworkers are trained to be sympathetic to circumstances. The burden of proof, as he described it, will be set out in the guidance that follows. Again, I want to see proper discretion and proper consideration of cases on a case-by-case basis. That is the right and proper way to address such matters.
All individuals should be treated with respect by having proper consideration given to their case. As I said, the detail will be established in the guidance. There will also be training for decision makers, but there is already training for decision makers to ensure that they are sympathetic to the sorts of issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised.
Neil Coyle
With the best will in the world, no amount of training will change the fact that, even if someone has come out in the UK, the Bill makes it harder for gay men in particular from certain countries. What do they need to provide to prove that they would face homophobic persecution if they went back? What do they need to show or do? I want a practical example of how it will work in practice. I cannot believe that one even exists at the moment.
Tom Pursglove
I am sure the hon. Gentleman will understand why it is difficult to set out in the Bill all the circumstances that would capture all the situations that individuals face in relation to such matters. It is just not possible to do that, which is why we are saying that we will establish that in the guidance that will be published if and when the Bill becomes law, as I hope it will. The guidance will set out the circumstances and the way that cases will be considered. Again, that discretion, flexibility and consideration will be shown to individual cases.
Tom Pursglove
I am conscious that we are going over this ground repeatedly, but I will give the hon. Gentleman the opportunity to intervene again.
Neil Coyle
Is the Minister saying that the guidance will set out what a gay man needs to provide in order to prove that they will face persecution? I think and hope that is what he is saying, and I hope that he will say why the Home Office has not published the review it has already undertaken of the existing process and when it will be published.
Tom Pursglove
I am not familiar with the review to which he refers, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I have been in this role only for the past four weeks. However, I will go away and look into that.
I can only repeat the point that we will set out in guidance the relevant factors that will be taken into consideration when cases are determined. I would expect there to be sympathetic consideration of people’s individual circumstances. I have also made that point at the Dispatch Box when we have talked about the operationalisation of the policy. Of course, it is right that that information is established in full. With that, I encourage the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to withdraw his amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. At points, he did sound almost reassuring, but the problem is that he sounds reassuring when he says, essentially, “This clause will not have any effect,” suggesting that decision makers will be able just to have regard to all the circumstances on a case-by-case basis. That is what decision makers do anyway without the need for this myriad of statute provisions telling them what to think about a, b, c and the weight to be applied to evidence here, there and everywhere. While I take at face value his intention—I think we probably intend the same thing—that my Afghan example would not end up with conclusive evidence being disregarded because the man was stubborn or behaved in a stupid way because he was at risk, I still find the wording in the clause troubling. I hope the Home Office will think again.
In the meantime, we have pressed similar amendments to a vote, so I do not need to do so again. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 131, in clause 23, page 26, after line 40, insert—
“(2A) The deciding authority must accept that there are good reasons why the evidence was provided late where—
(a) the claimant’s claim is based on sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics;
(b) the claimant was under 18 years of age at the time of their arrival in the United Kingdom;
(c) the claimant’s claim is based on gender-based violence;
(d) the claimant has experienced sexual violence;
(e) the claimant is a victim of modern slavery or trafficking;
(f) the claimant is suffering from a mental health condition or impairment;
(g) the claimant has been a victim of torture;
(h) the claimant is suffering from a serious physical disability;
save-line2(i) the claimant is suffering from other serious physical health conditions or illnesses.”—(Bambos Charalambous.)
This amendment sets out the circumstances where the deciding authority must accept that there were good reasons for providing evidence late.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 45, in clause 24, page 28, leave out lines 9 to 11.
This amendment would remove the requirement for detainees to give their notice of appeal within 5 working days.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 46, in clause 24, page 28, line 22, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would require (rather than merely empower) the Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal to cease to treat cases as accelerated detained appeals where it is in the interests of justice to do so.
Clause stand part.
Government new clause 7—Accelerated detained appeals.
Stuart C. McDonald
Clause 24 establishes a system of fast-track appeals for those in detention. The explanatory notes state that in 2019-20 it took almost 12 weeks on average for detained immigration appeals to progress from receipt in the first tier tribunal through to disposal, and the aim is for faster decisions in certain cases
“to allow appellants to be released or removed more quickly”.
That sounds almost benign, and who does not want appeals to take place as quickly as possible? But the key issue is whether they can be decided fairly within the timeframe set down in the clause. We are talking not about trying to take three or four weeks off the average time, but about reducing it by almost three quarters. Clearly, the Government believe that the tribunal is wasting a lot of time but I do not see any evidence for that, and I do not see any analysis of why that 12-week average exists.
Five days is an incredibly short timeframe in which to launch an appeal, particularly when a person is detained in an immigration detention facility, often in the middle of nowhere, and where the chances of securing proper legal advice and consultation in that time are incredibly slim. Amendment 45 would delete that requirement.
Amendment 46 would also mean that the tribunal would be required to stop treating an appeal as an accelerated appeal if it was in the interests of justice to do so. Again it is not clear to us why the tribunal should be empowered to continue an accelerated appeal when that is not in the interests of justice. More generally, the clause gives rise to the question of why the Secretary of State should have any say in which appeals can be disposed of expeditiously. Why is she not required just to assess the fairness of a case or give consideration to how complex a case is? Why not leave the tribunal to make those determinations? It would be far better placed to make that assessment.
As Members will know, in 2015 the Court of Appeal found similar rules to be unlawful and held that they created a system in which asylum and human rights appeals were disposed of too quickly to be fair. The Court said that the timetable was
“so tight that it is inevitable that a significant number of appellants will be denied a fair opportunity to present their cases”.
It also said that the policy did not appreciate the problems faced by legal representation obtaining instructions in such cases or the complexity or difficulty of many asylum appeals, and the gravity of the issues raised by them. I have absolutely no reason to think that the proposed policy is any better than that one.
The Government now intend to replace the entire clause with new clause 7, principally it seems to expand the categories of appeal that could be subject to the proposed procedure. My party opposes that expansion and opposes the clause.
Bambos Charalambous
We oppose the clause. It seeks the return of the detained fast-track system and to recreate it in primary legislation. The clause imposes a duty on the tribunal procedure rules committee to make rules for an accelerated timeframe for certain appeals made from detention that are considered suitable for consideration within that timeframe.
In the explanatory notes, an accelerated detained appeal is defined as being
“an appeal brought by an appellant who…received a refusal of their asylum claim while in detention…remains in detention under a relevant detention provision…is appealing a decision which was certified by the Secretary of State as suitable for an accelerated detained appeal”.
That system previously existed but was found to be illegal by the High Court in a landmark case brought by Detention Action. The system was found to be unfair as asylum and human rights appeals were disposed of too quickly to be fair. The Court of Appeal described the timetable for such appeals as
“so tight that it is inevitable that a significant number of appellants will be denied a fair opportunity to present their cases”.
It also emphasised, perhaps instructively for this Committee, that speed and efficiency must not trump justice and fairness—something of a feature of part 2 of the Bill. Indeed, hundreds if not thousands of cases have had to be reconsidered by the Home Office or the tribunal because they were unfairly rushed through the process that the Government now seek to recreate. Those cases include survivors of trafficking and torture and other individuals who, on the basis of a rushed and unfair procedure, will have been removed to places where they fear persecution or are separated from their families. There was no adequate system for ensuring that such people were removed from the fast track and given a fair opportunity to present their claims.
Despite that background, the Bill aims to create this unjust and ineffective procedure by reintroducing the detained fast-track process through this clause. It will put that same system, which was deemed unlawful in 2015, on a statutory footing, which will insulate it against future legal challenges.
The clause provides for the Secretary of State to certify a decision if she considers that an appeal would be disposed of expeditiously. It requires the tribunal procedure committee to introduce the following time limits: a notice of appeal must be lodged no later than five working days after the decision was received; the tribunal must make a decision no later than 25 days after the appeal date; and an application for permission to appeal to the upper tribunal must be determined by the first-tier tribunal not later than 20 working days after the applicant was given notice of the tribunal’s decision.
The clause would deny access to justice. First, five days is insufficient to prepare an appeal against a negative decision, particularly where the individual is detained and where their access to legal advice is poor and an individual’s wellbeing may be affected by their detention. For those detained in prison, the situation is even worse. For example, in a case in February of this year, the High Court declared the lack of legal aid immigration advice for people held under immigration powers to be unlawful. More widely, Home Office decision making is frequently incorrect or unlawful. As we know, half of all appeals against immigration decisions were successful in the year leading up to June 2019. It is therefore vital that people are able to effectively challenge decisions through the courts.
The detained fast track is unjust. It is also unnecessary. As the Public Law Project and Justice have pointed out, the tribunal has adequate case management powers to deal with appeals expeditiously in appropriate cases and already prioritises detained cases. The Home Secretary should not be trying to force the hand of the independent tribunal procedures committee to stack the cards in her favour in appeals against her decisions. The Bill does not learn the lessons of the past and seeks to resurrect an unworkable system of accelerated detained appeals. The clause proposes that the appeals process be fast-tracked. I am very worried that provisions in part 2 of the Bill will therefore disadvantage the most vulnerable.
By allowing the Home Secretary to accelerate appeals when she thinks they would be disposed of expeditiously, the clause is clearly unjust. Once again, it also seems to violate the refugee convention. As my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Matt Western) said on Second Reading:
“It is more than regrettable that the convention appears now to be held in such little regard by this Government.”—[Official Report, 19 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 769.]
For those reasons, we will oppose that the clause stand part.
Tom Pursglove
I understand the motivation behind amendment 45. However, the Government oppose the amendment, as it is contrary to our policy intention and would undermine the effective working of the accelerated detained appeals process.
The period of five working days strikes the right balance, achieving both speed and fairness. The detained fast-track rules put in place in 2003 and 2005 allowed only two days to appeal. The 2014 rules set the same time limit. The current procedure rules allow a non-detained migrant 14 days to lodge their appeal against a refusal decision.
On amendment 46, I can assure hon. Members that it is not necessary, as the Bill already achieves the objective sought. The Government’s aim is to ensure that cases only remain in the ADA where it is in the interests of justice for them to do so. The consideration of what is in the interests of justice is a matter of judicial discretion. Where a judge decides that it is not in the interests of justice to keep a case in the ADA process, we would expect that they would use their discretion to remove the case. The current wording of the Bill—“may” rather than “must”—is consistent with the drafting of the rules that govern all appeals considered in the immigration and asylum chamber.
For these reasons, I invite the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate to withdraw the amendments. On the detained fast track and wider points about the Government’s intentions, although the courts upheld the principle of an accelerated process for appeals made in detention, we have considered the legal challenges to the detained fast track carefully. We are confident that the new accelerated detained appeals route will ensure fairness as well as improving speed. All Home Office decisions to detain are made in accordance with the adults at risk in detention policy and reviewed by the independent detention gatekeeper. Changes made to the screening process, drawing on lessons learned, will enable us to identify appellants who are unsuitable for the accelerated detained appeals route at the earliest opportunity. Suitability will be reviewed on an ongoing basis and the tribunal will have the power to transfer a case out of the accelerated route if it considers that that is in the interests of justice to do so.
The timescales proposed for the accelerated route are longer than under the previous detained fast track. Appellants will have more time to seek legal advice and prepare their case. We are confident that the new route will provide sufficient opportunity to access legal advice. I am also conscious that Members are interested in what happens in the eventuality that a migrant misses the deadline to appeal a refusal decision. Provided that there are no other barriers to return, removal will be arranged. It is open to a migrant and/or their legal representatives to submit an appeal after the deadline and ask a judge to extend the time and admit the appeal late.
On new clause 7, the Government are committed to making the asylum appeals system faster, while maintaining fairness, ensuring access to justice and upholding the rule of law. In particular, it is right that appeals made from detention should be dealt with quickly, so that people are not deprived of their liberty for longer than is necessary. New clause 7 sets out a duty on the tribunal procedure committee to make rules for the provision of an accelerated detained appeals route. That will establish a fixed maximum timeframe for determining specific appeals brought while an individual is detained.
Currently, all immigration and asylum appeals are subject to the same procedure rules. Appeals involving detained appellants are prioritised by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service but there are no set timeframes. It often takes months for detained appeals to be determined, resulting in people being released from detention before their appeals are concluded.
Changes to procedure rules are subject to the tribunal procedure committee’s statutory consultation requirements and procedures. However, the Government’s intent is to ensure that straightforward appeals from detention are determined more quickly. Under a detained accelerated process all appellants will benefit from a quicker final determination of their immigration status, spending less time in limbo, and getting the certainty they need to move forward with their lives sooner.
Those whose appeals are successful will have their leave to remain confirmed earlier than if the standard procedure rules had been followed. Meanwhile those with no right to remain will be removed more quickly, as they can be detained throughout the process, which reduces the risk of absconding.
The courts have been clear in upholding the principle that an accelerated process for asylum seekers while detained, operated within certain safeguards, is entirely legal. I made that point earlier. We have considered the legal challenges to the previous detained fast track carefully and we are confident that the new accelerated detained appeals route will ensure fairness as well as improving speed. We will ensure, through regulations and guidance, that only suitable cases will be allocated to the accelerated route. Cases will be assessed for whether they are likely to be able to be decided fairly within the shorter timeframe, and individuals will be screened for vulnerability and other factors that may impact their ability to engage fairly with an accelerated process.
As an additional safeguard, the clause makes it clear that the tribunal can decide to remove cases from the accelerated route if it considers it is in the interests of justice to do so. The new accelerated detained appeals route will contribute significantly to the timeliness with which appeals are decided for those in immigration detention. It will allow us to swiftly remove from the country people found not to need protection, while those with valid claims can be released from detention more quickly.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I still have serious concerns about the provisions in the clause, particularly the short timeframe of five days to launch an appeal, and particularly when it could be the Secretary of State who has decided somebody has to go through that process. If she gets that decision wrong, by the time there is any ability to apply to the tribunal to move away from the fast-track process, it could be too late. In that case, a removal attempt will have been made, and a vulnerable person who was unable to contact a solicitor in time is completely without any chance of rectifying what the Secretary of State has done.
I maintain my opposition to what is proposed. I think that the safeguards fall way short, but I do not see any point in putting my amendment to a vote, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
I will now put the question that clause 24 stand part. I understand that the Government will vote no.
Craig Whittaker
I thought we were voting for clause 24 to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
As Chair, I do not wish to stop you voting as you wish to. I understand that the Government have indicated that they would vote to leave out the clause.
Tom Pursglove
To be clear, we are seeking to remove clause 24 and replace it with new clause 7.
The Chair
If that is the Government’s intention, far be it from me to tell them what to do.
Clause 24 disagreed to.
Clause 25
Claims certified as clearly unfounded: removal of right of appeal
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Pursglove
Protection or human rights claims that are certified as clearly unfounded are those so clearly without substance that they are bound to fail. The refusal of such claims can currently be appealed after the person has left the UK. By contrast, there is no right of appeal against the rejection of further submissions received after a protection or human rights claim has previously been refused, where those submissions do not create a realistic prospect of success. That approach is right: there should be no right of appeal unless there is something of real substance for the tribunal to consider.
The clause removes the out-of-country right of appeal under section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 for those whose protection or human rights claims are certified as clearly unfounded and bound to fail, bringing them into line with how we treat further submissions that have no realistic prospect of success. It will apply only to claims that are certified after the clause comes into effect. I would like to be clear that removing the right of appeal for certified claims does not prevent a person from applying for a judicial review to challenge a certification decision. It provides a necessary and effective safeguard in the event that a claim is incorrectly certified as clearly unfounded.
Bambos Charalambous
It is ironic that we are debating this clause as the Judicial Review and Courts Bill is receiving its Second Reading. We oppose the clause. We have heard time and again that the Government are aiming to make it harder for a person in the UK to establish their refugee status and entitlement to asylum. Clause 25 further restricts appeal rights for people seeking asylum. This clause removes the in-country and out-of-country rights of appeal for human rights and protection claims certified as clearly unfounded. It is concerning as, once again, it seeks to limit the rights of individuals, while failing to increase efficiency in the system and in turn decreasing fairness, with regrettable consequences for individuals. In respect of articles 6 and 8 of the ECHR, it represents a clear breach and will give rise to legal challenge. That was seen in the case of Kiarie and Byndloss v. the Home Secretary in 2017. At present, where the Home Secretary certifies a case as clearly unfounded, any appeal may be brought only after removal from the UK. In cases concerning protection claims or article 3 human rights claims, such appeals are incapable of providing an effective remedy, because the feared harm will have eventuated before the appeal can be heard.
As the explanatory notes to the Bill acknowledge, the right of appeal is rarely exercised; instead, challenges are brought by way of judicial review. This provision therefore contributes to the general trend in immigration and asylum law away from rights of appeal to the First-tier Tribunal and towards unappealable decisions, which are amenable to judicial review.
For the reasons specified in my speech, we will oppose clause 25 standing part of the Bill.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 159, in schedule 3, page 62, line 39, at end insert—
“(2D) Notwithstanding subsection (2A), a person who is particularly vulnerable to harm must not be removed to, or required to leave to go to, a State falling within subsection (2B) or any state to which Part 2, 3 or 4 of Schedule 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004 for the time being applies.
(2E) For the purposes of subsection (2D), a person is particularly vulnerable to harm if they—
(a) are suffering from a mental health condition or impairment;
(b) have been a victim of torture;
(c) have been a victim of sexual or gender-based violence;
(d) have been a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery;
(e) are pregnant;
(f) are suffering from a serious physical disability;
(g) are suffering from other serious physical health conditions or illnesses;
(h) are aged under 18 or 70 or over;
(i) are gay, lesbian or bisexual;
(j) are a trans or intersex person.”
This amendment would prevent persons who are particularly vulnerable to harm from being removed to, or required to leave to go to, a state falling within subsection (2B).
That schedule 3 be the Third schedule to the Bill.
New clause 18—Removal of asylum seeker to safe country—
“Schedule N makes amendments to section 77 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (no removal while claim for asylum pending).”
This new clause introduces the proposed NS2.
New schedule 2—Removal of asylum seeker to safe country—
“In section 77 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (no removal while claim for asylum pending), after subsection (2) insert—
‘(2A) This section does not prevent a person being removed to, or being required to leave to go to, a third State if all of the following conditions are met—
(a) the removal is pursuant to a formal, legally binding and public readmission agreement between the United Kingdom and the third State;
(b) the State meets the definition of a safe third State set out at section 14 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2021, as shown by reliable, objective and up-to-date information;
(c) the person has been found inadmissible under section 80B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;
(d) the third State in question is the State with which the person was found to have a connection under Section 80B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002;
(e) taking into account the person’s individual circumstances, it is reasonable for them to go to that State; and
(f) the person is not a national of that State.’”
This new schedule modifies the circumstances in which a person can be removed to, or required to leave to go to, a safe third State.
Tom Pursglove
This Government have been clear that claiming asylum in the first safe country reached is the fastest route to safety. We must dissuade all those considering making dangerous journeys to the UK in order to claim asylum. We are working closely with international partners to fix our broken asylum system and discussing how we could work together in the future.
Clause 26 introduces schedule 3, which aims to reduce the draw of the UK by working to make it easier to remove someone to a safe country, where their claim will then be processed. It amends existing legal frameworks in order to support our future objective to transfer some asylum claims to a safe third country for processing.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
What my hon. Friend the Minister is saying about deterring these dangerous journeys is even more poignant given the rescue operation that took place today off Harwich, where I understand five Somalis were in a small inflatable boat. As I understand it, two have been rescued, but three are feared drowned. That brings starkly into all our minds the need to deter these dangerous journeys and the desperate people who face these terrible things. I am sure the condolences of the whole Committee go to all those involved—not only those actually in the boat, but the rescue services, which must have had a fairly tough time.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. It is fair to say that I am very mindful of the enormous risks that we are finding people taking in trying to cross the channel at the moment. We have debated the matter extensively in this Committee up to this point, and no doubt that debate will continue. I am very concerned to hear about the situation that he has described. I have asked to be updated, and to be kept updated as to the progress of the operation to try to find the individuals who, it would seem, have been lost at sea. Of course, we send our thoughts and best wishes to those who are caught up in that terrible tragedy, and we hope for the best for them. This absolutely and without question underlines the gravity of the risks that people are taking by getting into small boats and trying to cross the English channel to get to the United Kingdom.
The Bill contains a suite of measures designed to protect those in genuine need while breaking the business model of criminal gangs who profit from people trafficking and exploit vulnerable people for their own gain. Our aim is to disincentivise people from seeking to enter the UK by dangerous means, facilitated by those criminal smugglers, with a clear message that those who arrive via an irregular route may be eligible to be transferred to and processed in another safe country not of their choosing.
Stuart C. McDonald
Is schedule 3 confined to applicants who arrive via irregular and dangerous routes, or could it be applied, in theory, to pretty much anyone who is claiming asylum?
Tom Pursglove
If I may, I will set out the detail that underpins schedule 3 in the course of my remarks.
Clause 26 is designed to be part of a whole-system deterrent effect to prevent illegal migration. Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, and not driven by the actions of criminal enterprise. Under current policy, it is too easy for removals of individuals with no right to remain in the UK to be delayed as a result of speculative and, in some cases, unfounded article 3 human rights claims.
Consequently, schedule 3 will also introduce a presumption that specified countries are safe, because of their compliance with obligations under article 3 of the European convention of human rights.
Neil Coyle
Earlier today, the Minister mentioned that Albania, from where we accept many asylum cases, could be considered a safe country. Can he tell us about other safe countries? Gibraltar, which was touted by the Government, has said categorically that it will not be a safe country for these purposes. Ghana and Rwanda have ruled themselves out, despite being touted by the Government. Morocco and Moldova have appeared in the press as potential examples, but the FCDO has said:
“No north African country, Morocco included, has a fully functioning asylum system”.
The Foreign Office stated that Moldova has “endemic” corruption, and that
“If an asylum centre depended on reliable, transparent, credible cooperation from the host country justice system we would not be able to rely on this”
in Moldova. Can the Minister tell us which safe country he is talking about?
Tom Pursglove
One thing I will say is that the measures are not about opening camps on overseas territories. I will not get into a running commentary about the negotiations or discussions that may or may not be taking place with individual countries.
Claimants will be required to present strong evidence to overturn this presumption to prevent removal. That will support the aim of swiftly removing individuals who have no basis to remain in the UK by preventing unnecessary delays where speculative article 3 claims are made prior to removal to safe countries. Adding to the existing removal power, schedule 3 will also provide the Secretary of State with a power to add countries to the safe list. That will ensure that the list of safe countries remains accurate.
Schedule 3 also ensures that rights of appeal are not afforded either to asylum seekers on the basis of removal to safe countries, or to clearly unfounded human rights claims, thus preventing unnecessary appeals for unsubstantiated claims.
Neil Coyle
The Minister says that he does not want to get into a running dialogue—that is fine—but can we have just a rough idea of how many countries are currently in bilateral negotiations with the Home Office? That may be useful. I think it is only right and proper that the Committee has an idea of the costs involved, because they will vary massively depending on the country—or indeed the continent, given some of the ludicrous examples that have been touted by people as high up as the Home Secretary. How many countries are in those negotiations, and how much can the public expect to pay for this particular part of this ridiculous Bill?
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman is a crafty parliamentarian who will, I have no doubt, try to elicit that information from me, but I am afraid that he will be unsuccessful in that endeavour, however hard he tries. The bottom line is that I am not going to get into a running commentary in this Committee about discussions that may or may not be taking place with countries around the world in relation to this policy.
Tom Pursglove
I will give way, but the hon. Lady will get the same response if she is trying to extract the same information from me.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He might remember that I asked previously whether he had any examples of returns to third countries. He responded in writing with an update this morning. He updates Committee members that
“4,561 ‘notices of intent’ were served to individuals, informing them that inadmissibility action was being considered in their cases.”
So we are not discussing hypotheticals here. The wheels are in motion for individuals. Can he understand that we have got to do our due diligence in pushing for the details, because the consequences for these people who have had notices of intent are very real? That is why we need to put those questions to him.
Tom Pursglove
I would make a few points in response. Obviously, removals and deportations generally have been much more difficult to organise during the last 18 months, as a direct consequence of covid-19. That is not unsurprising, and of course it is reflected in the fact that we have seen fewer removals and deportations than we would have expected. It is not the Government’s intention to apply retrospectively the inadmissability measures we are talking about. That is an important point in providing clarity for the Committee.
We are committed to upholding our international obligations including under the 1951 refugee convention, and that will not change. While people are endangering lives making perilous journeys, we must fix the system to prevent abuse of that system and the criminality associated with it. Our aim is that the suite of measures in the Bill, including those in clause 26 and schedule 3, will disincentivise people from making dangerous journeys across Europe to the UK, and encourage people to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister has scuttled over the idea that the Government are keen to abide by their international obligations. The UNHCR is absolutely clear that the clause rides a coach and horses—I paraphrase slightly—through the convention. Can he say a little bit more about how he possibly believes that this is consistent with what the refugee convention provides?
Tom Pursglove
I am actually meeting the UNHCR tomorrow, and I am obviously looking forward to that meeting. No doubt we will cover a range of topics during that discussion and engagement, which I most certainly value. I repeat to the hon. Gentleman the point that I have now made several times in relation to the provisions in the Bill: we believe that they are compliant with our international obligations. I have made that point previously and will continue to make it.
Mr Goodwill
Does my hon. Friend agree that the principle of a safe country is well established? When we were members of the European Union, removals to EU countries were permitted because of that particular situation. Does he further agree that countries that seek to be candidates to join the European Union will have to bring their standards up to those equivalent to the European Union, so there is a list of countries, particularly in the Balkans and elsewhere, that may well meet those criteria before they join the European Union?
Tom Pursglove
My right hon. Friend raises various points on the back of his experience covering at least part of the role that I now cover. I would build on that by making the point that we do not remove people to countries where they would be unsafe. Of course, we are also talking here about countries that are compliant with the obligations set out under the refugee convention. That is an important point to re-make.
I thank those who drafted amendment 159 for their contribution to the debate thus far. Let me begin by being clear that this Government are wholly committed to ensuring that removals of individuals are done in accordance with our international obligations, and that the safety of those transferred is at the forefront of our actions. However, we simply cannot support any amendment that seeks to limit our ability to remove individuals to safe third countries. I assure the Committee again that we would only ever remove an individual to a country that we are satisfied is safe for them. However, the amendment is overly restrictive and therefore could not be used flexibly to consider the circumstances in the country in question. By way of illustration, the amendment would mean that we could not remove someone who is gay, lesbian or bisexual to France or Italy.
Committee members can be assured that the amendment is superfluous given the safeguards already in the Bill. Indeed, we will only ever send individuals to countries where we know that their removal will be compliant with the UK’s international legal obligations, including those that pertain to potential victims of modern slavery. Even where we are assured that a particular state is safe, changes made by the Bill make it clear that every individual in scope for removal to that state will be able to rely on the protection of article 3 of the ECHR to demonstrate why that state may not be safe in their unique circumstances. That is to prevent any individual from being transferred to a country where they would genuinely be at risk of inhumane and degrading treatment.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister keeps referring to safeguards in the Bill and consideration of individual applicants’ safety, but none of that is in schedule 3, which does not require a finding of inadmissibility or a connection with the state. There is no consideration of the reasonableness of the transfer. The country might not even be a signatory to the refugee convention or offer refugee protection or the chance to secure the full rights that refugees are entitled to. Will he talk us through the safeguards?
Tom Pursglove
I would argue that I have already set out those safeguards.
The Government are clear that we must consider all options to break the business model of people smugglers and prevent people from putting their lives at risk by making perilous journeys from safe countries. Changes in schedule 3 are a key component of the wholescale system reform that we are committed to undertaking to prevent irregular migration. For those reasons, I ask hon. Members not to press amendment 159.
On schedule 3, the Government have been clear that the fastest route to safety is to claim asylum in the first safe country reached. We must dissuade all those considering making dangerous journeys to the UK to claim asylum. We are working closely with international partners to fix our broken asylum system and are discussing how we could work together in the future.
Tom Pursglove
I have been generous to the hon. Gentleman, but I will give way one more time.
Neil Coyle
I thank the Minister—he is being generous. On the first safe country, the Government might have more standing and the public more confidence in them had they not abandoned their obligations. Pakistan, for example, is seeing a cut of £62 million in aid from the UK to help manage the refugee crisis spilling over the border from the Taliban. Turkey is seeing a cut of £16 million in aid from the UK, Lebanon is seeing a cut of £71.5 million and Syria is seeing a drop of £105 million. If the Government were serious about people being able to stay nearer to their home country, those cuts, which certainly were not in their manifesto at the last election, would not be happening.
Tom Pursglove
In recent years, UK aid in crisis circumstances has made a significant difference in relation to properly caring for and ensuring—
Tom Pursglove
Let me finish the point. We have regularly made additional aid available in crisis circumstances to help relieve particular pressures that have arisen, and UK aid has been essential as part of the global effort. I have been proud of the crisis measures we have put in place in relation to those circumstances as they have arisen. No doubt we will continue to have a commitment to that going forward.
Tom Pursglove
No, I am going to make some progress because I am conscious that we have still got some way to go.
Schedule 3 aims to reduce the draw of the UK by working to make it easier to remove someone to a safe country where their claim will be processed. It amends existing legal frameworks to support our future objective to transfer some asylum claims to a safe third country for processing. The Bill contains a suite of measures designed to protect those in genuine need while breaking the business model of criminal gangs who profit from people trafficking and exploit vulnerable people for their own gain. We aim to disincentivise people from seeking to enter the UK by dangerous means facilitated by these criminal smugglers with a clear message that those arriving via an irregular route may be eligible to be transferred to another safe country not of their choosing to be processed.
Stuart C. McDonald
I just do not understand why the Minister tries to suggest that the provision will apply only to people who are not in genuine need. The Government do not know that because they are not looking at the cases before removing them to a third country. How is he circumscribing those who will be subject to this procedure, which we utterly oppose? How can he keep on saying that it will apply only to those who do not have genuine need?
Tom Pursglove
Schedule 3 is designed to be part of a whole system deterrent effect to prevent illegal migration. Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, and not driven by the actions of criminal enterprise. Under current policy, it is too easy for removals of individuals with no right to remain in the UK to be delayed as a result of speculative, and in some cases unfounded, article 3 human rights claims. Consequently, schedule 3 will also introduce a presumption that specified countries are safe, due to them being compliant with their obligations under article 3 of the ECHR. Claimants will be required to present strong evidence to overturn that presumption to prevent removal. This will support the aim to swiftly remove individuals who have no basis to remain in the UK by preventing unnecessary delays where speculative article 3 claims are made prior to removal to safe countries.
Schedule 3 will also provide the Secretary of State with a power to add countries to the safe list—that is in addition to the already held removal power. This will ensure that the list of safe countries remains accurate. The schedule also ensures that rights of appeal are not afforded to asylum seekers on the basis of removal to safe countries nor to clearly unfounded human rights claims, thus preventing unnecessary appeals for unsubstantiated claims.
We are committed to upholding our international obligations, including under the 1951 refugee convention. That will not change. While people are endangering lives making perilous journeys, we must fix the system to prevent abuse of the asylum system and the criminality associated with it. Our aim is that the suite of measures contained within this Bill, including those within schedule 3, will disincentivise people from making dangerous journeys across Europe to the UK and encourage people to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach.
I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for proposing new clause 18, which introduces new schedule 2. I agree wholeheartedly with the importance of ensuring the safety of those who are removed from the UK to third countries. However, we cannot support the proposals, which seek to limit our ability to remove individuals to a safe country. This Government have made our position clear throughout today’s debate: people should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach. That is the fastest route to safety. I would like the Committee to consider each of the conditions in new schedule 2 in turn.
Neil Coyle
This comes back to the first safe country. The Minister makes the point that we both agree on—we are proud of the UK’s contribution to humanitarian support and of military interventions that prevented refugees from being created in the past. The Conservative manifesto said that the Army would not be cut and aid would not cut, but voters have been betrayed by the Government’s actions since. They have reneged on those manifesto promises. And asylum seekers have been betrayed by those same cuts. The Bill does nothing but compound that betrayal.
Tom Pursglove
On 3 September, we announced £30 million of life-saving aid to Afghanistan’s neighbouring countries to help those who choose to leave Afghanistan. That is part of the Government’s efforts to support regional stability. The hon. Gentleman spoke earlier about resources being made available to help in-region. Yet again, this country has demonstrated that commitment to try to help provide stability as far as possible, and to help to ensure that as much support as possible can be provided in the vicinity of where crises arise. I think that—
Tom Pursglove
I will not take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman on that point.
Tom Pursglove
I have been very generous to the hon. Gentleman. I think that aside was a little bit unfair on his part, given the number of interventions that I have taken. I know that it was not meant in an unpleasant spirit, so I will move on.
I invite the Committee to consider each of the conditions in new schedule 2. Regarding the form of a transfer arrangement, we are currently in discussions with our international partners to consider the shared challenge of irregular migration. I do not wish to pre-empt the form or content of future arrangements as that could tie the hands of our negotiators, but I can assure the Committee that the Government will act in accordance with our international obligations, considering both the content and form of any arrangement reached. Furthermore, that condition would have the perhaps unintended consequence of preventing the removal of individuals in ad hoc cases, which has been a long-standing process within our asylum system to which I have alluded in response to earlier questions.
Bambos Charalambous
The Labour party will oppose clause stand part. Clause 26 opens the door to offshoring by permitting the removal of asylum seekers from the UK while their claim is being determined or while the UK decides whether to take responsibility for the claim.
The clause introduces schedule 3, which allows the Government to remove people who are seeking asylum to countries outside the UK, and hold them in detention there while their asylum claims are being processed—in other words, offshoring. It is our strong belief that the clause should be deleted, and we will vote against clause stand part and against schedule 3. We believe that, through the clause, the Government are seeking to emulate the Australian system as a model. It has been reported that the Home Office is in talks with Denmark to share costs on an offshore detention centre in Rwanda, and a number of other places have also been mentioned.
It is worth examining the available empirical evidence on the ideas underpinning the clause. In 2015, a United Nations report found that Australia’s offshore detention regime was systematically violating the international convention against torture. In addition, in 2020, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court said the regime was “cruel, inhuman or degrading”, and unlawful under international law.
We are deeply concerned that the Government’s plan appears to emulate a failed system that has been widely condemned for its human rights abuses. When we look in more detail at the Australian model that the Government seem to want to emulate, we find more causes for concern. In 1992, the Australian Government introduced mandatory indefinite detention for asylum seekers who arrive by boat—that policy remains in place. In 2001, they introduced the Pacific solution, whereby boats were intercepted by the navy and taken to processing centres on Manus and Nauru. In 2008, the Australian Labour Government ended that practice, branding it an “abject policy failure”, only to reintroduce offshore detention in the early 2010s. Approximately 4,180 people were transferred offshore between 2012 and 2014, at which point the transfers stopped.
Conditions and events inside the centres were secretive; journalists and legal representatives were generally banned from entering. That created the conditions for the systematic abuse of asylum seekers by those running the facilities. In 2016, The Guardian released records of more than 2,000 incident reports from Nauru—known as the Nauru files—documenting widespread abuse and neglect in offshore detention. That included systematic physical and sexual assault on children and adults, the use of blackmail by guards, and attacks and harassment by people on Nauru or Manus Island. At least 12 people are reported to have died in the camps, with the causes of death including medical neglect, suicide and murder by centre guards.
Aside from the immeasurable human cost, this failed system has been dismantled by its own architects. A recent research report by the Kaldor Centre found that there is no evidence that the policy achieved the stated aim of “stopping the boats” and that since 2014 the Government have been trying to distance themselves from the policy. Thanks to the powerful stories of the people affected, it has been increasingly rejected by the Australian public. It has cost billions of Australian dollars. The policy has clearly failed disastrously, and we are deeply concerned that this Government are seeking in this clause to bring the policy to the UK.
The impact of offshore detention on mental health cannot be overstated. In the Australian example, conditions in offshore detention centres have been inhumane and unfit for human habitation. The mental and physical health impact of offshore detention has been colossal. In 2014, the Australian Human Rights Commission found that 34% of children in detention suffered from mental health disorders of a seriousness that would require psychiatric referral if the children were in the Australian population, and paediatricians reported that the children transferred to Nauru were among the most traumatised they had ever seen. Medical experts working with the UNHCR found rates of mental illness in people in offshore detention to be among the highest recorded in any surveyed population. Médecins Sans Frontières reported that the suffering on Nauru was some of the worst that it had ever encountered. There is absolutely no way, in our view, that the UK Government should be risking huge harm against children in terms of their mental health by emulating that failed policy.
Furthermore, the financial cost of the Australian system is astronomical and regularly more than $1 billion a year. The Refugee Council of Australia compiled a detailed breakdown of offshoring costs and found that it had cost the Australian Government $8.3 billion between 2014 and 2020. The annual cost per person of holding someone offshore in Nauru or Papua New Guinea has been estimated to be $3.4 million—per person. Again, we are deeply concerned that the UK Government are seeking to emulate a policy that is extremely likely to have extortionate costs in financial terms. The financial impact of this policy will be huge. That all these increased costs go simply to stopping boats, as a deterrent, which the Minister alluded to, shows that it is a failed policy. This is fiscal incompetence from the Government: in their own prediction of what the policy costs, they have estimated exceeding that every year. It will be a budget impossible to predict, based on the number of people whom they propose to offshore. We have the Budget tomorrow, so I will be interested to see what provision the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made in relation to that and the comprehensive spending review.
Let us look in more detail at what the Government are risking with this policy in terms of the human cost. There are countless stories of the lives destroyed by the policy of offshoring. Loghman Sawari, whose story was covered by The Guardian, is still detained, despite having been accepted by Australia as a refugee in 2014. Eight years after the initial detention, he told The Guardian that the days have begun to run one into another and his memory is failing. The Maghames family arrived in Australia by boat in 2013 and were detained on Christmas Island before being transferred to Nauru in March 2014. Hajar Maghames, along with her parents and younger brother, has been in detention ever since, despite being granted refugee status in 2019. In 2020, they were transferred to Australia so that her father could receive medical care, and they are now in cabins at the back of Darwin airport. They are now the only people held there.
I would be grateful if the Minister clarified whether people being processed wherever they are offshored will, if their claim is successful, be brought back to the UK, and what estimate he has made of the cost of that.
To continue with my examples, Reza Barati, who, like the family to whom I just referred, had fled Iran, is one of the 18 people to have died in offshore detention. He was beaten to death by guards and other workers on Manus Island after a protest turned violent and the centre was attacked. He died four days after his 24th birthday. His family are suing the Australian Government and G4S for negligence. During the same incident over two days in February 2014, 70 refugees and asylum seekers were injured. One lost his right eye. Another was shot in the buttocks. One man was attacked from behind by a G4S guard who slashed his neck, causing a 10 to 12 cm horizontal slit across his throat. There have been many others, including the high-profile cases of author Behrouz Boochani or the Tamil family from Biloela, whose harrowing stories have ultimately helped to turn public opinion against this policy.
Offshoring in large accommodation centres poses particular risks to LGBT+ people seeking asylum because of their particular vulnerability. Organisations such as Rainbow Migration and Stonewall have raised concerns that housing people in such centres outside the UK will result in systemic verbal, violent and sexual abuse of LGBT+ people who are in need of protection and who have higher rates of self-harm and suicide.
There is much evidence that LGBT+ people already experience systemic abuse and harassment in the UK’s current accommodation and detention system, led by staff and others with whom they are housed or detained alongside. The problems tend to continue, even when people are moved to a new property. Documented examples provided by organisations that deal with victims have included unwanted sexual advances, threats, invasions of privacy, verbal abuse, being prevented from sleeping, pranks and sexual assault.
It is therefore deeply worrying that offshore processing centres are likely to escalate the homophobic, biphobic and transphobic abuse that LGBT+ people experience in existing asylum accommodation and detention centres. It is even more shocking when one considers that many refugees in the LGBT+ community have fled their home countries specifically because of abuses and persecution that they have experienced there.
Offshoring also presents a significant risk of harm to women who have survived rape and sexual exploitation. It is difficult to see how women who have survived such atrocities would be exempt from offshoring because it is clear that the Government’s key objective for offshore detention is deterrence. According to the Government’s logic, there can be no exceptions to this policy, because otherwise the objective of deterrence is undermined.
This was seen when offshore detention was reintroduced by the Australian Government in 2012. All people seeking asylum who arrived by boat were liable for removal to the islands of Nauru or Manus
“even if they...had characteristics warranting special consideration, such as being an unaccompanied minor, a survivor of torture and trauma, or a victim of trafficking”.
It is clear that the UK Government, by introducing such provision for offshoring, must be willing to subject children, pregnant women, survivors of trafficking and other vulnerable people to offshore detention.
Tom Pursglove
I hope that I can help the hon. Gentleman somewhat by making it very clear that children will not be transferred overseas for their claims to be processed.
Bambos Charalambous
I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying that point, but there are still others with vulnerable characteristics, including pregnant women and survivors of trafficking who will be subject to offshore detention.
I hardly need to outline the inhumanity of this policy as it applies to women victims of rape and sexual violence. I am deeply concerned about the conditions in which women will be held, and particularly the risk to them of further sexual violence and abuse. In detention centres in the UK, where there are a range of safeguarding mechanisms in place, it has not been enough to protect people in detention from abuse. The 2015 Lampard report on Yarl’s Wood, which until last year was the main detention centre for women in the UK, highlighted that between 2007 and 2015, 10 members of staff had been dismissed for incidents involving “sexual impropriety” towards women held there. Such “impropriety” included the repeated sexual harassment and abuse of a 29-year-old woman by a male healthcare worker.
When it comes to offshoring, the UK Government will have even less control over the treatment of detainees in offshore detention centres. The risk to women of sexual violence and abuse in such centres will be increased. The sexual harassment and violence to which women detained offshore by the Australian Government were subjected has been well documented.
There is no empirical evidence to support the effectiveness of offshoring as a deterrent strategy in respect of those fleeing persecution. A recent report by the Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law highlights that in the year following the Australian Government’s reintroduction of offshore detention
“more than 24,000 asylum seekers arrived in Australia by boat. This number was considerably more than at any other time since the 1970s, when boats of asylum seekers were first recorded in Australia. Moreover, as the months passed, and news of the policy presumably reached some of those who were contemplating travelling by sea to Australia, there was no noticeable change in the rate of arrivals, with boats of varying numbers of people (from two to more than 200) continuing to arrive on average several times per week.”
That brings us back to the fundamental fact, discussed earlier in reference to other clauses, such as clauses 10 and 11, that policy measures that rely on deterrence assume that people have a choice in the decisions they make. People who are forced to flee their countries because of violence and persecution have no such choice. Therefore, deterrent measures will not stop them making the journey to find safety. The likelihood is that offshoring will be completely ineffective in its aims, as well as deeply inhumane.
Stuart C. McDonald
I will speak briefly in support of amendment 159, new clause 18 and new schedule 2.
I echo everything the shadow Minister said. This is a terrible clause. I echo in particular all that he said about Australia. I take a tiny crumb of comfort from the fact that the Minister, despite the Home Office’s having adduced evidence in relation to the Australian example, did not mention it during his speech. Perhaps the Home Office is learning that it should run a million miles from the Australian offshoring scheme, because it was awful.
I did not recognise the clause from what the Minister said. He kept referring to safeguards and asserting that it was absolutely consistent with our international obligations. My reading of schedule 3 and clause 26 is the polar opposite. Schedule 3 drives a coach and horses through the principle that people cannot be removed while they have a claim outstanding. It allows removal to anywhere if some very basic safeguards are met. The person might have no link to the country to which they are removed—they might have been nowhere near it. It is clearly nothing to do with responsibility sharing between states. Like clause 14, it is just about offloading responsibility.
We are not saying that no one can ever be removed to have a decision made on their claim elsewhere. While not perfect, the Dublin scheme allowed for the transfer of a claim and the removal of a claimant in appropriate circumstances and with appropriate safeguards. We have set out the criteria that would put in place similar safeguards in new clause 18 and new schedule 2. They include a formal, legally binding and public readmission agreement with the state; a requirement that the person has a connection with the country in question; that it is reasonable in the circumstances for the person’s case to be considered there; and that all the requirements and safeguards that we said should have been in place around clause 14 are present, such as the proper implementation of the full refugee convention, protection against harm, access to fair and efficient asylum processes, and so on.
Again, all those protections are informed by the UNHCR’s public commentary on and critique of the Bill. I appreciate that the Minister expressed sympathy for what we are trying to achieve, but I suspect that when he has his discussions with the UNHCR, it will urge him to go further and to adopt some of these safeguards.
There are huge differences between what we propose in new schedule 2 and what appears in schedule 3. The absence of so many crucial safeguards in the latter shows why the clause should not form part of the Bill. Schedule 3 does not even require a finding of inadmissibility or a connection with the state. There is no consideration of the reasonableness of the transfer. The country might not even be a signatory to the refugee convention, offer refugee protection, or offer the chance to secure the full rights to which refugees are entitled under the convention.
To use the UNHCR’s own words:
“Transferring asylum-seekers or recognised refugees to territories with which they have no prior connection and without an individualised consideration of safety, access to fair and efficient asylum procedures and to international protection, or reasonableness is at odds with international practice and risks denying them the right to seek and enjoy asylum, exposing them to human rights abuses and other harm, delaying durable solutions to forced displacement, and encouraging onward movement. To transfer asylum-seekers and refugees to countries that are not parties to the Refugee Convention, and without any expectation, let alone commitment, that they will provide a fair asylum procedure and treatment in line with the Refugee Convention would be an abdication of the United Kingdom’s responsibilities under international law towards refugees and asylum-seekers under its jurisdiction.”
That is the UNHCR’s commentary on schedule 3. That is why we have tabled our new schedule, new clause and amendment, and I hope that the Minister will—not today, obviously—give that further thought.
We know that this is essentially about offshoring. We oppose the clause and the schedule because we are completely and utterly opposed to that concept. It is unlawful, unethical and, as the experience in Australia shows, it does not work. As the shadow Minister highlighted, it did not discourage arrivals by boat. The Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law went into great detail on that in its submission to the Committee, which is absolutely spot on. It highlighted the humongous cost and, more than anything else, the humanitarian disgrace that those camps represent. Doctors Without Borders has talked about
“some of the worst mental health suffering we have ever encountered in our 50 years of existence, including in projects that provide care for torture survivors.”
Finally, on amendment 159, it is good that the Minister has said that children would not be subject to that procedure. However, as the shadow Minister said, there are still various categories of vulnerable people who must be removed from the scope of the clause and schedule. If the Home Office insists on taking that terrible step, surely to goodness it will not subject pregnant women, disabled or sick people, torture victims, victims of trafficking or gender-based violence, LGBT people or the young and old to that procedure. Perhaps the Minister could accept that amendment, just to give us a tiny crumb of comfort.
Tom Pursglove
I will briefly pick up on a few points that have been raised during the debate on clause 26. The Government argue that the suite of measures are intended to have a deterrent effect. The measures under the clause are just one part of system-wide reforms that make clear our position that individuals must claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. I recognise that there are fundamental differences of opinion in the Committee about some matters, but we argue that that is the fastest route to safety.
I want to clarify the situation. Although we are, of course, working with our international partners to meet our joint challenges, I assure Committee members that we are not working with Denmark to open an offshore detention centre. It is important to be clear on that point.
Tom Pursglove
I will give way, although I gave quite a bit of clarity in what I just said.
Neil Coyle
The Minister has given some clarity by saying that the Government are not working with Denmark, but, as he has already said today, he cannot tell us which countries the Government are working with. We know that Albania, Ghana, Rwanda and Gibraltar have all said, “No, thanks”, and that, frankly, we look like we have fewer friends than North Korea on this issue. However, the Minister cannot tell us which countries the Government are negotiating with or how much the measures will cost. When we are supposed to be going through a very costly and controversial set of plans in line- by-line scrutiny, I think that is a dereliction of duty.
Tom Pursglove
I reject the hon. Gentleman’s characterisation of the situation. The truth is that a very particular point was raised about the United Kingdom establishing an offshore detention centre with Denmark, which is not the case. It is important to be clear about that on the record.
A number of issues were raised about vulnerabilities. Again, I want to make it very clear that we will only ever act in line with our international commitments and legal obligations, including the ECHR. Any particular vulnerabilities will be taken into account. Flexibility is already built into the system to ensure that individual circumstances are properly taken into account, and that will continue to be the case.
To conclude, the shadow Minister sought further clarification on the Government’s intentions on clause 26. Changes in the Bill are not about housing people offshore while their asylum claims are considered under the UK’s asylum system. The measures in the Bill support our future objective of removing someone to a safe third country where we intend their claims to be admitted and processed under the third country’s asylum system. I am very happy to provide the clarification he sought.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 152, in clause 29, page 30, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
“(2) The decision-maker must first determine whether there is a reasonable likelihood that—
(a) the asylum seeker has a characteristic which could cause them to fear persecution for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion (or has such a characteristic attributed to them by an actor of persecution), and
(b) if the asylum seeker were returned to their country of nationality (or in a case where they do not have a nationality, the country of their former habitual residence)—
(i) they would be persecuted for reason of the characteristic mentioned in subsection (a), and
(ii) they would not be protected as mentioned in section 31.”
This amendment would remove the “balance of probabilities” phrase from the Bill and would maintain the status quo.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 48, in clause 29, page 30, line 45, leave out subsections (2) and (3).
This amendment would remove the requirement for the decision-maker to assess, on the balance of probabilities, whether a claimant’s fear of persecution is well-founded.
Amendment 132, in clause 29, page 30, line 45, leave out
“, on the balance of probabilities”
and insert
“whether there is a reasonable likelihood that”.
Amendment 133, in clause 29, page 31, line 1, leave out “whether”.
Amendment 134, in clause 29, page 31, line 5, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) if the asylum seeker were returned to their country of nationality (or in a case where they do not have a nationality, the country of their former habitual residence)—
(i) they would be persecuted for reason of the characteristic mentioned in subsection (a), and
(ii) they would not be protected as mentioned in section 31.”
The amendment would maintain the status quo and bring the bill back in line with UNHCR standards and UK jurisprudence.
Clause stand part.
Stuart C. McDonald
The clause makes fundamental changes to important aspects of what it means to be a refugee under the convention. It seeks to require that important elements of the claim are to be established on the balance of probabilities before the decision maker goes on to make an overall assessment of real risk. Previously an overall assessment of the reasonable degree of likelihood of persecution was applied.
We regard this as a hugely dangerous and possibly very confusing clause. It fails to take into account the challenge of evidence and facts that arise many thousands of miles away, or facts to which only the claimant’s testimony can speak to. If, for example, a claim is made on the grounds that a person is LGBT, it can be hugely challenging to prove that to the standard of the balance of probabilities. As the UNHCR has explained:
“Some claimants, because of the shame they feel over what has happened to them, or due to trauma, may be reluctant to identify the true extent of the persecution suffered or feared.”
Similar issues will arise with many other groups that we have already spoken about this morning.
What is proposed is really dangerous. If a decision maker is certain, for example, that LGBT people in general are at risk of persecution on return to a particular country, and even if that decision maker thinks that there is a reasonable likelihood that this particular applicant is LGBT, that would no longer be enough to justify an award of refugee status.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it is very difficult to prove some of these things. It is also difficult to disprove them. Is he aware that asylum seekers from places such as Uganda may well claim to be gay when they are not because they see that as the route to getting a good result quickly?
Stuart C. McDonald
I am not aware of the evidence of that, so I cannot comment. At the end of the day we are talking about people who are at risk. We are not talking about a road traffic case, a minor bump or the small claims court. We are talking about people whose lives are at risk, or they are at risk of serious harm and persecution. That is why we have to be very, very careful about requiring evidence beyond the standard that is internationally accepted.
Let us say that a decision maker is certain that LGBT people in general are at risk of persecution on return to a particular country. Even though the decision maker thinks there is a reasonable likelihood that a particular applicant is LGBT, that will not be enough to secure refugee status. The decision maker could be 49% certain that the applicant is LGBT and 100% certain that an LGBT person returned to a particular country will be tortured and killed, but that 1%—that tiny little bit of doubt—means that the balance of probabilities threshold will not be met, and that case will be rejected. The implications are huge.
Amendment 152 seeks to maintain the status quo. Let us not mess with a long-established principle, and let us be very, very careful that we are not denying refugee status to people who we know should be awarded it.
Tom Pursglove
I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendments. I agree about the importance of the UK carefully assessing whether asylum seekers have a well-founded fear of persecution, as required under article 1A(2) of the refugee convention. However, we do not agree with the amendments, which, when considered together, will leave decision makers with a lack of clarity on how to consider whether a claimant has a well-founded fear of persecution.
Clause 29 is currently drafted to introduce a clear, step-by-step process for decision makers considering whether an asylum seeker has a well-founded fear of persecution. Currently, there is no clearly outlined test as such. While there is case law, policy and guidance, the current approach leads to a number of different elements being considered as part of one overall decision. The reforms that the Government want to introduce create distinct stages that a decision maker must go through, with clearly articulated standards of proof for each. I am confident that hon. Members will agree that that will lead to clearer and more consistent decisions. That is desirable for all involved.
The amendments include what is already in subsection (4) of clause 29, and it is unclear how they are proposed to fit with subsections (3) and (5). That therefore creates a lack of clarity and defeats the clarificatory purpose of the clause. As identified by hon. Members, clause 29 also raises the standard of proof for one element of the test to the balance of probabilities. Whether an asylum seeker has a characteristic that causes them to fear persecution, also referred to as a convention reason, will be tested to the balance of probabilities.
Stuart C. McDonald
There is one further issue that I did not raise earlier. The Minister has spoken about whether an appellant has a convention characteristic. How does the clause deal with imputed characteristics—that is, when a person is not LGBT but is perceived to be, or a person who does not have a political opinion but is treated and thought of as having such an opinion? That is quite an important concept and it seems to be absent.
Tom Pursglove
Obviously, we are clear that our proposal is entirely consistent with our obligations under the convention. However, I will happily write to the hon. Member with further detail on that point. It is important to give clarity, and I am keen to do so.
At the clause’s core, we are asking claimants to establish that they are who they say they are and fear what they say they fear, to a balance of probabilities standard. That is the ordinary civil standard of proof for establishing facts—namely, more likely than not. Surelyit is reasonable that claimants who are asking the UK for protection are able to answer those questions.
We have looked carefully at the difficult situations from which many claimants come and the impact on the kinds of tangible evidence they may be able to provide as a result of that. We consider that our holistic approach to making decisions, which includes a detailed and sensitive approach to interviewing as well as referring to expert country guidance, allows all genuine claimants an opportunity to explain their story and satisfy the test. The raising of the standard of proof for this distinct element of the test is appropriate to ensure that only those who qualify for protection under the refugee convention are afforded protection in the United Kingdom.
Stuart C. McDonald
On the hypothetical example that I gave, if a decision maker is 49% certain that somebody is LGBT or that their membership of a political party meant that they would definitely be persecuted on return, is the Minister not uncomfortable that that small shortfall from 50% would mean that their whole claim would be rejected, given the consequences?
Tom Pursglove
On the concerns around LGBTQ+ individuals, we have acknowledged that it may be more difficult to prove such claims compared with individuals making applications based on other convention reasons. We already have specific asylum policy instruction on considering such claims, which sets out in detail how caseworkers should fully investigate the key issues through a focused, professional and sensitive approach to questioning. As part of the operationalisation of the programme, we will seek to update the training and guidance provided to decision makers. That will concentrate on interviews, to ensure that they are sufficiently detailed to enable claimants to meet the standard. I hope that gives the hon. Member some reassurance. I will of course write to him on his earlier point.
The second element of the test—whether the claimant would be persecuted if returned to their country of origin or their country of former habitual residence—remains at the reasonable degree of likelihood standard of proof. The subjective element—the future fear—is naturally harder for the claimant to demonstrate. Consequently, a lower standard of proof is appropriate.
Responses to the public consultation as well as recent reports from non-governmental organisations have warned of the effects that the clause will have on those with certain protected characteristics, including those with LGBT+ claims. The Committee should be assured that we have considered that carefully, and there are several ways in which we will ensure that such individuals are not disadvantaged by the change. It is worth reflecting on the points I made and the explanation I set out in response to the hon. Member’s intervention. In the light of those points, I hope he will agree to withdraw the amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful for the offer of a letter, but I am not remotely reassured about the new higher standard, which will lead to marginal cases being sent away to persecution, torture and all sorts of terrible consequences. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 49, in clause 30, page 31, line 47, leave out “both” and insert “either”.
This amendment would mean that – in order to be defined as a particular social group for the purposes of the Refugee Convention – a group would only have to meet one (not both) of the conditions set out in subsections 3 and 4.
I have a short but important point to make. The clause concerns the definition of a particular social group, which is an important concept in refugee law and has been crucial to its ongoing relevance across many decades. The clause is controversial because it makes an important change to how a particular social group is defined. In the House of Lords case of the Secretary of State for the Home Department v. Fornah, a long-standing argument about whether the tests in subsection (3) of the clause should be cumulative or alternative was addressed and it was decided that there was no need to meet both of those conditions; one or the other would suffice. However, in the Bill, the Government have decided to change that approach. It now demands that both conditions are met, and that seems to contradict established case law in this country. I simply ask the Government to explain why they have taken a more restrictive approach.
Tom Pursglove
Clause 30 aims to clarify an area where there has been a degree of contradiction and confusion. There is a clear mismatch between how the concept of “particular social group” is set out in current legislation, Government policy and in some tribunal judgments, against the interpretation taken in some case law. That is unhelpful for all those working in and engaging with the asylum system, and who most of all want clarity and consistency. Defining how key elements of the convention should be interpreted and applied is vital in creating a robust system that can generate consistency and certainty, which ultimately will drive efficiency. I trust that members of the Committee will agree with that principle. The historical confusion demonstrates perfectly why what we are doing in this clause is so important and is a desirable law reform.
I cannot agree to the change proposed by the hon. Gentleman. First, it is important to state that the conditions set out in the clause reflect current Government policy; it is not a change. The amendment would mean that a group need only meet one of the conditions to be considered as a particular social group. That significantly broadens the scope of who may be covered by the convention. It would erode the concept that people deserve and need protection based on fundamental characteristics that go to the core of who they are, such as their faith or sexuality. It proposes instead to broaden the definition to cover potentially transient factors that can perhaps be changed, but that fundamentally misunderstands the very basis of what it means to be a refugee, as envisaged by the refugee convention, and why we have a system to offer protection. I hope my explanation has reassured colleagues across the Committee, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
The hon. Gentleman has mentioned established case law on the correct definition of “particular social group”, so I will say something briefly about that. As with many of the key concepts of the refugee convention, case law has developed over the years on how to apply the term “particular social group” for the purpose of considering whether a claimant has a convention reason. Despite significant judicial interest in the interpretation of “particular social group” in case law, there is no established case law on the point. There is, however, conflicting tribunal-level case law and obiter comments by the House of Lords in the case of Fornah. Consequently, the clause seeks to provide clarity on the UK’s interpretation of a particular social group, to ensure that it is applied consistently among decision makers.
Stuart C. McDonald
I agree with the Minister that we need clarity, but there are two different ways of providing clarity: we can either combine the requirements or use them as alternatives. I say that we should provide clarity by using them as alternatives. That is how the House of Lords interpreted the convention in the case of Fornah, and that is what the tribunal did recently as well, so I wish to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 157, in clause 34, page 33, line 20, at end insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) shall not apply to any refugee—
(a) whose claim for asylum is on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics;
(b) whose claim for asylum is on the basis of gender-based violence;
(c) who has experienced sexual violence;
(d) who is a victim of modern slavery or trafficking;
(e) who is suffering from a mental health condition or impairment;
(f) who has been a victim of torture;
(g) who is suffering from a serious physical disability;
(h) who is suffering from other serious physical health conditions or illnesses.”
This amendment would exempt certain groups from subsection (1).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider amendment 158, in page 33, line 34, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (2) shall not apply to any refugee—
(a) whose claim for asylum is on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics;
(b) whose claim for asylum is on the basis of gender-based violence;
(c) who has experienced sexual violence;
(d) who is a victim of modern slavery or trafficking;
(e) who is suffering from a mental health condition or impairment;
(f) who has been a victim of torture;
(g) who is suffering from a serious physical disability;
(h) who is suffering from other serious physical health conditions or illnesses.”
This amendment would exempt certain groups from subsection (2).
Stuart C. McDonald
The clause relates to article 31 of the convention, which provides refugees with immunity from certain penalties. It is an important protection that the Government are seeking to limit by, in my view, reinterpreting and undermining article 31, and setting out expectations of where and when individuals should claim that go beyond the letter and spirit of the convention.
The amendments take us back to this morning’s discussion about why it was especially inappropriate to place these requirements and expectations on particular groups, including victims of trafficking, sexual violence and torture. They are designed to pose a question to the Minister: why is he seeking to strip such groups of their immunity from penalties that the refugee convention provides?
Tom Pursglove
Again, I thank the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Glasgow North East for all their hard work in this area and in producing these amendments. As they will know, the provisions they are seeking to amend are crucial to the Government’s intention to uphold the first safe country of asylum principle. In this respect, these clauses are designed to deter dangerous journeys across Europe by no longer treating migrants who come directly to the UK and claim without delay in the same way as those who do not. I am sure they will agree that we must do everything in our power to stop people putting their lives in the hands of smugglers and making extremely perilous journeys across the channel.
Amendments 157 and 158 would apply to clause 34, which is closely related to clause 10 in that it sets out the UK’s interpretation of certain criteria within article 31(1) of the refugee convention. The criteria in article 31 provide the basis for the legal framework we are using to differentiate within clause 10. The intention of the amendments is to seek statutory carve-outs from differentiation for a wide range of cohorts.
I absolutely understand where this is coming from. I would like to reassure hon. Members that the powers in clause 10 do not compel the Secretary of State to act in a certain way, and leave discretion to impose or not impose conditions as appropriate, depending on the individual circumstances. We will of course set out our policy in immigration rules and guidance in due course. The policy will be exercised with full respect to our international obligations and will most certainly be sensitive to certain types, some of which are referenced in the amendment, such as having been trafficked.
I would note that blanket carve-outs are an attractive option to ensure protection of the most vulnerable, but ultimately I do not believe it would appropriate to do this in the way amendments 157 and 158 seek. In reality, blanket carve-outs would simply encourage people coming by small boat to claim they belonged to an exempted cohort. Most importantly, this would of course prevent us from protecting those people who do genuinely have those characteristics. By creating this perverse incentive, it would also undercut the entire purpose of the policy to serve as a deterrent. Indeed, people could then simply continue to make dangerous journeys to the UK and not claim in the first safe country because they know they can avoid group 2 refugee status simply by saying that they are LGBT+ or have a mental health condition.
For all these reasons, I invite the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Glasgow North East not to press their amendments.
Stuart C. McDonald
Obviously, we maintain a fundamental opposition to the whole scheme proposed by this clause and clause 10. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 50, in clause 34, page 34, line 1, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) in subsection (3), after (b), insert—
“(ba) entry in breach of a deportation order, entry without leave, remaining in the United Kingdom without leave, or arriving in the United Kingdom without entry clearance under section 24 of the 1971 Act”;
(c) in subsection (4), after (c), insert—
“(ca) entry in breach of a deportation order, entry without leave, remaining in the United Kingdom without leave, or arriving in the United Kingdom without entry clearance under section 24 of the 1971 Act””.
This amendment would mean that individuals who committed these offences (and the other offences set out in section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999) would be able to use the defence set out in section 31 of that Act, even if the offence was committed in the course of an attempt to leave the UK.
Again, I want to prompt the Government—perhaps optimistically—for their thinking on the compatibility of these provisions with the convention. The amendment would mean that individuals charged with certain offences could still rely on defences provided by the convention, even if the offence was committed in the course of an attempt to leave the UK. It is important that the Government explain clearly why they think that removing that possibility is consistent with the convention. To be honest, I am struggling to understand the Government’s reasoning.
Tom Pursglove
Amendment 50 is extensive. I thank the hon. Member for the considerable thought he has put into the amendment, which would list the illegal entry, arrival without clearance and remaining in the UK without leave offences as subject to the statutory defence against prosecution. However, the express statutory defence under section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 has never applied to the existing offences referred to in amendment 50. We do not consider the new arrivals without entry clearance offence needs to be referred to expressly for the same reason. Where relevant in a particular case, the Crown Prosecution Service will take into account the UK’s obligations under article 31 of the refugee convention.
Another effect of amendment 50 would be to reverse our clause 34(4) and reintroduce a defence from prosecution for those transiting through the UK having entered illegally and intending to go and claim asylum elsewhere, such as Canada or the USA. I disagree that the statutory defence should extend to those who have tried to exit the UK without first seeking asylum, but I reassure hon. Members that that does not mean that every asylum seeker who tries to exit the UK will be prosecuted. We are targeting for prosecution those migrants where there are aggravating factors involved—for example, causing danger to themselves or others, including rescuers; causing severe disruption to services such as shipping routes or closure of the channel tunnel; or where they are persons who have previously been removed from the UK as failed asylum seekers.
We have of course been very clear that people seeking protection must claim in the first safe country they reach. That is the fastest route to safety. In the same way that we will not tolerate smugglers exploiting vulnerable people to come to the UK when a claim could easily be made in another safe country, we will also not tolerate those migrants who transit through the UK, having previously travelled through European countries, to reach other places. They must claim in the first safe country they reach. For those reasons, I invite the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is useful to have that on the record. I will go away and give it some further thought. We maintain our fundamental opposition to the whole scheme, but, in the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 35
Article 33(2): particularly serious crime
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 51, in clause 35, page 34, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
Under this amendment, persons receiving certain prison sentences in the UK shall be presumed (as at present) but not automatically deemed (as proposed in the Bill) to have committed a particularly serious crime.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 53, in clause 35, page 34, line 21, leave out “12 months” and insert “four years”.
Under this amendment, persons shall be deemed to have committed a “particularly serious crime” if they receive a prison sentence of more than four years in the UK (as opposed to two years at present, or 12 months as proposed in the Bill).
Amendment 52, in clause 35, page 34, line 24, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
Under this amendment, persons receiving certain prison sentence outside the UK, or persons who could have received such a sentence had they been convicted in the UK, shall be presumed (as at present) but not automatically deemed (as proposed in the Bill) to have committed a particularly serious crime.
Amendment 54, in clause 35, page 34, line 27, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert—
“(b) in paragraph (b), for “two years” substitute “four years”;
“(c) in paragraph (c), for “two years” substitute “four years””.
Under this amendment, persons shall be deemed to have committed a “particularly serious crime” if they receive a prison sentence of more than four years outside the UK (as opposed to two years at present, or 12 months as proposed in the Bill), or if they could have received such a sentence had they been convicted in the UK.
Clause stand part.
Stuart C. McDonald
The amendment is a probing one. The basic point is that if someone is at risk of persecution, we must be incredibly careful when creating gaps, loopholes and exceptions that would still see that person subject to removal to the very place where they would be at risk. The convention creates and recognises very specific exceptions to the fundamental principle of non-refoulement.
If someone is a danger to security here or has committed a particularly serious crime, they constitute a danger to the community. The amendment challenges the attempts in the clause to broaden the scope of the exceptions so that persons are automatically deemed and not just presumed to have committed a serious offence if they are sentenced to one year in prison, rather than two years. We have particular concerns about the circumstances where the crime has been committed overseas. How do the Government intend to be sure about the safety and appropriateness of prosecution, conviction and sentence?
Nobody is saying that refugees should not face appropriate punishment for their crimes, but the danger is that those sentenced to one year or more face an additional punishment that puts them at risk of persecution, torture and death. That is way beyond what is merited by the crime. The withdrawal of refugee rights should not be done in anything other than the most serious circumstances. We fear that the clause goes beyond what the convention envisages.
Bambos Charalambous
I just wish to add to the points made by the SNP spokesperson. The whole UK criminal justice system is based on having magistrates courts that deal with the less serious offences, which have a maximum sentence of up to 12 months, and we then have the Crown court, which deals with the more serious offences, with a sentence above 12 months. Defining something as serious with 12 months’ imprisonment seems to be contrary to other aspects of our judicial system.
Labour also has concerns about people who have been trafficked who may have been forced to commit offences. They may have been convicted of a criminal offence as a result of their trafficking, whether that is because of drugs, prostitution or another such offence that might attract a penalty above 12 months. We have some concerns about the redefinition and I wonder whether the Minister can clarify what might happen to someone who has been trafficked, has committed an offence and has received a sentence of 12 months. Would the clause apply to them, because that does raise concerns about it? I do not know whether he will be able to assist in that regard.
Tom Pursglove
I am afraid that we simply cannot agree to amendments that would allow individuals to remain in the United Kingdom despite being convicted of offences that are even more serious than those described under the current legislative framework. This Government cannot support provisions that allow dangerous foreign national offenders to remain in the United Kingdom, and if it means putting the public at risk.
This Government are committed to continuing to meet our international obligations, in particular those under the refugee convention and European convention on human rights. A key principle of the refugee convention is non-refoulement, also referred to as removal, of refugees to a place or territory where there is a real risk that their life or freedoms would be threatened. But the convention itself recognises that there have to be exceptions to this. Article 33(2) of the convention allows refugees to be returned when they have committed a particularly serious crime and as a result, constitute a danger to the community, or are a danger to the security of the UK.
The aim of clause 35 is to redefine a “particularly serious crime”. I would like to reassure Committee members that we have looked carefully at the type of offending that may be caught by a new lower threshold. It is that that has contributed to the Government’s position that offences with 12 months’ custody or more should be considered as being particularly serious.
It is worth taking a moment to consider some of those offences for which the Sentencing Council’s guidelines indicate that a year’s custody is the starting point. They include causing a child to watch sexual activity, inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and carrying a firearm in a public place, in certain circumstances. Hon. Members surely agree with me that they and the public would consider those crimes as particularly serious. Clause 35 as drafted, like all clauses in the Bill, is fully compliant with our obligations under the refugee convention.
I turn specifically to amendments 51 and 52. They seek to make the first limb of the article 33(2) assessment, that is whether an individual has committed a particularly serious crime, rebuttable. That would mean that an individual who had been sentenced to 12 months or more in prison could argue that their crime was not in fact serious. That is despite a court of law, based on all the facts in the case, taking into account mitigating and aggravating factors, determining that the offending was so serious that an individual should be deprived of their liberty for 12 months or more.
If we are agreed that a year’s imprisonment means someone has committed a crime that society clearly considers serious, this amendment seemingly gives offenders a second bite of the cherry to disagree with the ruling of the criminal courts in the UK—some of the most respected legal bodies in the world. The Government propose in clause 35 that a crime which has been punished by 12 months or more imprisonment is an appropriate definition, ensuring that all particularly serious crimes are captured. Such a sentence, which limits the freedom of an individual for a considerable period, would be inappropriate if the crime was not particularly serious.
I also stress that there is a safeguard in the process. If an individual commits a particularly serious crime, the bar on refoulement is not automatically lifted. The individual has an opportunity to rebut the presumption that they are a danger to the community in the UK. Only individuals who are unable to rebut the presumption will be considered for removal. I also flag the UK’s other international obligations, in particular those under the European convention on human rights. An individual would not be removed from the UK if doing so would breach our obligations under the convention. Instead, they would be granted shorter, more restricted forms of leave to remain, and would be removed at the earliest opportunity, when it is safe to do so.
Mr Goodwill
Is the Minister aware that in the Representation of the People Act 1981 the same 12-month sentence would disqualify a Member of Parliament—so what is sauce for the goose, I guess?
Tom Pursglove
My right hon. Friend puts the matter in a way that only he can. To raise the definition to a level that captures only crimes that have resulted in a sentence of four years or more imprisonment would be reckless, and would undermine the aims of the new plan for immigration to build a fair but firm immigration system. It would clearly send the wrong, and dangerous, message that the UK welcomes and rewards serious offenders. I do not believe that the people of the UK want that. The amendments would mean that individuals who commit some of the most serious crimes would continue to receive the generous benefits of refugee status in the United Kingdom. Their continued presence in the UK could also lead to avoidable reoffending. The Government would not be upholding their responsibility to protect the public of the United Kingdom by supporting the amendments.
The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate queried the process for a person who has been trafficked. I can confirm that such a person will be tested under the second limb for whether they amount to a danger to the community. With regard to offences committed overseas, section 72(3)(c) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 contains a provision to ensure that any convictions abroad would result in a sentence of 12 months or above in the UK for a similar offence.
In the light of those points, I hope that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East will withdraw the amendment, and that the Committee agree that the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is useful to have that on the record. I do not think that all the points were addressed, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 36
Interpretation of Part 2
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 55, in clause 36, page 35, line 14, at end insert—
“‘protection in accordance with the Refugee Convention’ means a legal status that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2-34 of the 1951 Convention”.
This amendment would define – for the purposes of Part 2 of the Bill – what constitutes protection in accordance with the Refugee Convention.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 135, in clause 36, page 35, line 27, at end insert—
“‘protection in accordance with the Refugee Convention’ means a legal status that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2-34 of the 1951 Convention.”
This amendment would clarify the meaning of “protection in accordance with the Refugee Convention” and ensure that it includes the positive rights and obligations necessary to ensure durable and humane solutions, and not merely protection against refoulement.
Stuart C. McDonald
Certain very important provisions in the Bill refer to a state providing protection in accordance with the convention. In particular, it is incredibly important to the inadmissibility provisions in justifying removal to so-called safer countries. We need to define it, and we would do so through amendment 55 by referencing all the rights set out in the refugee convention. We thereby seek to ensure that the standards of that convention have been fully upheld. The amendment poses the question to the Government of whether they are a champion of the full range of rights in the convention, or are requiring people to claim asylum in countries where little more than lip service is paid to it, and nothing more than a protection against refoulement is provided. That is the issue at stake, in a nutshell.
Bambos Charalambous
In order to save time—I know that we have had a very long day—I will bear in mind that the wording of amendment 135 is almost identical to that of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. He did it justice when speaking to it, and we will support it.
Tom Pursglove
I thank hon. Members for tabling the amendments. I have listened carefully to the arguments that they have put forward. I agree about the importance of the United Kingdom continuing to meet its obligations under the refugee convention, including through the rights that we provide to refugees. The amendments to clause 36 relate to the inadmissibility provisions set out in clause 14. I understand the spirit of the amendments in wishing to define protection in accordance with the refugee convention where we may seek to remove an individual to a safe country. However, clause 14 as drafted ensures that the principles of the refugee convention should be met if we are to remove an individual to that country.
If individuals have travelled via, or have connections to, safe countries where it is reasonable to expect them to have claimed asylum, they should do so. They should not make unnecessary and often dangerous onward journeys to the UK; however, if they do, we will seek to remove them to a safe country. We will only ever return inadmissible claimants to countries that are safe and where the principles of the refugee convention are met. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendments, and I ask that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East withdraw amendment 55.
Stuart C. McDonald
Again, it is useful to have that on the record. The Minister defends the clause as it is by referencing the protection that clause 14 provides on the principles of the refugee convention, but when I asked him what that meant earlier I was not remotely satisfied by the answer. It is another clause that is completely undefined, so I wish to press amendment 55 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Nationality and Borders Bill (Eleventh sitting)
Thursday 28th October 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 October 2021 - (28 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
The usual housekeeping notes: switch off your electronic devices, please, or put them on silent; and no food or drink is allowed in Committee—I do not think there is any, so that is good. Members are encouraged to wear masks, and I remind colleagues that they are worn not for your own protection, but for the protection of others, as a courtesy. Those who have speaking notes, will you please make them available to Hansard at the appropriate time, together with any documents that you are quoting from?
Clause 37
Illegal entry and similar offences
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I beg to move amendment 110, in clause 37, page 36, line 4, at end insert—
“(C1A) A person who—
(a) is required under immigration rules not to travel to the United Kingdom without an ETA that is valid for the person’s journey to the United Kingdom, and
(b) knowingly arrives in the United Kingdom without such an ETA,
commits an offence.”
This amendment inserts a new offence into the Immigration Act 1971 of a person knowingly arriving in the United Kingdom without a valid electronic travel authorisation (ETA) in circumstances where they require such an ETA.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 111 to 117.
Amendment 188, in clause 37, page 37, line 17, at end insert—
“(10) Before this section comes into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on the implications of this section for devolved criminal justice functions and bodies in Northern Ireland and Scotland, including but not restricted to those of—
(a) the Director of Public Prosecutions in Northern Ireland;
(b) the Lord Advocate;
(c) the Police Service of Northern Ireland;
(d) Police Scotland;
(e) the Northern Ireland Prison Service;
(f) the Scottish Prison Service;
(g) the Northern Ireland Courts and Tribunals Service; and
(h) the Scottish Courts and Tribunals Service.
(11) A report under subsection (10) must include the following information—
(a) an assessment of the how the functions and bodies listed in (10) will be affected by this section;
(b) the financial implications for those bodies;
(c) the implications for existing devolved criminal justice and related policies;
(d) details of any consultation and engagement with those bodies; and
(e) the Secretary of State’s findings, conclusions and proposed actions.”
This amendment would require the Government to report on the implications of clause 36 for bodies involved in devolved criminal justice functions and to obtain Parliamentary approval for such a report, before the clause enters into force.
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 125.
Clause 60 stand part.
Government amendment 120.
Government new clause 21—Electronic travel authorisations.
Government new clause 22—Liability of carriers.
Tom Pursglove
Amendment 110 will add to the other offences in the clause the additional offence of knowingly arriving in the UK without an electronic travel authorisation where that is required. The current offence of knowingly entering the UK in breach of a deportation order or without leave dates back to the Immigration Act 1971, and is no longer considered entirely apt, given the changes in ways that people seek to come to the UK through irregular routes, and in particular the use of small boats.
Many of the individuals involved are intercepted in UK territorial seas and brought to the UK. They arrive in, but may not technically enter, the UK. However, we need to deter migrants from risking their lives and those of their families by taking such dangerous routes to the UK, and to take back control of our borders. We are committed to strengthening our border security by ensuring that everyone wishing to travel to the UK, except British and Irish citizens, seeks permission to do so before travelling.
The clause introduces new arrival offences to deal with the issue. I reassure the Committee that we do not seek to criminalise genuine refugees who come to the UK to seek asylum, but safe and legal routes can be used for that purpose, without risking lives.
Government amendments 111 to 117 and 125 are consequential amendments; they ensure that where the clause and schedule 5 cross-reference to the offence of arrival in the UK without the required entry clearance, they also refer to the new offence.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Minister has slightly skirted over the most fundamental point in all this, which is that lots of refugees who come to seek asylum in this country will be criminalised by the provision—a good 60% or 70%, even according to the Home Office’s explanatory memorandum. How can he possibly feel comfortable about criminalising them through an offence that could see them imprisoned for up to four years?
Tom Pursglove
Clearly, any such cases would be referred to the Crown Prosecution Service or the relevant prosecuting authorities. They must make a judgment as to whether it is in the public interest to pursue such a prosecution. I will say more about that in due course, but it is important to highlight that point.
Paul Blomfield
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, but he may want to reflect on this now, although he might have been about to do so in due course. He referred to the CPS, but in July the CPS confirmed that, following an agreement made by prosecutors, police, Border Force, the National Crime Agency and the Home Office, it will no longer prosecute illegal entry.
Tom Pursglove
As I said—I will come on to this in more detail—it is for the prosecuting authorities to decide whether it is in the public interest to pursue a particular case.
On amendment 188, I reassure the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East that consideration of the issues he has listed is already taking place. I fully recognise that, while immigration offences are a reserved matter, the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Northern Ireland have responsibility for their criminal justice systems, and decisions on prosecutions are independently taken by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland and the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland.
My officials have been in contact with the Scottish Government criminal justice division, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service and the Department of Justice Northern Ireland, and have shared information about potential impacts and costings. The amendment would add an extra and unnecessary layer of parliamentary scrutiny to a process that is under way at official level. It would also have a critical impact on the commencement of the clause; it would add delay, but we need the measures in place to respond to the expected surge in dangerous small boat crossings when the weather improves in spring next year. I urge the hon. Member not to press his amendment.
On clause 37, the UK is experiencing a very serious problem of small boat arrivals; illegal migrants are crossing from the continent in small craft that are often equipped with only an outboard motor. They are unseaworthy and wholly unsuitable for a crossing of a minimum of 21 miles across some of the busiest sea lanes in the world. Many of the vessels break down and are intercepted by UK personnel on the grounds of safety of life at sea. The rescued migrants, including pregnant women and children, are generally brought to Dover.
The maximum sentence of six months does not reflect the seriousness of the offence of entering in breach of a deportation order. Increasing the maximum sentence to five years will disrupt the activities of foreign national offenders involved in criminal networks, including organised immigration crime.
The current offence of knowingly entering the UK without leave is ineffective and does not provide a sufficient deterrent to those wishing to enter the UK illegally by small boat. We accordingly propose increasing the maximum sentence from six months’ to four years’ imprisonment.
We also intend to create a new offence of arriving in the UK without an entry clearance where that is required. While some migrants seek to evade immigration control, for example by landing on a deserted beach, many more now arrive in the UK after being rescued at sea. It would not be right, and would be perverse, to have to let migrants take the risk of completing their journey without assistance, and of landing at a small beach, rather than rescuing them at sea, just because under current legislation, the act of intercepting them and bringing them to the UK could cast doubt on whether the migrants entered unlawfully.
It is worth repeating that we are not seeking to criminalise those who come to the UK genuinely to seek asylum, and who use safe and legal routes to do so. We will be targeting for prosecution those migrants in cases where there are aggravating factors—where they caused danger to themselves or others, including rescuers; where they caused severe disruption to services such as shipping routes, or the closure of the channel tunnel; or where they are criminals who have previously been deported from the UK or persons who have been repeatedly removed as failed asylum seekers. The increased prison penalty will allow appropriate sentences to be given to reflect the seriousness of this behaviour.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister is at his most reassuring when he tells us, basically, “Don’t worry; we are not really going to apply the full provisions of the clause.” The key point is that none of this is in the Bill. I want to remove these measures altogether, but could we at least put some of the restrictions in the Bill? Otherwise, we are putting in statute a law that criminalises the overwhelming majority of asylum seekers coming into the United Kingdom.
Tom Pursglove
I hope I will be able to provide the hon. Member with further reassurance by going on to say that, of course, the decision on whether prosecution is in the public interest rests with the Crown Prosecution Service in England and Wales, the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland and the Public Prosecution Service in Northern Ireland. In many cases, we will continue to seek the illegal migrant’s removal, rather than their prosecution.
The amended and new offences will apply to all types of unlawful entry and arrival, rather than being limited to entry via small boats. We should not limit our response to the evasion of proper immigration procedures and controls depending on the method of entry employed. Doing that would risk causing displacement to another, potentially equally dangerous, route. The offences will therefore also apply equally to other means of evasion, such as concealment in a lorry.
We are also amending the offence of assisting unlawful immigration to the UK in breach of immigration law, known as facilitation, to include arrival in the UK. That will ensure that the offence of facilitation also applies to those assisting the new offence of arriving without a valid entry clearance.
Clause 60 is one of the six clauses drafted as marker clauses at introduction. As indicated in the explanatory notes and memorandum for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, it was drafted as such in the interest of transparency—to make clear our intention of bringing forward substantive provisions on electronic travel authorisations. New clauses 21 and 22 are intended to replace clause 60.
Amendment 120 ensures the provisions in new clauses 21 and 22 can be extended to the Crown dependencies by Order in Council, should they wish to introduce their own electronic travel authorisation scheme by amending the Bill’s extent provisions in clause 69. As I noted earlier, the Government are committed to strengthening the security of our border by ensuring that everyone who wishes to travel to the UK—except British and Irish citizens—has permission to do so before they travel. The Government will introduce an electronic travel authorisation scheme—the ETA scheme—to close the current gap in advance permissions, and to enhance our ability to prevent the travel of those who pose a threat to the UK.
At present, non-visa nationals coming to the UK for up to six months as visitors, and in limited other categories, can travel to the UK solely on the basis of their nationality, evidenced by their passport or other travel document. That information is sent to the Government by the majority of carriers as advance passenger information shortly before the individual embarks on their journey. The ETA scheme will allow security checks to be conducted and more informed decisions to be taken at an earlier stage in advance of travel. The introduction of an ETA scheme is in line with the approach that many of our international partners have taken to border security, including the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Australia.
New clause 21 would insert proposed new section 11C into part 1 of the Immigration Act 1971, which will allow the Secretary of State to make immigration rules to administer an ETA scheme. Those rules will include, but are not limited to, who must apply for an ETA, what that application must contain, how long an ETA will be valid for, and when an ETA should be granted, refused, varied or cancelled.
Additionally, new clause 21 also inserts proposed new section 11D into part 1 of the 1971 Act, allowing the Secretary of State to administer an electronic travel authorisation scheme on behalf of a Crown dependency, if requested to do so, in the event that a Crown dependency chooses to operate its own ETA scheme. It also enables the Secretary of State to make regulations to recognise an electronic travel authorisation issued by a Crown dependency as valid for travel to the UK, in line with the UK’s commitment to maintaining the integrity and security of the common travel area.
To enforce the ETA scheme, new clause 22 builds on the existing carriers’ liability scheme by incentivising carriers to check prior to boarding that a traveller holds an ETA—or another form of permission, such as a visa in electronic form—or risk a civil penalty. Such checks are necessary to enforce our requirement for everyone, except British and Irish nationals, to get permission to come to the UK before they travel.
At present, carriers are incentivised to check for the presence of a valid immigration document that satisfactorily establishes identity and nationality or citizenship, and any visa required. New clause 22 incentivises carriers to check that all passengers have the appropriate permission— including by checking with the Home Office, if that permission may be held only in digital form—or risk a penalty. The new clause also provides a statutory excuse against the imposition of a penalty, to cater for circumstances where it has not been possible for the carrier to check for the presence of an ETA, or another form of permission, through no fault of their own.
The Chair
I will call Mr McDonald first, because he has tabled an amendment that is in this group.
Stuart C. McDonald
Thank you very much indeed, Sir Roger.
I will speak in support of amendment 188 and against the clause. To respond to what the Minister said, and to build on one of my interventions, the Committee has to debate the clause as it appears before us, not as the Minister envisages it being implemented. As it stands, the clause is one of the Bill’s low points, as it places in an already bleak Bill an extraordinarily broad criminal offence that will criminalise pretty much everyone who seeks asylum—many of whom are refugees—as well as survivors of trafficking. That will help to strengthen the control that traffickers have over their victims, rather than helping those victims.
It is unbelievable that should a Syrian, a Uyghur, a persecuted Christian convert, an Afghan interpreter, or a victim of the horrific crime of trafficking arrive seeking our protection, instead of being championed, they would be prosecuted and imprisoned by the regime put in place by the clause. Taken alongside the removal of the protections in the convention for asylum seekers in clause 34, this is a hugely retrograde step. It is also, again, utterly against the spirit and the letter of the refugee convention and the convention on trafficking, an issue that the Minister did not touch on.
Tom Pursglove
Notwithstanding what I have already said about the prosecution services taking a case-by-case approach, the hon. Member inquired about aggravating factors not being added to the Bill. The factors for prosecution when someone comes to the UK may change depending on the circumstances. We need to be able to react flexibly, so putting the factors in primary legislation would be too restrictive. I return to the point that I would expect prosecution services to look carefully at individual cases and to take all factors into account, so I would not accept his depiction.
Stuart C. McDonald
I take a small crumb of comfort from the fact that the Minister does seem to be evidencing some discomfort about how the clause is drafted. He is trying to reassure us by saying it will not be implemented as it is set out now, but that is not satisfactory. We parliamentarians are concerned with what is in the Bill. It is fine for the Minister to say that; I do not know how long he will be in office—hopefully many years—but there will be other Immigration Ministers to come, and they may take a completely different approach.
It may be challenging to put restrictions or a statutory defence in the Bill, but the Minister has to try. He must try much harder. We cannot leave such a broad criminal offence in the Bill simply on the basis of reassurances. I am absolutely of the view that the measures should be removed—for the reasons relating to the refugee convention, and that is even before we get to the ethical considerations and the impact the measures will have on asylum seekers and trafficking victims.
What the clause actually says will make it infinitely harder for refugees or trafficking survivors who eventually make it all the way through the horrendous new system to integrate, put down roots and rebuild their lives. There are questions about how the measures would operate in practice; they raise the spectre of families being separated on arrival if one member is accused of committing this criminal offence. How much harder will it be for somebody to get a job in due course if they have this criminal conviction and spend years in prison? UK citizenship will essentially be near impossible for them.
As we have heard repeatedly, particularly from the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, all of this will achieve absolutely nothing. As Tony Smith, the borders expert, told us in the Committee’s evidence sessions, use of the criminal justice system just has not worked. For smugglers and traffickers, it absolutely has, but not for their victims.
I have a question on scope. Will the Minister clarify whether someone who arrives with an entry clearance that is invalidated because it turns out that it was applied for on a false basis—for example, somebody who has secured a visit visa, when they are arriving to claim asylum—will have committed a criminal offence under the clause, because the leave to enter was obtained fraudulently? From the wording, I guess that they will, but it would be useful to hear the Minister’s clarification.
On amendment 110, we broadly support the ETA regime and encouraging carriers to ensure that the conditions are met, but we are still not absolutely convinced of the need for yet another criminal offence. Why can the remedy for turning up without an ETA not simply be to require that person to leave, or to send them back again? What group of people are being targeted here who are not already impacted by one of the other offences?
Even the wording on the state of knowledge of the person committing the offence raises questions. It says the person must “knowingly” arrive here without the ETA or entry clearance. The required knowledge seems to relate only to knowledge of arrival without the ETA or entry clearance, and not knowledge of whether he required that ETA or entry clearance. If we put that together with the fact that the measure will apply to people arriving in the UK rather than entering it, there is a danger that this will cover people who rock up in ignorance at airport border security, rather than anyone who is trying to do anything sinister. Simple ignorance and a mistake could lead to years in prison. I might be wrong about that; it would be useful to have clarity. Why is a criminal offence necessary?
Our amendment 188 was tabled to prompt discussion about consultation with the devolved criminal justice systems and the personnel in Scotland and Northern Ireland. Again, it gives me some comfort that the Minister has had some of these discussions—at least, the Home Office has—and there has been the important recognition that decisions about public interest will be for devolved prosecutors. It is important to acknowledge that, and it is welcome.
In short, as clause 37 stands, it sets out a framework for arresting, prosecuting and imprisoning several thousand asylum seekers, refugees and trafficking victims every year. Is there an estimate of what the cost will be, regardless of how it is implemented in practice? What will that do the backlogs in courts struggling to recover from covid, and what would be the impact on prison capacity? Putting all that to one side, the fundamental issue is the impact on asylum seekers, refugees and trafficking victims. The clause, as drafted, will compound the already slow and needlessly painful process of securing protection and add a criminal sanction. It is going to achieve absolutely nothing except more human misery.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It will not be a shock to hon. Members that I fully support clause 37, which has absolutely the right intention. Ultimately, as we have discussed—we have heard the evidence from His Excellency the Australian high commissioner—if we are to deter people from making this dangerous journey, we should be making sure that the deterrents are strong enough.
We have part of that already: if somebody enters this country illegally, that obviously counts against their asylum claim. Now we are saying that the right thing is that if someone chooses to enter this country illegally, that could lead to a criminal prosecution with a strong prison sentence. That is exactly what the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke want to hear at the end of the day, because 73% voted to leave and wanted to make sure that we took back control of our borders. We are a part of the asylum dispersal scheme already, with over 1,000 currently within the city region. We are happy to welcome them, but we want to see a change.
For example, we would love other parts of Scotland, not just Glasgow, to take on asylum seekers as part of the asylum dispersal scheme. Obviously, Glasgow is fully supportive, but other places voluntarily choose not to take part. We would like Labour-run Islington Borough Council to participate: by the end of 2020, it had not taken a single refugee.
The city of Stoke-on-Trent is expected to bear the burden of a large load and is taken advantage of, because ultimately we are an area that has been forgotten. The Labour party is still checking its Ordnance Survey map to find where the city of Stoke-on-Trent actually is—Captain Hindsight sent out a search party, and it got stuck in North Islington having chai latte and avocado on toast. Meanwhile, Conservative Members are more interested in delivering on the people’s priorities. We are delivering on that in making sure that this provision is strong.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Jonathan Gullis
I would be more than happy to hear if the search party has found Stoke-on-Trent.
Neil Coyle
It is a wonderful image, but there is only one thing I cannot bear to eat and that is avocado—I just cannot bear it.
The hon. Member is talking about the good people of Stoke-on-Trent, but I remember that they voted for a manifesto, which got him elected, that included not cutting our armed forces and not cutting our aid. Can he explain to the people of Stoke-on-Trent why his party has done exactly that, which leads to more people making the crossing?
The Chair
Order. No, I am afraid the hon. Gentleman cannot do so in the context of this Bill. It would not be in order.
Jonathan Gullis
Thank you, Sir Roger. I would love to find a way of answering that question, and by the way the people of Stoke-on-Trent would love to see the foreign aid budget cut entirely, and I fully support that as a long-term measure—
The Chair
Order. The same admonition applies to the hon. Gentleman. Can he please stay within the confines of the Bill?
Jonathan Gullis
I appreciate your patience, Sir Roger, and of course I will.
I will wrap up quickly by saying that clause 37 tells people that if they enter this country illegally, it will count against them. That is exactly what we should be doing, and I look forward to seeing that progress. Ultimately, we have illegal economic migrants making the journey across the English channel from Calais. The French need to do more, and the threat from the Home Secretary of not sending the additional £54 million has clearly worked—suddenly, I have never seen so many videos and photographs of French activity on their shores to try to prevent the small boats from leaving. It is about time that the French stood up and did what was right, because it is British taxpayers’ money that is funding the additional support they need.
This is about stopping the illegal economic migrants who are funding criminality by putting money into the hands of criminal people-smuggling gangs. That is probably funding wider criminality in the United Kingdom, particularly drugs in our community, and therefore it is right that we stop them. Let us not forget that 70% of those making these illegal crossings are men aged between 18 and 35, whereas we want to be protecting women and children. We have done that in Afghanistan and with Syria: the safe and legal routes are the appropriate way of doing it.
Clause 37 is saying to those illegal economic migrants that we need to make sure they go through those safe and legal routes, or, as Baroness Scotland—the former Labour Minister, back in the years when the Labour party was electable—said, they should be claiming asylum in the first safe country they reach. There is nothing wrong with Greece, Italy or France. I am more than happy to holiday there, and I am sure anyone in mainland Europe would be more than happy to make such a place their home.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is very interesting to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, but I will not rise to the bait.
Clause 37 is one of the most controversial new provisions in part 3 of the Bill. It expands the existing offence of illegal entry so that it encompasses arrival in the UK without a valid entry clearance. It also increases the maximum penalty for those entering without leave or arriving without a valid entry clearance from six months to four years’ imprisonment. I have a question for the Minister. On Tuesday we debated clause 35, which reduced the penalty for a particularly serious offence from two years’ imprisonment to one year. Is it the Government’s intention to make entry a particularly serious offence for the purposes of the Bill? That is what the clause could do.
In effect, the Government’s proposals criminalise the act of seeking asylum in the UK. The Opposition wholeheartedly oppose the measures and urge the Government to consider the following facts. First, clause 37 breaches article 31 of the refugee convention, which prohibits penalisation for irregular entry or stay when people are seeking asylum. The new offence of unlawful arrival is designed to—and will in practice—penalise refugees based on their mode of travel. That goes against everything that the convention stands for.
Article 31 of the refugee convention says that states
“shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees…where their life or freedom was threatened…provided they present themselves without delay…and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”
Clause 37 clearly violates the non-penalisation clause in the convention and is therefore in breach of the UK’s obligations under international law.
When taken in combination with clause 12, which excludes UK territorial seas from being considered a place of claim, clause 37 has significant implications for access to protection and the risk of refoulement. Under the proposed changes, those who arrive irregularly, including through a safe third country, could be prosecuted and imprisoned for between one and four years. That is because it is not possible to apply for entry clearance for the purpose of claiming asylum in the UK, and yet an asylum seeker must be physically in the UK to make a claim. Bearing that in mind, 90% of those granted asylum in the United Kingdom are from countries whose nationals must hold entry clearance to enter the UK.
Neil Coyle
This is more a point of order than an intervention, Sir Roger. I have been contacted with a correction to the record: Islington has actually taken refugees, contrary to what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North said. Does my hon. Friend congratulate Islington on its record in taking refugees and asylum seekers, contrary to the inaccurate—I was going to say “deceitful”, but I am not sure whether that is parliamentary language—and I am sure accidentally misleading comments from the hon. Gentleman?
Bambos Charalambous
I congratulate all local authorities that take asylum seekers. All local authorities should take their fair share—not just in Stoke-on-Trent or Islington, but those across the country.
In practice, someone with a well-founded fear of persecution arriving in the UK intending to claim asylum will be committing a criminal offence if clause 37 is implemented. Even if they have a visa, they will be committing an offence because their intention to claim asylum will be contrary to the intention for which the entry clearance or visa was issued. We have heard the example of students: if a student entered on a student visa and claimed asylum in the UK, they would be in breach of that visa. The clause will impact tens of thousands of people, leading to people with legitimate cases serving time in prison for these new offences, followed by continued immigration detention under immigration powers. In this context, the Government are proposing to criminalise asylum-seekers based on their journey—which, in all likelihood, was the only viable route available to them.
Secondly, the proposals are unworkable. While criminalising those we should be seeking to protect, the Bill also fails to introduce safe and legal routes to claim asylum. Clause 37 comes amid a glaring lack of lawful routes for claiming asylum in the UK. Although we welcome things like the resettlement programmes, they are not a solution for those claiming asylum because they are so limited. They cover those who are already recognised as having the protection they need.
Tom Pursglove
I will pick up on a few points in concluding our deliberations on the clause.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East spoke about costs. We are working with the various UK criminal justice systems and we have shared estimates of costs at official level as part of operationalising the plan. He sought further clarity about that and I hope that has provided reassurance. He also asked about entry clearance invalidation. If the leave is valid on arrival and is subsequently cancelled, no offence would have been committed, but if it is invalidated prior to arrival and the person knows that, the offence would have been committed.
Finally, I reiterate the point about the application of offences in this area. It bears repeating that we are targeting for prosecution those migrants for whom aggravating factors are involved—for example, those causing danger to themselves or others, including rescuers; those causing severe disruption to services such as shipping routes or closure of the channel tunnel; or those who have previously been removed from the UK as failed asylum seekers. The increased prison penalty will allow appropriate sentences to be given to reflect the seriousness of this behaviour.
Stuart C. McDonald
Has the Minister done an analysis of whether there are already criminal offences that cover the scenarios he has just outlined?
Tom Pursglove
We believe that this measure is required so that we can take appropriate action to deal with the sorts of circumstances I have just set out. I have made that clear on several occasions, and Members will have heard what I have said. I fully expect that that will continue to be the case, and that will be made clear at every opportunity.
I go back to the point that prosecuting services must judge cases on a case-by-case basis. They must of course take all the factors relevant to the individual case into account in deciding whether to proceed with it. They must also decide whether that is in the public interest. That is a very clear and established position, and will continue to be the case.
I am comfortable that the proposed approach is the right one to take in addressing the issues I have set out, which are particularly egregious and concerning and which require further action.
Amendment 110 agreed to.
Amendments made: 111, in clause 37, page 36, line 5, leave out “or (C1)” and insert “, (C1) or (C1A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 110.
Amendment 112, in clause 37, page 36, line 19, leave out “or (C1)” and insert “, (C1) or (C1A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 110.
Amendment 113, in clause 37, page 36, line 29, after “(C1)” insert “, (C1A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 110.
Amendment 114, in clause 37, page 37, line 2, after “(C1)” insert “, (C1A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 110.
Amendment 115, in clause 37, page 37, line 4, after “(C1)” insert “, (C1A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 110.
Amendment 116, in clause 37, page 37, line 12, after “(C1)” insert “, (C1A)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 110.
Amendment 117, in clause 37, page 37, line 15, after “(C1)” insert “, (C1A)”. —(Tom Pursglove.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 110.
Question put, That clause 37, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
Bambos Charalambous
I beg to move amendment 33, in clause 38, page 37, line 22, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment deletes the subsection which removes “and for gain” from section 25A(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 1971. Currently, under section 25A(1)(a), a person commits an offence if the person knowingly “and for gain” facilitates the arrival in the UK of an individual who the person knows, or has reasonable cause to believe, is an asylum seeker. This amendment preserves the status quo.
Following on from clause 37, clause 38 proposes to remove the words “and for gain” from section 25A of the Immigration Act 1971. Presently, under section 25A(1), it is an offence for a person knowingly and for gain to facilitate the arrival or entry, or attempted arrival or entry, of an asylum seeker into the UK. Clause 38 therefore seeks to broaden the section 25A offence to allow the Home Office to charge more people for facilitating the arrival of asylum seekers to the UK. Under the clause, someone acting purely altruistically to help an asylum seeker would be committing a criminal offence. It extends who could be convicted of the offence of knowingly facilitating the entry to the UK of an asylum seeker to individuals acting out of compassion for other people for no financial benefit.
As the Committee will know, the clause has received widespread criticism, and rightly so. I am not, for example, the first to observe that clause 38 would almost certainly have criminalised and prosecuted the likes of Sir Nicholas Winton for his life-saving actions in rescuing hundreds of children on the Kindertransport in 1939. Indeed, in July, when the Bill passed its Second Reading, many highlighted that clause 38 is so draconian that it could criminalise the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and its volunteers for helping those in danger at sea. If they were deemed to be facilitating asylum seekers’ arrival in the UK, they could face life imprisonment—life in prison for saving lives! I ask the Minister and this Committee: when did saving lives become a criminal offence?
These measures will criminalise friends, family members and individuals with humanitarian motives. The Minister’s predecessor, the hon. Member for Croydon South (Chris Philp), attempted to provide reassurance on Second Reading by claiming that the Government have
“no intention in this Bill to criminalise bona fide, genuine rescue operations”.—[Official Report, 20 July 2021; Vol. 699, c. 915.]
However, the Bill as it is currently written does not provide any similarly explicit reassurances.
The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium is especially concerned about the clause and its impact on people who provide assistance to vulnerable young people seeking asylum. It is concerned that such measures must in no way serve to deter people from saving the lives of babies and children at sea, with tragic examples demonstrating the cost of there being no safe and legal routes to the UK for families fleeing persecution. The Opposition have repeatedly drawn attention to that in Committee.
For asylum seekers who assist each other in coming to the UK to claim asylum, the implications of this measure are incredibly serious. Clause 38 increases the penalty for this offence to life imprisonment. These increased sentences, as raised by Zoe Gardner of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants in one of the Committee’s evidence sessions, risk being used to prosecute asylum seekers themselves, not the smuggling gangs and members of international criminal gangs they are intended for.
For example, according to the National Crime Agency, there is evidence that asylum seekers can often be forced to carry out work without pay for smuggling gangs. In an investigation by The Independent newspaper, migrants reported traffickers taking their money for crossings to the UK, only to then demand that they work for free in order to make the journey, and that work includes being forced to steer vessels during dangerous crossings.
In The Independent investigation, one Yemeni man demonstrated how traffickers are aware that they can criminalise asylum seekers and refugees in this way. He described the power this gives them, in that a smuggler
“told me, ‘I can kill you here, no one will identify me and I will escape.’ He took videos of me and of my friends while we were preparing boats for other journeys. He said, ‘I could now accuse you of being a smuggler, you could be in jail.’ ”
This proves how the persecuted can be coerced and controlled by these criminals, and will in turn in effect become criminals themselves under the punitive policy making of the Home Office.
Of course, the prosecution of victims for the crimes of their perpetrators is something that the refugee convention, drafted 70 years ago, considers. Article 31 of the convention is intended to protect refugees from prosecution for irregular entry because refugees are, by definition, forced into dangerous and risky situations during their flight. This is something the Government are deliberately trying to wash their hands of—and to do what? To pursue a reckless policy that will prosecute those who are demonstrably not criminals, but genuine asylum seekers and refugees.
It is worth considering whether clause 38 is indeed workable. As we know, clause 37 is likely to be unenforceable and clause 38 is equally, if not more, outrageous. In relation to our international law obligations, there does not appear to be any consideration of how this clause and the new expanded criminal offences in clauses 37 and 38 will be compatible with the duty of a ship to attempt to rescue persons in danger at sea. For example, article 98(1) of the United Nations convention of the law of the sea provides that every state shall require ships
“to render assistance to any person found at sea in danger of being lost”,
and
“to proceed with all possible speed to the rescue of persons in distress”.
More interestingly in relation to clause 38, paragraph 2.1.10 of the annex to the international convention on maritime search and rescue 1979—the SAR convention—explicitly obliges
“that assistance be provided to any person in distress at sea. They shall do so regardless of the nationality or status of such a person or the circumstances in which that person is found.”
With these rules in mind, it appears that the UK cannot legally prohibit vessels from rescuing asylum seekers at sea, and I urge the Minister to consider the Opposition’s amendment 33, which will preserve the status quo.
Stuart C. McDonald
I wish briefly to associate myself with everything the shadow Minister just said; he covered pretty much all the ground that I would have covered. This ridiculous clause tramples all over our international obligations. I suspect what will happen today, as happened on Second Reading, is that we will be reassured that the clause will be used in a certain way so that the RNLI and others will not be targeted. Maybe I am wrong, which would be good, but the scope of the clause is extraordinary.
If the defence, as it was on Second Reading, is, “We’re not going to go after these people,” that is not good enough. You have to put that on the face of the Bill. We cannot create criminal offences and ask folk to go about breaching those laws and committing crimes in the hope that the Government keep their promise that they will not be prosecuted. It is a fundamental rule of legal principle—[Interruption.] The Minister is shaking his head: if that is not the defence, I look forward to hearing what is.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Halifax for providing the opportunity to explain the difficulties involved in securing convictions for an odious crime that targets and exploits vulnerable people and allows organised criminals to thrive.
Gain can be obtained in many ways, but cannot always be proved to the evidential standard required for a successful prosecution: for example, money transfers made by other family members abroad or made cash in hand, promises of servitude by the asylum seeker or others, or the provision of assistance in the facilitation act, such as by avoiding paying a fee by agreeing to steer a small boat. It is right that all available evidence should be considered and all relevant behaviour taken into account in investigating a serious offence. We are, at present, limited by what is an unrealistic evidential requirement that does not take account of the reality of how international organised crime operates.
In amending the offence, we are mindful of the excellent work of those acting from humanitarian motives both now and in the past. I understand fully hon. Members’ concerns that the wrong people will be drawn into the investigative and judicial process. We are therefore retaining the defence available to organisations whose aim is to assist asylum seekers and who do not charge for their services. I also recognise the bravery of volunteers working for the RNLI and lifeboat crews who undertake vital work in protecting lives at sea.
I will set out my intention to amend this clause on Report to ensure that organisations such as the RNLI, those directed by Her Majesty’s Coastguard, and individuals who fulfil their obligations in rescuing those in distress at sea may continue as they do now. We also intend to ensure that this provision does not prevent those responsible for vessels from complying with their obligations if they discover stowaways on board as they journey to the UK. I understand that some members of the Committee would prefer to have those amendments ready to debate now, but the issues are complex and we must ensure that we do not inadvertently provide loopholes to be exploited by criminal gangs who will look for any means to avoid prosecution.
The effect of amendment 33 is that, by retaining the constraint and having to prove the offence was committed again, we will only rarely be able to respond to and deter those committing the offence and will continue to place an unrealistic burden on our law enforcement officers and prosecutors. I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment, although I hope he will be reassured that I intend to table on Report an amendment to address the crux of the issues that he raised. I hope that hon. Members across the House will feel able to support the amendment that I intend to table.
Bambos Charalambous
I heard what the Minister said, but Second Reading was back in July and there has been plenty of time to table an amendment. What could be achieved by his amendment can easily be achieved by voting for this one, so I wish to press our amendment.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 162, in clause 38, page 37, line 23, at end insert—
‘(3) In section 25A(3) of the Immigration Act 1971 (helping asylum seeker to enter United Kingdom), for paragraph (a) substitute—
“(a) aims to—
(i) protect lives at sea, or
(ii) assist asylum-seekers; and””
This amendment would add people working on behalf of organisations that aim to protect lives at sea to those who are exempt for prosecution for helping someone seeking asylum to enter the UK, as long as those organisations do not charge for their services.
In moving this amendment, I remind colleagues of my registered interest in respect of the excellent support that I get from RAMP––the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project––and especially from Heather Staff. I also thank the British Red Cross for its work, with a personal thank you to John Featonby for his advice and support to me and my team.
I guess that the amendment tries to help the Government, because the Minister says that he wants to table an amendment on Report. If he accepts this one, he may not need to. He called me a crafty parliamentarian last week, but there is nothing crafty about this. This is a genuine offer of a ready-made amendment that he can accept. It is a humanitarian exemption that would add people working on behalf of organisations that aim to protect life at sea to those exempt from prosecution for helping someone avoid drowning, as long as those organisations do not charge for their services and are not profit-making. It is exactly along the lines he has just outlined.
Sadly, as things stand, my amendment is necessary because this clause is deeply un-British. It denies our traditions and our heritage––our Christian heritage––of not walking on by. We have touched on Islington, which I believe has 137 asylum-seeking refugees and is a borough sanctuary. My own borough of Southwark had 1,022 in June according to Home Office figures. That number has since escalated massively because of the humiliation of our withdrawal from Afghanistan. But we do not whinge in Southwark. We do not whine about our Christian commitment and moral duty to the people we are supporting. We do not mind our international obligations being upheld. We are proud to be supportive of those in need.
It is extraordinary that the Bill, and this clause in particular, seeks to make UK citizens bad Samaritans. Without my amendment, the clause requires turning a blind eye. It requires people to watch other people die. It is a sickening extension of the culture war. It is in breach of our international obligations and law. The proposed changes risk UK-flagged vessels being pushed into a Kafkaesque Catch-22: assist those in distress and risk criminal liability or do not assist, breach duties of international law and witness the deaths of other people. This risks criminalising voluntary assistance while failing to provide for a humanitarian exemption.
My amendment presses the Government for such an exemption, along the lines that the Minister outlined and says that he wants. Not least, it would honour our international commitments and protect the RNLI and its amazing work across our country. From this Room, we can see the Thames. The busiest RNLI station in the country is here in London. Since 2002, the RNLI has saved more than 300 lives in the Thames, including in my constituency.
The RNLI saved 372 people from drowning in our waters in 2019, and more than 143,000 people since its creation in 1824. That is an astonishing achievement that we should be proud of and support. It is also astonishing that in its 200-year history, it has never been so attacked or vilified, including by the far right, and inflamed by Government narrative and rhetoric. It is with some regret that we seek to amend clause 38, to spell out that those who do their duty and protect lives at sea and in our waters, including when they need to rescue asylum seekers, are not penalised and do not face prison sentences.
The Government say that they want to stop smuggling and penalise smugglers, but if that was the case there would be no need to remove the words “for gain”. Instead, with one swipe, the Government have intentionally—or perhaps not, if anyone wants to be more generous than I—endangered the commitment to save life at sea, here and at other points, putting legislation at odds with our national maritime commitments. It is also deeply dehumanising, in a way that no UK Government have ever systematically attempted in the past. We have only ever seen such things abroad—I do not think I need to list all the countries involved—with catastrophic consequences, in time, for those involved.
To emphasise the humanitarian issues, I want to quote some of those frontline RNLI crew members in the English channel, who put it like this:
“I think what you realise when you get to the migrant boats, when you get to these dinghies, I think what hits you more than anything, irrespective of your own thoughts on this situation is the desperation that they must be in to put themselves in this situation and then you look at them as human beings irrespective of where they have come from, human beings that are in a state of distress that need rescuing, so every other thought goes out of your mind.”
Another said:
“While there are people in small boats in the channel, there is danger. My motivation is to stop anyone drowning and washing up on the beaches. I don’t care what time of day or night it is, a life is a life, and I will continue to give my best to the RNLI to protect as many as we can. I’d like to think that the crew all feel the same. You have to put the politics of it to one side; they are human beings in distress, and they need us. I am grateful that the RNLI support us and that we don’t discriminate against anyone. I am proud of the work that we do and the lives that we have saved. I want us to shout about what we do and the care and empathy that we show.”
He goes on:
“This country is having a crisis of empathy and I love that the RNLI are standing up for our morals and showing what I truly believe is the Britain we should all be proud of.”
That is the Britain that I am also proud of. I believe that the Government have stoked a filthy culture war, and it has got filthy in our waters—due not just to the sewage that they are dumping in it, but the hate that they provoke and the consequences it has had.
Let me talk about the situation as it stands before we get to the amendment that tries to protect the humanitarian organisations involved. Another crew member put it like this:
“Our inshore lifeboat was called to a small inflatable with seven people on board…four adults and three children…They’d broken down…Everybody on the boat [was]…sick, we thought they all needed medical attention...we needed to get them ashore, [and] some of the paramedics…were there to take care of them [and] were able to establish that they had exposure. But when we got there, some members of the public who saw us coming in with two families, little children, four or five years old in this boat, were standing there on the beach”
—I apologise in advance, Sir Roger—
“shouting, ‘Fuck off back to France’ at us as we tried to bring them in”.
This crew member said they had never been met by an angry mob like that before, and it was one of the most upsetting things they had ever seen. That situation is happening right now as a direct result of irresponsible rhetoric and policies.
Another crew member said:
“We’ve had some vile abuse thrown at us. We’ve been accused of all sorts of things. I’ve personally had personal phone calls at the lifeboat station people telling me what they think of me by bringing migrants in, but at the end of the day we are here to save lives at sea and all the time we are here that is what we will carry on doing.”
I pay tribute to the heroism and courage in the face of irresponsibility from this Administration.
Removing the words “for gain” has caused unnecessary distress already, in an already tough job and situation. I urge the Government to reconsider their communications on the Bill—specifically the clause and in relation to my amendment—and on the issue more widely, especially the language used when talking about asylum seekers. It has already led to such horrendous abuse of the RNLI and others, as well as the degrading language around people in need of sanctuary.
The Government are responsible for the hate that asylum seekers and volunteers and professionals at RNLI face. There are also further unintended victims of the childishness on the issue. I speak as a proud member of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. I am fearful that, should my amendment not be accepted, this grubby politics risks a course of action that will drag Her Majesty into the mess that the Government are creating. Without my amendment, if people continue to film and to seek action against the volunteers and the crew, and organisations such as the RNLI, which save lives, the chances of prosecution and prison will increasingly grow, both on an individual basis and with respect to attacks on the organisation itself.
There is a reason for the “R” in RNLI: the president is His Royal Highness the Duke of Kent. He is the Queen’s first cousin, and he succeeded both his father and his mother to become RNLI president in 1969. If the Committee does not agree to the amendment, we risk the astonishing situation—created entirely by the Government—of the Queen facing calls to lock up her own cousin. Those more attuned to British history will know that that would have been more likely under the first Queen Elizabeth than under the current monarch. It is a genuinely ridiculous situation.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, of whom I am very fond, for tabling the amendment. When I referred to him in a previous sitting as a crafty parliamentarian, I meant that in the nicest of ways. I am very fond of him, and I know that he is a canny parliamentarian who is passionate about the issues he raises.
Let me touch on various points that the hon. Gentleman made. The RNLI does, rightly, have a proud royal connection, and long may that continue. Of course, the RNLI, Her Majesty’s Coastguard and others provide an invaluable service in saving lives at sea. We as a Government are conscious of that, and that tradition and that vital service must continue to be upheld. The hon. Gentleman mounted a passionate defence of the monarchy, and I think I speak for the whole Government when I say that we are proud monarchists. Perhaps he might have a word with some of his colleagues about the stance they have traditionally taken in relation to the monarchy over the years, but we have proud support for our monarchy in this country.
I also want to say that the behaviour the hon. Gentleman talked about as being exhibited towards members of the RNLI and volunteers is completely unacceptable and despicable. There is a responsibility on Members across the House to speak with one voice in saying that such behaviour is despicable, and we should condemn it in the strongest terms. I think the Committee is united in that, and I hope the hon. Gentleman will take that message back to the RNLI volunteers he is engaging with in his constituency, because we do speak with one voice in that regard.
On that note, I want to mention the incident off the coast of Harwich during the past few days. Two men were rescued, but, unfortunately, an extensive search and rescue operation had to be called off after a man was reported to have entered the water. That incident highlights yet again the extreme danger of crossing the channel in small boats and the callous disregard for life shown by the criminal gangs responsible for facilitating crossings. I want to place on record my thanks to all those who responded to the incident and who continue to work tirelessly to protect lives at sea while securing our border. Their work is invaluable—it is incredibly important—and I know all Members would wish thanks to be expressed to them for the work they do.
I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman’s amendment seeks to protect those who act to save lives at sea, but as I have already set out, it is the Government’s intention to amend the clause on Report to do just that. The only thing I would add—Members have rightly spoken passionately about the importance of the issue—is that I want to be confident that the amendment delivering that is as robust as it needs to be, and that it achieves properly and to the fullest extent the objective I think we all share.
I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to let me take the matter away. What has been said in Committee has been heard. There are already efforts under way to develop this amendment for consideration on Report. I hope that gives the hon. Gentleman the confidence to withdraw his amendment. We will make sure that we table an appropriate amendment on Report, which I like to think Members from across the House will feel able to vote for, and that will deliver on the objective that we all share.
Neil Coyle
I note the Minister’s words and offer, but he has not explained why this amendment specifically does not do the job that he is seeking to do in the later stages. There is no explanation of what the Government would do differently from what is on the table today, so it is unclear why he will not accept the amendment. The Bill was published some months ago, and the Government have had about three months to suggest an amendment. I have already spoken about the current situation and the attacks on the RNLI: people throwing things, people spitting at crews. That will affect its recruitment and damage its reputation and, by association, all those who are patrons or otherwise involved. We need to offer better protection to the RNLI from today and send a clear signal that its work is invaluable and that we respect and honour what it does.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 82.
Amendment 144, in schedule 5, page 74, line 30, at end insert—
“provided that the relevant officer may not do any of the things mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) where they would risk the welfare or safety of persons on board the ship.”
This amendment would require officers to assess welfare risk before stopping or boarding a ship, requiring it to be taken elsewhere or requiring it to leave UK waters, and not act if doing so would exacerbate these risks.
Government amendment 83.
Amendment 145, in schedule 5, page 75, line 8, at end insert—
“(7A) The Secretary of State must publish a list of States and relevant territories with which agreement has been reached for the purposes of sub-paragraph (7) within 30 days of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, and the Secretary of State must update that published list from time to time.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish which states or territories she has agreed arrangements with for returning or removing asylum seekers to, within 30 days of Royal Assent.
Amendment 146, in schedule 5, page 76, line 24, at end insert—
“(9) A relevant officer may only exercise powers under this paragraph if they have passed relevant training, including training on the requirement to exercise powers under this paragraph in accordance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would require the relevant officer to have passed relevant training before acting under these powers, and only acts with regards to the Human Rights Act.
Amendment 148, in schedule 5, page 77, line 18, at end insert—
“(7) A relevant officer may only exercise powers under this paragraph if they have passed relevant training, including training on the requirement to exercise powers under this paragraph in accordance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would require the relevant officer to have passed relevant training before acting under these powers, and only acts with regards to the Human Rights Act.
Amendment 147, in schedule 5, page 78, line 12, at end insert—
“(10) A relevant officer may only exercise powers under this paragraph if they have passed relevant training, including training on the requirement to exercise powers under this paragraph in accordance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would require the relevant officer to have passed relevant training before acting under these powers, and only acts with regards to the Human Rights Act.
Amendment 149, in schedule 5, page 78, line 32, at end insert—
“(c) the act was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would require the relevant officer to only act with regards to the Human Rights Act.
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
Tom Pursglove
In response to numbers of migrants using dangerous maritime routes to enter the UK illegally, this Government are committed to providing Border Force with the tools and legislation they need to combat this illegal migration threat more effectively. We need to strengthen and broaden our current powers not only to improve the effectiveness and capability of Border Force’s current maritime interception tactics, but to better equip them for future operational developments, which may be enhanced through agreements with our near border partners.
The clause and schedule will also provide new powers allowing Border Force to return vessels and those on board, when appropriate, to non-UK locations. Finally, the Government will use this clause to provide bespoke seizure and disposal powers intended for Border Force use against the small boats threat specifically. It will provide far more flexible options for the seizure and disposal of the vast majority of unflagged, ownerless vessels that are being used to transport illegal migrants.
I turn to Government amendments 82 and 83. We are seeing an unacceptable rise in dangerous and unnecessary small boat crossings. Our primary focus is on preventing people from embarking on dangerous channel crossings to enter the UK illegally, tackling the criminal gangs responsible and protecting lives. We must send a powerful message that people should not leave the safety of countries such as France or Belgium to enter the UK illegally in an unseaworthy boat, and if they do, they could be taken back.
Stuart C. McDonald
On the question of legality, Government amendment 82 is pretty extraordinary, because it seems to remove a restriction on the power of the Secretary of State so that she is unconstrained by the United Nations convention on the law of the sea; I am just looking at the explanatory note. Is that amendment designed to allow the Secretary of State to break the international law of the sea?
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that point, and I will come on to it imminently. To finish the point I was making, the Government amendments will remove text from the Bill that is now considered not to be essential to achieving the aim that I have set out.
The UK has ratified, and is therefore fully committed to upholding, the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. The Government are committed to utilising their maritime enforcement tactics in full compliance with international law. The re-statement of that in the clause is therefore unnecessary. It is also unnecessary to state in legislation, where it is already beyond doubt, that Border Force would seek permission from a foreign country before taking a migrant boat back to that country. That statement adds nothing to the powers being created in this part of the Bill.
We want to make it explicit that operating these maritime enforcement powers in UK waters or international waters to simply divert a migrant vessel from UK territorial seas does not require the permission of a foreign state where that vessel may then enter their waters. These amendments will not result in the UK failing to abide by its international obligations, whether that be in the context of the safety of lives at sea or when seeking permission if intending to return migrants to another country, such as France.
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central for what he will no doubt say about amendments 144 to 149. I will start by addressing amendment 144, which proposes to add an additional requirement to the maritime powers where the options available to officers intercepting a vessel at sea are spelled out. In order for the tactics intended for use in the exercise of these powers to be safe and legal, officers will have to carry out risk assessments before and during any exercise of the powers. That requirement will be laid out in operating procedures to ensure we meet our international obligations on safety of life at sea.
As any deployment of the tactics under the powers will be carried out in full accordance with those obligations, the welfare and safety of those on board vessels will be the priority throughout. With international obligations in this context not being a matter for UK legislation, we do not consider it necessary to add the amendment. I also note that any deployment of maritime tactics will be carried out in full compliance with obligations under the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act.
I turn now to amendment 145. The schedule that it would amend deals with new powers allowing Border Force and others to require vessels to be taken to a non-UK port if necessary. There are a number of reasons why we may wish to have the capability to do this, and they are not all related to the return or removal of asylum seekers. For example, any potential future agreement with partners to patrol waters jointly may require rescued or intercepted migrants to be taken back to the country from which they embarked on their maritime journey. As such, we do not consider that the amendment is needed or appropriate in schedule 5, and we are not prepared to commit to providing a running commentary to update on the progress of sometimes sensitive international negotiations.
I understand that the intention of amendments 146 to 148 is to emphasise the need to ensure that account be taken of human rights obligations by appropriately trained officers exercising these maritime powers. However, the amendments are unnecessary and would have no practical impact on the operation of the powers by Border Force officers and others. All operational officers within Border Force receive, and must have passed, appropriate training in order to exercise their duties. In order to be appointed as an immigration officer, an official must successfully complete and pass a foundation course that includes understanding the European convention on human rights as it relates to the Human Rights Act 1998, and their resulting obligations in the context of exercising powers.
Nationality and Borders Bill (Twelfth sitting)
Thursday 28th October 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 28 October 2021 - (28 Oct 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Government Amendment 82.
Amendment 144, in schedule 5, page 74, line 30, at end insert—
“provided that the relevant officer may not do any of the things mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) where they would risk the welfare or safety of persons on board the ship.”
This amendment would require officers to assess welfare risk before stopping or boarding a ship, requiring it to be taken elsewhere or requiring it to leave UK waters, and not act if doing so would exacerbate these risks.
Government amendment 83.
Amendment 145, in schedule 5, page 75, line 8, at end insert—
“(7A) The Secretary of State must publish a list of States and relevant territories with which agreement has been reached for the purposes of sub-paragraph (7) within 30 days of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, and the Secretary of State must update that published list from time to time.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish which states or territories she has agreed arrangements with for returning or removing asylum seekers to, within 30 days of Royal Assent.
Amendment 146, in schedule 5, page 76, line 24, at end insert—
“(9) A relevant officer may only exercise powers under this paragraph if they have passed relevant training, including training on the requirement to exercise powers under this paragraph in accordance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would require the relevant officer to have passed relevant training before acting under these powers, and only acts with regards to the Human Rights Act.
Amendment 148, in schedule 5, page 77, line 18, at end insert—
“(7) A relevant officer may only exercise powers under this paragraph if they have passed relevant training, including training on the requirement to exercise powers under this paragraph in accordance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would require the relevant officer to have passed relevant training before acting under these powers, and only acts with regards to the Human Rights Act.
Amendment 147, in schedule 5, page 78, line 12, at end insert—
“(10) A relevant officer may only exercise powers under this paragraph if they have passed relevant training, including training on the requirement to exercise powers under this paragraph in accordance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would require the relevant officer to have passed relevant training before acting under these powers, and only acts with regards to the Human Rights Act.
Amendment 149, in schedule 5, page 78, line 32, at end insert—
“(c) the act was carried out in accordance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.”
This amendment would require the relevant officer to only act with regards to the Human Rights Act.
That schedule 5 be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
In terms of schedule 5, let me just say that clause 42 is one of the six drafted as placeholder clauses, as indicated in the explanatory notes and memorandum for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It was drafted as such in the interests of transparency, to make clear our intention to bring forward substantive provisions on working in the territorial seas. The placeholder clause is now to be replaced by new clause 20.
The Government’s clear position has always been that permission to work is needed for all foreign nationals intending to work in the United Kingdom landmass—that includes all UK waters. New clause 20 will bring legislative clarity: migrant workers wishing to work in the territorial seas or internal waters of the UK will need permission to do so. To obtain that permission, they will need to apply for a visa under the points-based system in the same way as when coming to work on the UK landmass.
New clause 20 will clarify the legal framework, but will not change the existing position that migrant workers need permission to work in UK waters. As such, the new clause does not invent a policy change and its effect should be negligible. The new clause does not impact on those engaging in innocent passage or crew who are covered by section 8 of the Immigration Act 1971.
Government amendments 126 to 128 are minor and technical. They are intended to ensure that the regime I have just talked about can be enforced.
The Chair
Order. Apologies, but I think you have strayed into the debate on schedule 5, which includes Government amendments 126, 127 and 128 and clause 43 stand part. I appreciate that there are a lot of different moving parts.
Tom Pursglove
I apologise if that is so, Ms McDonagh. The groupings on the selection list are not clear, because they are talking about schedule 5. I am happy to leave that there and return to it separately in a moment.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Despite the Minister’s request, I would like to speak to amendments 144 to 149, which seek to address a couple of pretty serious issues: the immorality and the impracticality of the Government’s approach to the policy of pushback.
As regards Australia, the United Nations special rapporteur expressed real concern that the policy could intentionally put lives at risk. We have also seen the reports on those who lost their lives as a result of pushbacks in the Mediterranean. Clearly, the Government do not want to risk death or injury. Ministers have told us repeatedly that the objective of the legislation is to prevent drowning in the channel. Amendment 144 therefore seeks simply to put that commitment in the Bill.
I heard the Minister’s comments earlier, but a constant theme throughout our debate over the past few days has been that we identify real problems with the Bill and the Minister says, “Oh, don’t worry, we’ll sort it out.” We are trying to say, “If we’re in the same place on the issue, let’s sort it out by putting something on the face of the Bill.” Amendment 144 would do that by requiring officers not to act under powers granted by proposed new paragraph B1(2) if they risked the welfare of those on board. It would simply ensure that an officer who wants to stop a ship, board it or require it to be taken elsewhere in the UK or internationally and detained or to leave UK waters must first consider the implications for those on board. Given that we are in the same place in our intentions, I hope the Minister can accept amendment 144.
Amendment 145 addresses the issue of practicality. Clause 41 is disturbing enough in itself, but it also reflects a wider problem with the Bill. The Government are trying to talk tough and grab headlines but with proposals that are actually undeliverable and that will not solve the problem of people smuggling that we all agree needs to be tackled. We have discussed offshoring and third country returns on previous clauses, and here we are again. Amendment 145 seeks to press the Govt on the issue.
In schedule 5, proposed new paragraph B1(7) makes it clear that the Government can proceed with the policy of pushback only where the relevant territory
“is willing to receive the ship.”
So where are the agreements? Amendment 145 would require the Home Secretary simply to publish a list of states with which she has secured agreement under sub-paragraph (7) to send ships with asylum seekers to, and to do so within 30 days of Royal Assent. That is not 30 days from today; that is 30 days from Royal Assent. That is a considerable amount of time. The Government have put a lot of thought into the Bill apparently, although there seem to be a lot of last-minute amendments. The Minister has said repeatedly that he does not want to provide a running commentary on negotiations. Let me reassure him: we do not want a running commentary. We just want some indication that there are agreements, or agreements in the pipeline, but there absolutely do not seem to be any. That is key.
The Government have so far failed to secure any agreements for returning asylum seekers. Instead, they encourage rumours that they are so close to securing an agreement with one country or another, but every country that has been mentioned has slammed those rumours. Rwanda said it had no agreement with Denmark, whose Government have been condemned by the African Union —an entire continent—in the strongest terms possible. The African Union said that offshore processing amounted to “responsibility and burden shifting” and criticised European attempts to extend border control to African shores as “xenophobic and completely unacceptable.” As my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark pointed out, the UK Government were rebuffed by Albania. The Albanian Foreign Minister told the press:
“Albania will proudly host 4,000 Afghan refugees based on its good will, but will never be a hub of anti-immigration policies of bigger and richer countries. We have instructed our Embassy in the UK to demand the retraction of this fake news.”
There are not just no agreements, but the Government are managing to offend countries around the world by implying that they are prepared to enter into agreements when they are clearly not. How many other countries are the Government deciding to burn bridges with over this issue? When will they come clean on this empty rhetoric?
Amendment 145 is intended to be helpful. We want to see transparency and, at the end of this process, to give the Government the opportunity, which they have so far failed to take, to publish the agreements they have secured. I hope that by accepting the amendment the Minister can prove us wrong in our doubts about the Government’s work in this area, and that he will agree that this information should be published well before the Bill takes effect.
Amendments 146 to 149 seek to ensure that officers adhere to the Human Rights Act 1998 and have completed relevant training before searching asylum seekers. These amendments relate to officials carrying out searches of people during maritime enforcement for documents, evidence of crime and other purposes. They seek to ensure that those officials have received training that is relevant to the task, and at all times are adhering to the Human Rights Act 1998.
As we have discussed many times in Committee, those fleeing persecution and danger to build new lives in the UK are likely to be victims of violence and trauma. They are vulnerable, and personal searches in particular could be extremely difficult or upsetting. Schedule 5 allows for officials to search a person, but forbids them to
“remove any clothing in public other than an outer coat, jacket or gloves.”
That is welcome as a bare minimum, but there is no stipulation or description of what can be done in searches in private, so this amendment seeks to ensure that the Home Office designs and delivers training to officers to ensure they are sensitive to the needs of the vulnerable people they may search. Additionally, it would ensure that all those searches are conducted with consideration given to the Human Rights Act and the right to a private life, to encourage the use of these powers only in extreme circumstances and when absolutely necessary.
Again, I draw the Minister’s attention to the lived experience of those who have come to our shores. In 2015, Women for Refugee Women published a report, “I Am Human”, which details the impact of searches on those who have experienced sexual violence. The searches triggered mental health problems, flashbacks and traumatic memories because people felt handled and scared by the process. When addressing my earlier amendments, the Minister sought to reassure me on these points too, saying that the Government would of course be compliant with the Human Rights Act and would take account of all the issues I am raising—fine. So why not put that commitment on the face of the Bill?
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to follow my friend, the hon. Member for Sheffield Central. When there are no safe and legal routes —or very few, as we have discovered throughout our many debates in this Committee—refugees will travel by unsafe means. We leave them no other choice. An estimated 40,000 refugees and other migrants died between 2014 and 2020 in the process of moving between countries, so as you said during a previous Bill Committee sitting, Ms McDonagh, we all of course want these dangerous crossings stopped.
We need to establish a network of the safe and legal routes the Government keep claiming the Bill is all about. But if it was about safe and legal routes, the Government would not be spending so much time, energy and money on introducing this so-called pushback policy for vessels found in the English channel. In the Bill, they refer to ships, but they have stretched the definition of what a ship is beyond recognition: it is now anything that appears to float. I feel the need to emphasise that for the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North—I see his ears pricking up at the mention of the word “Stoke”. Given his comment that he is happy to holiday in Greece, and that refugees should therefore just stay there, he clearly thinks people are arriving here on cruise ships. He really ought to look into this issue a bit more before he casts another vote or speaks another word. The Bill specifically talks about
“any other structure (whether with or without means of propulsion)”.
That is because people are making these perilous journeys on the flimsiest of vessels, so desperate are they.
Let us not sanitise things by talking about the pushing back of boats, ships or vessels of any description. Let us call it what it is: a policy of pushing back people—human beings. That is who we are pushing back. Who are these people? They are not, as the Home Secretary disgracefully claimed yesterday, economic migrants who just want to stay in UK hotels. Several very well-respected refugee organisations have spoken to me this morning to express their anger over those words, because as the Home Secretary knows, it is not true. The Home Office itself, over which she presides, accepted that 98% of those who arrived on boats in 2019 were asylum seekers, so I repeat: it is not true.
Who are these people, then? Migrant Voice and Amnesty International, in their evidence to their Committee, said that they are often babies; children; pregnant women; people who are ill; people with physical or mental incapacities; people suffering the traumas of past slavery, torture, or the frightening journeys they are on or have taken; or people who are afraid. Guess what? Young men, with the exception of being pregnant, can also be all of those things. It is clear that it takes just one person to panic or misunderstand an instruction for lives to be in jeopardy—the lives of all those aforementioned people.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Glasgow North East, and I am delighted that she is using the word “Stoke-on-Trent”. It is wonderful to hear it mentioned by hon. Members from across the House, and I hope that we will spend much more time talking about the city of Stoke-on-Trent.
I will discuss clause 41 and schedule 5. As we heard from His Excellency the Australian High Commissioner in the evidence session, pushback was one of a range of methods used to deter people from making the dangerous journey. There is no single approach that works on its own, and the clause adds to the raft of measures already in place. We already have in the Bill increased prison sentences and the idea that if someone enters the country illegally, it will count against their application. The clause says that if someone makes an illegal entry or attempts to do so, there could be pushback.
Of course, we acknowledge that pushbacks are not simple; they are dangerous and need to be thought through carefully. In the current legislation, pushbacks can already take place, as the Home Office has announced. There is a small legal window for that to happen, and it is up to the commander on the boat to make a decision on whether a pushback is safe to do. I believe that we should give confidence to commanders to know that this country has their back when they fulfil their duty to the people who elected the Government, and who therefore wanted the Bill delivered.
Ultimately, we know that Monsieur Macron was terrified by the threat of money not ending up in his pocket. The idea was that the French were so busy not doing their job and allowing boats to make the dangerous journey—some people in my patch would even have said that the French were aiding such crossings. It is not for me to say whether that is true—I am sure there are questions that could be answered—but, ultimately, we know it is election year in France. My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk mentioned earlier today in the main Chamber that the French were seizing British maritime boats over fishing, but they are not seeking to do enough when it comes to illegal economic migrants making the dangerous journey across the English channel. We are asking that boats are pushed back to a safe place.
Let us not forget that His Excellency the Australian High Commissioner said that when the Australians were using the method of pushback, they were using military vessels to stop what they described as rickety wooden boats. We would be doing it with rubber dinghies in some cases, which means that, in his opinion, there is not as much danger to the pushback as what was undertaken by the Australian navy. That is from someone who has actually lived that experience and gone through it, and he is obviously an extinguished lawyer who understands the legal implications. Ultimately, the Government are ensuring that we add more strings to the bow in order to deter people from making illegal crossings and to try to stop people risking their lives.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I think the hon. Gentleman meant “distinguished”. To clarify the record, will he take this opportunity to correct his mistake this morning and perhaps even issue an apology to Islington Council, which he so sadly besmirched?
Jonathan Gullis
I do not believe that is in scope of the clause, but I will not apologise to Islington Council. I made it very clear that, by the end of 2020, it had not taken any refugees. Obviously, Stoke-on-Trent had taken far more. The statistics back up what I am saying, and I am more than happy to have exchanges with the hon. Gentleman on the Floor of the House at another time, if he wishes.
Anne McLaughlin
I do not know the hon. Gentleman’s circumstances; he could have 10 kids or none. We have already established that most asylum seekers have no idea where they are going. They do not decide where they are going based on the immigration and asylum policies of the country where they end up, but imagine if they did. If the hon. Gentleman was one of them and was told, “If you go through that country, you will possibly end up in jail, but if you don’t leave your country right now, you are going to end up dead,” which would he choose for his family?
Jonathan Gullis
I have one daughter and a son on the way in early February, which I am pleased to announce to the House. What a lucky father I am going to be. The hon. Lady said it—there is nothing dangerous about France, Italy or Greece. People’s lives are not at risk. They may well be in Afghanistan or Syria. People will have left those countries and made that dangerous journey, which they should not have done because there are safe and legal routes to the UK. Other countries across mainland Europe could look to us as an example. They can claim asylum in those countries and not risk their lives by crossing the channel from France to the United Kingdom.
As I said, 70% of people making that illegal crossing are men between the age of 18 and 35. Predominantly, women and children are not coming with them but staying in those dangerous countries, which is why what we did with Afghanistan and Syria was so brilliant—we took women and children from a terrorist regime that I have no time for whatsoever, who treat women as second-class citizens and force certain children into slavery. We need to ensure that those women and children are protected.
I therefore believe that we should give commanders the confidence to do that again if they believe it to be safe. It is the commanders who will make that decision, and I have full faith that they will do so knowing the law, and the legal system in this country will have their back. Most importantly, they will take into account the condition of the waters at the time and the passengers onboard, so they can decide what is safe. The French can then do what they are meant to do when boats are in French territorial waters—stick to the obligations they sign up to for the money they get from British taxpayers and take those people back.
The people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke are so angry about what is going on that they want us to pick people up and take them straight back to Calais. I am sympathetic to their viewpoint, and that is one way to deter. This is a legal opportunity for us and the right one for the Government.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North. He has shown a real insight into seafaring from Stoke-on-Trent, which we all know is a coastal town.
It will come as no surprise that we will vote against clause 41 and schedule 5. Both plan to extend and enhance the new maritime enforcement powers beyond the UK territorial waters into international waters. They seek powers to stop, board, divert and detain foreign ships and ships without nationality.
The overarching goal of clause 41 is to push back asylum seekers, and for Government to redefine ships in legal terms, as the hon. Member for Glasgow North East mentioned. They broaden that definition to include fragile and insecure vessels that cross the English channel. At present, the definition of “ship” includes every description of vessel, including hovercraft, used in navigation. That definition is to be supplemented so that “ship” also includes any other structure, with or without means of propulsion, constructed or used to carry persons, goods, plant or machinery by water. To be more precise, it is referencing the small boats that cross the English channel.
The clause would grant new powers to the Home Office to stop or board ships, take them to any place on land or water in the UK or elsewhere, retain them there or require them to leave UK waters, if it has reasonable grounds to suspect that a relevant immigration-related offence is being committed. The powers may be exercised in relation to a UK ship, a ship without nationality, a foreign ship or a ship registered in another British territory. In addition, extensive new enforcement powers are to be conferred in this clause, and the power to seize and dispose of ships will be conferred in schedule 5. The problem with the power to divert ships bound for the UK is that it raises profound questions about the safety and wellbeing of the people on board, and ultimately presents a risk to lives. There is no proof that the diversion of a ship would occur only where safe, no suggestion of how it would be policed and enforced, and no intention from the Government to act in accordance with international law. Such intentions are likely to be assessed meaningfully only in retrospect, once people have been harmed.
Tom Pursglove
There are a few points that I briefly want to address in concluding the debate on this clause. The first is the training that immigration officers have to undergo. I clarify again that all immigration officers have to pass the immigration foundation course to be appointed. This includes training on the Human Rights Act. Further specialist training is given to those officers working in the maritime environment, which includes vulnerability assessments in the context of human rights obligations. They will be exercising maritime powers using operational guidance that emphasises the need to take full account of relevant human rights aspects of the European Convention on Human Rights, and the Human Rights Act, in the context of safety of life at sea obligations. I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central is very keen that we include this in the Bill, but I respectfully disagree. There is already an established process in place that is delivering exactly what the hon. Gentleman wants to see. We are very mindful of these obligations on an ongoing basis.
The issue of immunity has also been raised; however, these protections are nothing new. Border Force has existing powers to intercept vessels in UK territorial seas; an officer is not liable in any criminal or civil proceedings if the court is satisfied that the act was done in good faith and there were reasonable grounds for it. This provision is also included in the Policing and Crime Act 2017, the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and applies in other contexts. This provision follows the same approach as the Immigration Act 1971.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East raised a number of points in relation to search and rescue operations, which we had an extensive debate about during this morning’s session. Again, I make the point that this Government are absolutely committed to search and rescue operations, as would be rightly expected. That is an important function and service, and it is right that it continues to be a strong commitment. We are committed to it and that service must be provided. Again, I will emphasise that this Government will abide by their international obligations at all times.
Neil Coyle
Can the Minister be absolutely clear that no new powers, or attempts at immunity that arguably do not follow international law, are being sought? This is contrary to some of the Government reports on this issue.
Tom Pursglove
All I can say in response, is that I refer the hon. Member to what I have just said. There is an established position in relation to this; these protections are nothing new.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Pursglove
I beg to move amendment 126, in schedule 5, page 73, line 23, at end insert “24B,”.
This amendment and Amendments 127 and 128 are consequential on NC20.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 127 and 128.
Clause 42 stand part.
Government amendment 124.
Government new clause 20—Working in United Kingdom waters: arrival and entry.
Tom Pursglove
As you noted, Ms McDonagh, I have spoken to various aspects of the grouping in my earlier remarks, so I do not propose repeating what I said. Amendments 126, 127 and 128 are changes to existing maritime enforcement powers to ensure that these are available in relation to illegal working offences in the UK’s territorial sea. Amendment 124 brings new clause 20 into force automatically two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent for the purpose of making regulations.
Amendment 126 agreed to.
Amendments made: 127, in schedule 5, page 73, line 31, after “(S.I. 2020/1309),” insert—
“(ba) an offence under section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006,”.
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 126.
Amendment 128, in schedule 5, page 73, line 37, leave out “paragraph (a) or (b)” and insert “paragraphs (a) to (ba)”.—(Tom Pursglove.)
See the explanatory statement to Amendment 126.
Amendment proposed: 144, in schedule 5, page 74, line 30, at end insert—
“provided that the relevant officer may not do any of the things mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) where they would risk the welfare or safety of persons on board the ship.”—(Paul Blomfield.)
This amendment would require officers to assess welfare risk before stopping or boarding a ship, requiring it to be taken elsewhere or requiring it to leave UK waters, and not act if doing so would exacerbate these risks.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Bambos Charalambous
I beg to move amendment 137, in clause 43, page 40, line 8, leave out subsections (3) to (5).
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government new clause 28—Removals: notice requirements.
Bambos Charalambous
Clause 43 refers to no-notice removals and presents another problem of access to justice in the Bill. The clause aims to provide a statutory minimum period to enable individuals to access justice prior to removal and makes provisions for removing individuals following a failed departure without the need for a further notice period. It also includes the provision of written notices of intention to remove and departure details. It makes clear in statute the duty of the Home Office to give people a maximum of five working days’ notice when they are going to be removed from the UK.
For more than 10 years, the courts have recognised that that duty to give notice of removal is essential to accessing justice and the rule of law. As the Committee will acknowledge from our discussions on the Bill so far, it is vital that, when officials decide people should be removed, those people can access the courts to challenge that decision if they have a legitimate case.
However, while this clause sets out to provide access to justice, its effectiveness in doing so is very unclear. If the purpose of the notice period is, as stated, to enable those facing removal to access legal advice and the courts, it is essential that people served with a notice are able in practice to access that advice.
For example, the clause does not explain how the Government will ensure that access to legal advice will be provided. Asylum seekers can be highly vulnerable and may experience difficulties in effectively accessing legal advice and in understanding the legal intricacies of the asylum process, such as studying legal determinations or preparing submissions. As we know from our earlier scrutiny, clause 22 in part 2 provides for up to but no more than seven hours of legal aid for those served with a priority removal notice to receive advice on their immigration status and removal. We do not believe that provision goes far enough, but this clause is worse still. Unlike the provisions for priority removal notices, there is no specific provision in part 3 for ensuring that those who are served with notice of intention to remove can access legal advice within the notice period. The scheme therefore depends on existing legal aid provision, which has of course been decimated by the Conservatives for more than a decade. There are serious limitations in the availability of this provision for those both in detention and in the community.
Subsection (8) inserts new section 10A in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It sets out potential scenarios where a further notice period is not required, which includes, for example, where the person was not removed on the date specified in the first notice due to matters reasonably beyond the control of the Secretary of State, such as adverse weather conditions, technical faults or transport delays, or disruption by the person to be removed.
Disruption is very broad of course, and can be interpreted on a very broad basis. It could be applied to a person refusing to leave their room in detention because they want to speak to their lawyer. The fine print also states that a new notice of intention to remove and a further notice period are also not required where the person was not removed on the date specified in the first notice as a result of “ongoing judicial review proceedings”.
That point is even more problematic. It applies where a planned removal does not proceed because of judicial review proceedings. If those proceedings are resolved in a way that means removal can proceed, the Home Office does not have to give any notice of removal if it is carried out within 21 days of the court’s decision.
As the Public Law Project and JUSTICE have pointed out, that decision could come weeks, months, or even years after the first notice of removal. Over time, the person’s circumstances could have changed fundamentally, important new evidence could have come to light or the situation in their own country might have changed dramatically. Such changes can happen virtually overnight, as recently witnessed in Afghanistan. Yet once the previous judicial review proceedings, which were potentially based on completely different facts and circumstances, are decided, a person can be removed without any notice or opportunity to raise these new circumstances with the Home Office or to access the court. If implemented, that could give rise to significant injustices.
I have one example to highlight this point—I thank the Public Law Project and JUSTICE for sharing this example. MLF is a Sri Lankan national whose asylum claim had been dismissed. During judicial review proceedings, in which he was unrepresented, he submitted further representations to the Home Office based on new evidence of the killing of three male relatives. That new evidence could not be considered in the judicial review proceedings because it post-dated the decision being challenged. The Home Office’s barrister informed him that the material would be forwarded to the relevant part of the Home Office for consideration.
MLF was subsequently served with a decision that refused to consider his fresh representations. He was subsequently removed to Sri Lanka on the same day without any notice or opportunity to access the court. In hiding in Sri Lanka, MLF applied for judicial review of his removal without notice. The Home Office conceded that he had been unlawfully removed and arranged for MLF to return to the UK. He has since been granted refugee status on the basis of evidence that post-dated his original appeal, including that which he had submitted during his judicial review proceedings.
If clause 43 was implemented in that case, it would have authorised the removal of MLF without notice. To avoid situations where people are wrongly removed and evidence is not considered properly, amendment 137 seeks to delete subsections (3) to (5) of new section 10A of the 1999 Act. That change would ensure that people are required to be given notice of removal directions and an opportunity to ask the court to issue an injunction preventing their removal while additional elements of their case are considered or in order to present fresh evidence to challenge an initial decision.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The shadow Minister has raised lots of sensible questions. I have one other brief question for the Minister, on new clause 28. He may not be able to answer it today, but I would like it clarified, if possible.
Proposed new section 10E to the 1999 Act that the new clause would add is supposed to apply when a person has applied for judicial review and the court has made a decision authorising the removal. To be clear, does that decision relate to the judicial review, or could it relate to any prior decision? That point will not affect lots of people, but it will be important. I appreciate that the Minister may not be able to answer immediately, but I hope we will get clarity on that in due course.
Tom Pursglove
It may be easier if I explain that the power in amendment 137 already exists—albeit for 10 days—in published policy that is available on gov.uk. The purpose of putting the policy into statute is not to introduce a new power, as it already exists. Rather, we want to place it on a statutory basis to enable parliamentary scrutiny.
We can currently rearrange a migrant’s removal on another flight within 10 days of a failed removal without the need to give the migrant a fresh notice period. Clause 43 will increase the period to 21 days. Our recent experience during the pandemic has shown us that organising flights and complying with travel restrictions is difficult—dealing with self-isolation and rebooking escorts, for example. It is therefore entirely reasonable and sensible to allow the flexibility of 21 days to remove the migrant if the removal fails for reasons that are reasonably beyond the Secretary of State’s control.
It may be helpful to provide some examples to illustrate that point. A migrant has already had time to access justice and is due to be removed, but the flight is cancelled because of bad weather. The removal fails, but we manage to book a flight for the next day. We do not want to be in the position of having to wait another five working days before we can remove that migrant. As a second example, if a removal fails because the migrant is deliberately disruptive, that person should not be rewarded with another five working days in which they can try to defer their removal further. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate to withdraw his amendment.
To pick up on the point about access to legal aid during the notice period, migrants who are detained in immigration removal centres during the notice period will have access to the free legal advice surgery.
New clause 28 replaces clause 43 in its entirety. Our expert drafters have advised that it is better to do it that way because the text flows better and it is easier to navigate.
Unfortunately, migrants subject to enforced removal often wait until the last minute to challenge their removal from the UK. Consequently, flights are cancelled and removals are inevitably delayed at great cost to the taxpayer. We think it right that migrants subject to enforced removal must be allowed a reasonable opportunity to access justice. The sole purpose of the notice period is to give migrants time to seek legal advice. That is the rationale underpinning the clause.
Our current policy is complicated. Some migrants are given a minimum notice period of 72 hours, while others are given five working days. Calculating when the 72 hours start and end is confusing. They must include at least two working days, and the last 24 hours must include a working day. Evidently, there is scope for simplifying the process and making it consistent across the board. New clause 28 will do just that by placing in statute a single statutory minimum notice period of five working days for migrants. The new clause requires us to serve a written notice of intention to remove, setting out the notice period. Before the migrant can be removed, we must serve a written notice of departure details containing the date of removal.
A limited exception to the single statutory notice period relates to port cases. Migrants who are refused entry at the border can be removed within seven days without receiving a notice period. It is unlikely that they would have developed ties to the UK within that week.
The clause will create more clarity for Home Office staff, legal representatives and migrants. Migrants will know how long they have to access justice—in fact, some will have more time to access justice—and will therefore have fewer excuses to frustrate removal.
To be clear, we are not reintroducing removal windows, which were found to be unlawful by the Court of Appeal. Under the new clause, the migrant cannot be removed during the notice period. If the removal is cancelled or deferred because the migrant raises a fresh or further claim, a fresh notice period must be given before removal can proceed. Individuals will also be given a fresh notice period if there is a change to the previously notified destination or route, unless the place of transit is in a safe country.
The new clause provides that migrants can be removed within 21 days of a failed removal that was caused by their disruption. In such circumstances, a further notice period is not required because the migrant has already had sufficient opportunity to access justice, which is entirely reasonable when there are no significant changes to the migrant’s circumstances. That is in our current published policy but with a timescale of 10 days. Extending the time from 10 to 21 days will give us more time to rearrange removal.
The pandemic has highlighted the fact that organising escorts and rebooking flights cannot always be turned around quickly. Migrants frequently challenge their removal by way of judicial review, and of course that is their right. As per the clause, once a court decides that the migrant can be removed, we can remove them within 21 days without a fresh notice period. The migrant has already had time to access justice, and the removal decision has been subject to judicial scrutiny. There is no justification for further time.
Bambos Charalambous
We are not convinced by the Minister’s response and wish to press amendment 137 to a Division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Neil Coyle
I beg to move amendment 143, in clause 44, page 41, line 7, at end insert—
“(1A) A prisoner who arrived in the United Kingdom before their tenth birthday is not eligible for removal from the United Kingdom under subsection (1).”
This amendment would prevent deportation as an FNO for those who arrived in the UK before their tenth birthday, in line with the age of criminal responsibility.
The amendment is not down in my name; it was tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central, who has an urgent constituency engagement. Forgive me if I am not as eloquent as my hon. Friend. I will try to do justice to his amendment.
In recent months and years we have seen a multitude of cases of individuals who have lived in the UK almost all of their lives, and in some cases were even born here, being deported as a result of past convictions. The amendment seeks to prevent that happening if the individual came to the UK before the age of 10, the age at which the UK deems one becomes criminally liable for their actions. Assuming that the age at which criminal liability kicks in is the age at which we believe someone starts to become at least partly responsible for their actions, why should their previous country of residence change how they are dealt with in the criminal justice system years or decades down the line? My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central has provided a case study.
We hear of cases such as that of Sam Trye, who was born within sight of this room, just over the river in St Thomas’ Hospital, where my daughter was born and where perhaps the son of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North will be born. We might not agree on many things, not least a scattergun approach to facts, but I congratulate him on his news, which I hope his wife gave permission for him to share before breaking it to us this morning. I hope our children have better life chances than Sam was afforded because he has since served a prison sentence for a non-violent crime, and the Home Office has been trying to deport him to Sierra Leone, from where his family moved to the UK. Despite Sam being born in the UK, he is treated differently as he lacks birthright citizenship. He has two British children and cares for his mum here in London, so his right to family life is therefore well established.
There is a question here about the UK’s responsibility. When a child is born here and has been through our education system and our support services, and has grown up British in every sense, we have a duty to ensure that if they commit a crime, the British state takes responsibility for that individual. It is nonsensical to deport those who have never known another country, who came to the UK before they were ever criminally liable in UK law, let alone an adult with full independence and responsibility.
That issue was raised during the Windrush report, and by Sir Stephen Shaw in his 2016 “Review into the Welfare in Detention of Vulnerable Persons” and his 2018 follow-up progress report. Sir Stephen stated:
“I found during my visits across the immigration estate that a significant proportion of those deemed FNOs had grown up in the UK, some having been born here but the majority having arrived in very early childhood. These detainees often had strong UK accents, had been to UK schools, and all of their close family and friends were based in the UK… Many had no command of the language of the country to which they were to be ‘returned’, or any remaining family ties there… The removal of these individuals raises real ethical issues. Not only does their removal break up families in this country, and put them at risk in countries of which they have little or no awareness. It is also questionable how far it is fair to developing countries, without the criminal justice infrastructure of the UK, for one of the richest nations on earth to export those whose only chance of survival may be by way of further crime.”
Sir Stephen’s recommendation 33 was that
“The Home Office should no longer routinely seek to remove those who were born in the UK or have been brought up here from an early age.”
That recommendation has been routinely ignored by Ministers, but we do know that the Government accept that premise in specific circumstances, so there is a precedent. Last year, when there was an outcry over their attempted deportation of people to Jamaica, the Government reached a private agreement with the Jamaican high commission that it would not deport those who came to the UK under the age of 12. When there were further charter flights this year, despite Ministers refusing to answer parliamentary questions from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central on the subject, as they wanted to hush up the agreement, we know that when the flights departed, no one who came to the UK under the age of 12 was on board. So which other countries does the Minister have other such agreements with, and which other countries are negotiating with him or others in the Government to secure such agreements? If the Minister has an agreement with Jamaica, which we know is sensible, why will he not make it a blanket policy? I invite him to respond if he can.
The amendment reflects British values, in the opinion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central, and it take steps to enact Sir Stephen Shaw’s recommendations. I urge the Government to accept it.
Tom Pursglove
I thank hon. Members for raising these important issues. Amendment 143 aims to prevent the deportation of a foreign national offender where they arrived in the UK before the age of 10. The clause enables the removal of a relevant prisoner at an earlier point in their sentence. The amendment would exempt FNOs who arrived in the UK before the age of 10 from the provision enabling them to be removed at an earlier point in their sentence, but it would not exempt them from deportation. I cannot see a rationale for exempting FNOs who arrived in the UK before the age of 10 from the provision enabling them to be removed at an earlier point in their sentence, given that they will still be liable to deportation at the end of the custodial part of their sentence if they have not been removed earlier.
The hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark stated that the purpose for the amendment is to align the age on arrival in the UK at which an exemption to deportation applies with the age of criminal responsibility. Almost all foreign national offenders that the Government deport from the UK have committed offences since they were adults. It does not make sense to provide an exception based on the age of criminal responsibility. Unlike England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the age of criminal responsibility in Scotland is 12.
Neil Coyle
I am keen to explore this on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central. Will the Minister tell us more about the arrangement with Jamaica, and those with any other countries? He says that it would not make sense to have such an arrangement, but there is an existing one with a country. Perhaps he can tell us more about that specific arrangement, and any other countries we have entered into similar arrangements with.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful for that question. The hon. Member for Sheffield Central is not here. I promised earlier to write to Committee members on the RNLI issue. I will make sure that this issue is addressed in that letter, particularly so that the hon. Gentleman can see that information in its full context, given that he is unable to be here because of a constituency commitment.
The amendment is too broad in scope. It does not define what is meant by “arrived in” the UK. This could include anyone who visited the UK for a short period or who arrived here clandestinely, as well as those who have been lawfully resident here since the age of 10. It is technically deficient and, I argue, wrong in principle. I also refer hon. Members to the requirements under the UK Borders Act 2007, passed under the previous Labour Government. For these reasons, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Neil Coyle
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss Government new clause 8—Prisoners liable to removal from the United Kingdom.
Tom Pursglove
Clause 44 is one of the six clauses drafted as placeholder clauses at the Bill’s introduction. As indicated in the Bill’s explanatory notes and the memorandum for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, it was drafted as such in the interests of transparency, to make clear our intention to bring forward substantive provisions on the early removal scheme. New clause 8 is intended to replace clause 44.
New clause 8 forms part of a package of measures that will enable the swift removal of those who have no right to be in the UK. By expanding the existing early removal scheme and increasing the removal window from nine months to 12 months, we will have greater opportunity to remove as many foreign national offenders from the UK as early as possible. However, to ensure that those sentenced by the courts are not simply let off their sentence, and to maintain public confidence in the justice system, removal under the scheme is subject to at least half of the custodial period of the sentence—the “requisite custodial period”—being served in prison. The knowledge that offenders will serve punishment for their crime in prison and will be removed from prison and the UK before they have an opportunity to be released on licence will provide comfort for victims.
The new clause will also mean that eligible foreign national offenders can be removed at any point in their sentence provided they have served the requisite custodial period and are within 12 months of their earliest release point. Presently, the scheme does not permit removal for those foreign national offenders who are serving a recall—FNOs who have been released into the community after serving their custodial sentence and subsequently recalled to custody for breaching that licence. The new clause brings them into scope.
The new clause also serves to deter foreign national offenders who have already been deported once from returning to the UK through the introduction of a stop-the-clock provision. Should a foreign national offender ever return to the UK after being removed, they will be liable to immediate arrest and return to custody to serve the remainder of the custodial period of their sentence. This is in addition to a maximum 5-year prison sentence that may be imposed for returning in breach of a deportation order.
Bambos Charalambous
The Government will disagree to clause 44 and replace it with new clause 8, although I understand that new clause 8 has fundamentally the same principle as the clause. Clause 44 and new clause 8 will extend the length of time a foreign national offender can be considered for early removal from the last nine months to the last 12 months of their sentence if they become eligible for the scheme. The Opposition have concerns that increasing that time limit will lead to unfairness in accessing justice for foreign national offenders as well as leaving them with inadequate time to obtain access to legal representation.
In our already overpopulated and overworked prison system, foreign national offenders have limited access to legal support and resources even when compared with people detained in immigration detention centres. They have no access to mobile phones or the internet. In the limited time that they do have access to a phone, the contacts they can call are vetted by the prison and this process can take many weeks. Thus, acquiring adequate legal representation becomes near impossible. Time is of the essence to these individuals and increasing this early removal widow will only lead to exacerbating these difficulties.
Bail for Immigration Detainees produced a report in 2017 on the lack of legal advice available to prisoners, which found that only five of the 86 prison detainees surveyed had received independent advice about their immigration case. They found that detainees in prison are routinely denied access to basic information that might help their immigration case. Cuts to legal aid have only made this situation worse. The High Court earlier this year held that detainees in prison have suffered discriminatory treatment due to obstacles in getting legal advice—in particular, exemptions from legal aid eligibility.
Despite what high-profile recent Home Office failings might imply, when it comes to deportations the already heavily stacked deck is stacked against the deportee. Not having proper legal representation means that the detainees will almost certainly be denied the fundamental right to a fair hearing. It would mean that they could be deported to countries in which they face persecution, or it would be in breach of their human rights. We should not undermine that right by extending the length of time they have for removal. Charities such as Bail for Immigration Detainees are already stretched to breaking point trying to support these vulnerable individuals. Instead of limiting access to justice, the Government should work on increasing its efficiency so that foreign national offenders who have committed serious crimes are dealt with swiftly and those who have claims to remain are given a fair hearing.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 44 disagreed to.
Clause 45
Matters relevant to decisions relating to immigration bail
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Pursglove
For too long, individuals with no right to remain in the UK, including foreign criminals, have been gaming the system in order to get released from detention and frustrate their removal. We have seen individuals making asylum claims while in detention, but then delaying the resolution of that claim through their own deliberate actions, such as refusing to be interviewed. The current system incentivises non-compliant behaviour. By creating obstacles, bail is more likely to be granted due to the time it will take to resolve the claim and any subsequent appeals. It is not right that a person’s non-compliance enables their release.
Similarly, an individual may refuse to provide fingerprints for a travel document or may lie about their true nationality, thereby obstructing the returns documentation process. This again makes the prospect of removal more remote and increases the likelihood that bail may be granted. From an operational perspective, non-compliance is difficult to tackle and becomes much harder to counter once individuals are released from detention into the community, where they have the ability to abscond or continue with non-compliance. Therefore, eliminating the risk and impact of non-compliance is a key benefit that arises from the use of immigration detention if appropriate in the individual case.
We must have an immigration system that encourages compliance. The purpose of clause 45 is to ensure that, so far as possible, appropriate weight is given to evidence that a person has not been co-operative with the immigration or returns processes without reasonable excuse when making immigration bail decisions. This is currently not explicitly referenced as one of the specific mandatory criteria for considering whether to grant immigration bail.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister did seem to accept that all those factors can be taken into account already if they are relevant to the question of whether the person is going to be removed in a reasonable time or whether they will abscond. Surely those are the only two questions. This is not necessary at all and seeks to use immigration detention as a form of punishment.
Tom Pursglove
I do not accept that depiction. We are requiring decision makers to take into account co-operation with removal proceedings and immigration processes when considering applications for immigration bail. We are mindful that non-compliance may already be considered, and that the tribunal takes such behaviour into account when deciding whether to grant bail. However, the intention behind the provision is that there be the same focus on evidence of non-compliant behaviour as there is on those factors already particularised and considered in every case. As we have always made clear, we do not detain indefinitely, and the clause will not mean that people will be detained solely due to non-compliance, as there must always be a realistic prospect of removal within a reasonable timescale.
Bambos Charalambous
We will oppose the clause. It makes it more difficult for individuals to get bail and leaves them stranded in immigration detention indefinitely.
The clause would require decision makers to consider previous failure “to cooperate with” certain immigration processes when considering whether to grant immigration bail. That is extremely vague and broad language. There is a risk of it being misconstrued and used to penalise those who use their legal rights to resist or appeal against immigration decisions made against them.
The Public Law Project has stated that if detainees are given the impression that any resistance to a decision of the Home Office may be held against them, it would increase unfairness and have a significant chilling effect on those bringing legitimate legal challenge. There is already an uneven playing field; the clause risks tipping things still further in the Home Office’s favour. The Home Office is expanding its powers of detention, while preventing independent judicial oversight of its decisions to detain.
Immigration detention is a harsh measure. It has no time limit and little judicial oversight, and should be used only when necessary and for the shortest time possible. The Government hold vulnerable people in prison-like immigration detention centres for periods ranging from days to several years. That includes people who have lived in the UK since childhood, people fleeing war and persecution, torture survivors and victims of human trafficking. Such vulnerabilities cannot be managed in detention and will no doubt be worsened by the prospect of bail being denied.
Since 2000, 49 people have died in immigration detention centres, and incidents of self-harm are now recorded at more than one a day. The Home Office’s immigration detention facilities are not fit for purpose, and narrowing the availability of immigration bail will only make the situation worse.
The uncertainty of indefinite detention is cruel not only for the detainee, but for family members waiting for them at home. Research by Bail for Immigration Detainees, which helps 3,500 detainees to apply for bail every year, shows that children of detainees are often British citizens, and suffer a range of physical and mental effects due to separation from their parent. Those are compounded by further, unexpected separation. For those children, cutting off the prospect of bail will lead to further mental ill health and suffering.
The majority of people in detention do not need to be there. More than 60% of people taken into detention are eventually released, their detention having served no purpose, at a cost of £76 million a year, according to Matrix Evidence research. BID has said that the Home Office repeatedly breaks the law and detains people unlawfully. In the past two years, the Home Office has paid out £15.1 million to 584 people whom it had detained unlawfully.
The clause will make it tougher for people to get bail and leave them trapped in detention for longer. The Government have committed to reducing detention, but this measure is counter to their own rhetoric. It means less justice for detainees, more harm for vulnerable refugees and more wasted costs for the taxpayer. That is why Labour opposes the clause.
Stuart C. McDonald
As I said in my intervention on the Minister, the decision has to be based on whether there is a reasonable prospect of imminent removal, and included in that is the question of the likelihood of the person absconding if bail is granted. If any historical non-compliance has any sort of relation to that question—if it is relevant—the tribunal will obviously already be able to take it into account. Today, the Minister is asking us to tell the decision makers to take into account historical non-compliance even where it has absolutely no bearing, in the decision maker’s view, on the fundamental question of whether someone should be interned. That is moving from weighing up those considerations in the question about removal to using detention almost as a form of punishment. It is completely unjustified, and I echo what the shadow Minister has said.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 170, in clause 46, page 41, line 41, leave out “, before the specified date,”.
This amendment would remove the hard deadline for compliance for persons who have made protection claims or human rights claims to comply with a slavery or trafficking information notice.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 169, in clause 46, page 42, line 4, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
“(4) Subsection (5) applies if the recipient of a slavery or trafficking information notice does not provide the Secretary of State or competent authority with relevant status information within a reasonable period of time.
(5) The Secretary of State must provide recipients with an ongoing opportunity to explain why they did not provide the relevant status information within a reasonable period of time (and see section 47).”
This amendment would remove the hard deadline for compliance for persons who have made protection claims or human rights claims to comply with a slavery or trafficking information notice.
Amendment 171, in clause 46, page 42, leave out lines 13 and 14.
This is a consequential amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
Clause 46 brings us on to part 4 of the Bill, which relates to modern slavery. I will make a few general points in this debate, which will save me from having to repeat them in later debates. They are relevant to the clause and the amendment, and to other ones as well.
My first point is: why is modern slavery in a Bill that relates to immigration and border enforcement? The fact that it is included betrays the Government’s motivation. It is not about protecting survivors or addressing the huge difficulties victims face in accessing protection and support. Rather, this has to do with border enforcement functions and is based on unevidenced assertions of abuse. It is important to remember that people cannot refer themselves to the national referral mechanism as a potential victim of slavery; they have to be referred into it. The majority of referrals come from the Home Office and the police. In the overwhelming majority of cases— nine in 10—the NRM results in positive and conclusive decisions. None of this is evidence of any sort of abuse.
This part of the Bill also pre-empts the review of the modern slavery strategy that is supposed to be happening. The proposals are all largely absent from the new plan that was published earlier this year, and they have not been consulted on—certainly not with trafficking survivors. Efforts to tackle the traffickers will suffer as a result of the lack of consultation and engagement. When we debate these clauses, let us also remember that a huge number of survivors are British citizens.
The real problem that we face with trafficking is encouraging people to come forward. That is partly because of the power that traffickers have over their victims, partly because of the trauma that victims have suffered, and partly because we are not doing enough to enable them to feel sure that they will have protection. Too often the experience of the NRM process is that people are re-traumatised and left in limbo waiting for a decision, often for years and without any right to work. Even when they are recognised as trafficking or slavery survivors, as the vast majority are, they are given no leave to remain and are subject to removal. It is little wonder that while some expert groups reckon that there could 100,000 or more modern slavery victims in the UK, we conclusively identify around just 3,000 or so each year. Instead of fixing that, the clause and others in this part of the Bill will make things worse.
The Chair
I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there will be a clause stand part debate later. If he could concentrate on the amendments in this group, that would be good.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am happy to do that, Ms McDonagh.
I will not repeat the arguments that I have already made about why it is wrong for Parliament to tell decision makers how to assess evidence that they see, but that we never will—I have done that already in relation to other notices. I simply make the point that putting in place deadlines for disclosure and punishments for missing them is especially dangerous and counterproductive for victims of trafficking.
Tom Pursglove
Before turning to part 4, which deals with modern slavery, I would like to make a declaration of interest. In October, prior to my appointment as Minister, I ran the London marathon and raised funds for the Mintridge Foundation, which encourages young people to get into sport, and Justice and Care, a charity that works to tackle modern slavery. I make the declaration in the interests of complete transparency and for the information of the Committee.
I thank the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, and for Glasgow North East for the amendment. The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East raised important questions about the purpose of the slavery and risk trafficking notice.
The clause forms part of our approach to expanding the one-stop process to include modern slavery through the establishment of a new slavery and trafficking information notice. We have already debated the one-stop process, so I will not repeat that discussion, but the aim of the process is to identify possible victims as early as possible and ensure they receive the support they need. To best achieve that, we also need to discourage misuse of the system by stating our expectations and stipulating the consequences of non-compliance with the process.
That being said, let me reassure hon. Members that the clause has safeguards built in, and decision makers will consider each case on its grounds. To seek to remove the deadline stipulated by the slavery or trafficking information notice, as suggested by amendment 170, would go against the approach I have outlined. Without a deadline, the Government would be unable to seek the information up front that supports speedier decision making. Equally, changing a “specified” time to
“a reasonable period of time”
would provide less certainty to victims and decision makers on what is required. That would be detrimental to the victim identification process and goes against what we are trying to achieve in the Bill.
The ability to identify victims at the earliest opportunity is fundamental to our ability to support them. The clause is part of a wider process of much-needed change to the system to enable quicker decision making and reduce opportunities for misuse of the system, which takes valuable resources from victims. To deliver on that aim, it is right that we specify the time period in which information should be given, so that there is a connection to the consequences of late provision. As I have already set out, that does not mean that late claims will not be considered; any individual who brings a late claim for a good reason will be treated as if the claim were made in time. That will enable us to strike the right balance between preventing misuse and focusing resources on victims. For the reasons I have outlined, I respectfully invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
We share the same goal, which is identifying victims. Unfortunately, every single trafficking organisation that has got in touch with us has said that putting these hard and fast deadlines in the Bill will make that harder, rather than easier. We will probably end up voting against this clause, but in the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 172, in clause 46, page 41, line 42, at end insert—
“(2A) The requirement in subsection (2) does not apply in relation to anything that the slavery or trafficking information notice recipient has previously provided to the Secretary of State or any other competent authority.”
This amendment would ensure a recipient of a slavery or trafficking information notice does not need to provide information that has already been submitted to the Secretary of State or any other competent authority.
This amendment makes a short and simple, but important, point. Requesting the same information that has already been disclosed could be needlessly re-traumatising for a victim of modern slavery or trafficking, so the simple question is whether the Minister can assure us that that will not be made necessary under clause 46. The clause seems to envisage that trafficking information notices could be served on someone who has already had a positive reasonable grounds decision. Can the Minister confirm whether that is right, and if so, why that would be necessary? As it stands, the clause calls for “any” information that might be relevant for the purposes of making a decision on reasonable or conclusive grounds. Surely there will be no penalty if information already provided is not once again provided in response to the notice being served.
Tom Pursglove
Again, I thank the hon. Gentleman for tabling the amendment. I reassure Members that the clause already has safeguards built in, and it is clear that decision makers will consider each case on its grounds. I appreciate the consideration given to the provision of information, and the recommendation that the clause should stipulate that information provided previously to the competent authority should not be included. However, the amendment is not needed. Decision makers in the competent authority will consider all information provided to them. Credibility considerations connected to lateness will, by implication, apply only where information has not been provided within a specified time period and without good reasons, which will be made clear in guidance. For that reason, I respectfully invite the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response, which I will go away and consider. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 184, in clause 46, page 42, line 3, at end insert—
“(3A) Any slavery or trafficking information notice must be accompanied by information regarding the Secretary of State’s obligations to identify and support potential victims of modern slavery and trafficking.”
This amendment would ensure that potential victims are given information regarding their rights at the same time the notice is served.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. I commend the Minister on having run the London marathon for Justice and Care, which does invaluable work.
We are supportive of the previous Scottish National party amendments to clause 46, which were outlined by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East. If we achieve nothing else this afternoon, I did promise the SNP spokesperson that I would work on being able to pronounce his constituency in time for our debates on the Bill, having managed to avoid doing so entirely during the passage of last year’s Immigration Act. I hope he will recognise those efforts.
With your permission, Chair, I will come back to clause 46 more broadly during the stand part debate. Our amendment follows a damning letter sent by 60 charities from across the human trafficking and modern slavery sector. They seeks to mitigate the effects of a Bill that they claim
“will have a disastrous impact on the UK’s response to modern slavery.”
In the light of the series of recommendations in that letter, amendment 184 would require any slavery or trafficking information notice to be
“accompanied by information regarding the Secretary of State’s obligations to identify and support potential victims of modern slavery and trafficking.”
We have serious concerns about both clauses 46 and 47, but these trafficking information notices are a new initiative, and should be accompanied by a full explanation of why the questions are being asked and what rights and support a potential victim of trafficking should be entitled to. The Government have placed significant emphasis on the need to reduce the time taken for victims to be identified, and on ensuring they receive the correct support package at the earliest opportunity. We strongly share that objective, so the requirement for information to be provided at the same time as the notice is served seeks to address any uncertainty and anxieties a potential victim may have.
Furthermore, it is critical that a trafficking notice is served with an assessment and awareness of risks and victims’ needs, as they can be incredibly wide-ranging, and that assessment and awareness can be essential for safeguarding purposes. Some victims will not have English as their first language, and some may have limited literacy skills. They will need access to the correct translator and there should be recognition of any special educational needs. That reinforces the need for each case to be evaluated sensitively.
We seek to ensure that the basic entitlement to information is met. It is important to recognise that in cases of modern slavery, many first responders and expert witnesses have found that victims interviewed often have so little knowledge of the national referral mechanism that they do not know if they are, or have been, in the NRM. Victims being unable to self-identify and limited awareness of how to navigate the NRM are consistent issues, and we will return to them under other clauses in part 4. Amendment 184 seeks to mitigate potential restrictions to the NRM, and is a sensible suggestion, and I hope that the Minister sees its merit.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate, and for Halifax, for tabling the amendment, and the hon. Member for Halifax for setting out the case for it. Clause 46 forms part of our expansion of the one-stop process to include modern slavery through the establishment of a new slavery and trafficking information notice.
Amendment 184 is not required, as the Government are providing mechanisms in the Bill to ensure that potential victims are fully aware of their rights and the Secretary of State’s obligations to them, including the right to free legal aid where appropriate. Information on the Secretary of State’s obligations to victims will be provided to individuals when a slavery or trafficking information notice is issued. These measures will ensure that potential victims better understand the national referral mechanism and their support entitlements.
In combination with clause 46, clauses 54 and 55 seek to ensure that individuals are provided with advice on the national referral mechanism when they receive advice on asylum and immigration matters. That will enable more victims of modern slavery to be referred, identified and properly supported.
Primary legislation on the process of providing information to possible victims is not required, and while I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, it would duplicate what happens through clauses 46, 54 and 55. In the light of that explanation, I hope that the hon. Member for Halifax is content to withdraw the amendment. We have had a pretty good debate on clause 46, so I hope that it can stand part of the Bill.
Holly Lynch
I am somewhat reassured by the Minister’s remarks. I hope that he will inform Committee members when the draft notices have been finalised; we will continue to keep a close eye on that matter. We will not push the amendment to a vote, but given what the Minister said about the clause, I might move on now to my speech on clause stand part.
Holly Lynch
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Holly Lynch
I have some broader remarks on the clause, which we do not intend to support. I thank colleagues right across the human trafficking and modern slavery sector for their professional expertise, and their assistance with our scrutiny of the proposals before us.
As was said in the evidence sessions, and by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, part 4 came as a surprise to many; they had not anticipated its proposals, which were wrapped up in an otherwise very heavily trailed piece of immigration legislation. There are no two ways about it: part 4 is a backward step after the hard-won progress of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Every Child Protected Against Trafficking was scathing about it in its briefing; it said there had been a complete lack of due process when it came to these elements of this primary legislation, and that for that reason, parliamentary scrutiny of them would be even more urgent and important. The Children’s Society has been explicit in saying that part 4 of the Bill should be removed entirely. It has described the Bill as
“an affront to the Government’s own recognition that identifying victims of modern slavery or human trafficking is a safeguarding, not immigration matter. Consequently, not only will this Bill have unjust and dire impacts on children and young people who have fled to this country seeking safety and protection, it will particularly harm children if they are then also trafficked or exploited.”
That is a stark warning to us all.
Stuart C. McDonald
I will be brief, given what I said in support of the amendment. All the anti-trafficking organisations that got in touch with us—60 or so—said that this clause could cause huge problems. I am not clear at all what issue the Government think it will resolve. What is the problem they are striving to tackle? It has not been outlined at all. All hon. Members agree that we need to identify more victims, but as the hon. Member for Halifax said, this will do the opposite and make it harder, not easier.
Tom Pursglove
It might assist the Committee if I say a little more. I am not concerned about covering ground that we may have already covered if it helps to clarify matters further and to put beyond any doubt the Government’s undertaking.
The purpose of clause 46 is to ensure that genuine victims of modern slavery are identified at the earliest possible opportunity, so that they can get the support they need to recover from their exploitation. The clause is part of the measures that seek to expand the current one-stop process to include modern slavery through the establishment of the new slavery and trafficking information notice, which can be issued alongside the new evidence notice introduced by clause 16.
Asylum and human rights claimants will need to provide relevant information relating to being a victim of modern slavery or trafficking within a specified period and, if providing information outside that period, set out a statement of their reasons for doing so. The slavery and trafficking notice aims to help identify possible victims at the earliest opportunity, to ensure that they receive appropriate support. It also aims to ensure that those who are not genuine victims are identified at the earliest possible stage.
The clause is underpinned by access to legal advice to help individuals understand whether they are a potential victim of modern slavery or human trafficking, and to support a referral into the national referral mechanism if that is the case. The clause works in tandem with clause 47, which sets out the impact of not providing information in good time without a good reason, such as the effects of trauma. Individuals will also be made aware from the start that if they fail to disclose information, save for good reason, their credibility may be damaged. We will set out our approach in guidance, giving decision makers the tools to recognise the impact of exploitation and trauma, and ensuring any changes to processes resulting from those measures are designed to take full account of the impact of trauma on victims of modern slavery. We intend to work with the sector to develop the guidance around that. I hope that will give Members confidence that the views and experiences of those groups will be taken into account when developing the guidance.
Neil Coyle
Perhaps the Minister could name one of the expert organisations that support the inclusion of clause 46 or 47. As it stands, the vast majority of organisations in the sector oppose the inclusion of those measures. It is all very well the Minister saying he will impose a requirement on the sector to work with the Government on that guidance, but they are saying categorically that they do not want the clauses.
Tom Pursglove
I think the hon. Gentleman may have misunderstood my point. I was not saying there was any intention to impose a requirement on the sector to work with Government to develop the guidance, but undoubtedly we would welcome the input of the sector, which has a lot of experience and knowledge. We think there is a genuine issue that we need to address. The point I have made several times is that we want people to access the help they need when they need it as quickly as possible.
Stuart C. McDonald
The sector would have preferred to have been consulted on the clause. The key problem it has is what happens if someone has gone past that deadline. This scheme puts real pressure on that person not to disclose at all, because they will fear that the regime will lead to their being disbelieved. That is a fundamental problem. Consulting after the clause is already on the statute book will not fix that.
Tom Pursglove
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s broader interpretation of the situation. We want to identify and help genuine victims as quickly as possible. I would expect cases to be looked at appropriately and individually to ensure that is exactly what happens. There was also a question of whether victims will receive a slavery and trafficking information notice before getting a reasonable grounds decision? Yes, we want to identify victims as soon as possible.
Holly Lynch
The Minister had, and I am eternally grateful to him for giving way.
It does worry me somewhat that, as I understand it, those decision makers at the Home Office would ordinarily make reasonable grounds decisions very quickly in order to facilitate a swift entry into the NRM. If that will no longer be the case and we will be issuing notices, bearing in mind what we have discussed about trauma and victims taking time to disclose it, that could introduce significant delays for a victim entering the NRM. That really worries me. Could the Minister say any more to assure us that we will not be preventing victims from accessing the support they need by introducing that additional process?
Tom Pursglove
I would expect cases to be looked at on an appropriate case-by-case basis that properly takes into account all of the relevant circumstances. It might be advantageous if, in my note to the Committee, I include some commentary on how we expect the process to work, to set that out for Members in more detail and make sure there is no confusion.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move amendment 190, in clause 47, page 42, line 19, at end insert—
“(aa) the person was 18 or over at the time of the incident or incidents in respect of which the slavery or trafficking information notice was issued;”.
This amendment seeks to ensure those exploited as children are not penalised for late disclosures.
The amendment seeks to ensure that those who were exploited as children are not penalised for late disclosure, because of their age-related vulnerability and safeguarding concerns. Statutory guidance under the Modern Slavery Act 2015 very clearly states:
“Whatever form it takes, modern slavery and child trafficking is child abuse and relevant child protection procedures…must be followed if modern slavery or trafficking is suspected.”
There is a remarkable lack of distinction between children and adults in the proposals set out in the Bill. That issue was picked up by the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, who commented in her letter to the Home Secretary in September on the lack of detail on provisions for children.
This is the first in a series of amendments to clauses in part 4 of the Bill that seek to ensure that the worst elements of part 4 do not apply to children. As we know, the Children’s Society has been deeply critical of the Bill and of clause 47 in particular, arguing that the clause will disproportionately and unjustly affect children and young people, who we know are often unable to disclose evidence
“because of the trauma of their experiences, or due to inadequate legal representation.”
Putting the responsibility of disclosure on to a child victim of slavery or trafficking in order to comply with a pre-determined Home Office timeframe, so that they can access the support they need to escape slavery or trafficking, is a perverse barrier. Surely that is not what the Minister intends to achieve. If it is not, I urge him to adopt amendment 190 to make that clear.
In its written evidence, Every Child Protected Against Trafficking points to a 10% increase in the number of children identified as potential victims of trafficking from 2019 to 2020. There were 4,946 referrals last year. That is why we must recognise children within the NRM as requiring a different approach from that required by adults. I return to the point that child protection procedures must be followed as outlined in the modern slavery guidance. Nowhere does that feature in this part of the Bill.
ECPAT makes the point that child trafficking is a form of child abuse and that identifying child victims of trafficking is a safeguarding matter, not an immigration one—not least because so many children in the NRM are British citizens. However, we have a responsibility to any child victim of trafficking to protect them from exploitation, first and foremost. To put the burden of proof on to a traumatised child with trafficking information notices is not right; nor, I suspect, would it comply with various other safeguarding obligations.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Members for Halifax and for Enfield, Southgate for setting out their case, and for tabling this amendment. I appreciate their consideration of this clause and their concern for a vulnerable group of individuals. Ensuring that clause 47 enables decision makers to take account of individuals’ vulnerabilities is fundamental to our approach. That is why we have included the condition of good reasons, and we will ensure decision makers have the flexibility and discretion to appropriately consider them without prejudicing what that should cover.
What constitutes “good reasons” has purposely not been defined in the Bill. The detail on how to apply good reasons will be set out in guidance for decision makers. This will give decision makers the tools, for instance, to recognise that the age at which traumatic events took place may affect an individual’s ability to accurately recall, share or recognise such events, while maintaining a case-by-case approach. Doing so in guidance will ensure that we also have the flexibility to update and add to the range of considerations undertaken by a decision maker in exercising discretion. To create a carve-out for one group of individuals, as amendment 190 seeks to do, would undermine this approach and create a two-tiered system based on the age at which exploitation may have taken place.
I am sure that this is not the intention of the hon. Member for Halifax, but this amendment could also incentivise individuals to put forward falsified referrals regarding the timing of exploitation to delay removal action. Our approach avoids this potential avenue for misuse, but still allows for important considerations regarding the age of the victim to be looked at. Indeed, reasonable grounds decision making already takes account of the specific vulnerabilities of children by, for instance, not requiring there to be any means of exploitation when establishing whether an individual is a victim.
We believe that the right approach is to provide more detail in guidance on the varied and complicated reasons that may constitute good reasons. These will include the age when the exploitation took place, but a wider range of potential reasons and indicators will also be considered to avoid focusing specifically on one victim cohort. This approach will allow decision makers to consider each case on its merits, whilst considering all the information relevant to their case without prejudging it. To do otherwise would not be appropriate or fair to all victims. Again, I hope that the sector will work with Government to shape those guidelines and ensure that they are right. For these reasons, I respectfully invite the hon. Member to withdraw her amendment.
Holly Lynch
I am concerned by some of the Minister’s response. He says that children, and the age of the victim, will be a consideration within good reasons. However, once again we have not got that guidance; it has not been nailed down, so we have no assurances of how the detail will look. He also says that it would not be appropriate to have a different approach for victims based on their age. However, I think that would be entirely responsible and appropriate, and we look to do so throughout a whole range of legislation and legislative approaches. I think it would be a responsible requirement to place on the Government. With that in mind, I will press amendment 190 to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 173, in clause 47, page 42, line 21, leave out—
“or a conclusive grounds decision”
This amendment would disapply this section when a conclusive grounds decision is being made (i.e. when a reasonable grounds decision will already have been made).
The amendment is designed to allow us to question how the new process will interplay with the NRM process, and to establish how long the notice period in the new process will be, so it is another short but important point. The amendment would disapply the section on credibility if a reasonable grounds decision is made. It is even less clear what sensible case can be made for the use of a trafficking information notice if sufficient information has already been provided to justify such a reasonable grounds decision.
Depending on how the system operates, and given the huge delays in making conclusive grounds decisions, the following scenario could play out. A person receives a reasonable grounds decision and is referred to the NRM process. That person makes a claim for protection, and the Secretary of State then serves them with a trafficking information notice. Full disclosure takes time because of their circumstances. The person is better placed to disclose much more information after the deadline for the trafficking information notice has passed but before a conclusive grounds decision is reached. It would surely be very strange, then, for the conclusive grounds decision to take account of late provision of information, but the clause appears to envisage that that could happen. Has that all been appropriately thought through? It would be useful to hear an explanation of how those two processes will interact.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Glasgow North East for their amendments. I am pleased to see from the amendments that they acknowledge the benefits of a system that brings forward at the earliest opportunity all information related to modern slavery, enabling us to provide support and protection quickly to those who need it.
To that end, clause 47 covers information raised at the reasonable grounds and conclusive grounds stages, which are the two crucial decision-making stages in the national referral mechanism, and which both confer different rights on possible and confirmed victims. Although there are different standards of proof at those two stages, it is critical that the decision maker at both points can review all information to take decisions. Those decisions should include consideration of whether information has been provided late and whether there are good reasons for that. By removing that consideration at the conclusive grounds stage, amendment 173 would remove the consequence of providing late information when the decision-making threshold is higher. That could perversely incentivise misuse of the system at the later stage.
We are clear that that approach should be taken across both decision points to ensure that we meet the clause’s aim of identifying victims as early as possible and reducing opportunities for misuse.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am confused. I cannot see the benefit of late disclosure if the conclusive grounds process is ongoing. What does the amendment incentivise?
Tom Pursglove
Again, I simply make the point that decisions are made case by case. We maintain that we need all the information at both decision points to reach the right decisions in individual cases. For those reasons, I respectfully invite the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
We will go away and study what the Minister has said. I am still confused about the interaction between the two processes. The amendment was designed to seek an explanation, and I suspect that we will not be satisfied with it, but in the meantime I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 174, in clause 47, page 42, line 23, leave out “or on behalf of”.
This amendment would exclude statements made on behalf of a slavery or trafficking information notice recipient (as opposed to statements made directly by them) from this subsection.
This is a very short point, but another important one. The amendment is designed to try to get further information from the Minister. I am sorry to have to test him on all the detail of the clause, but it is important. What we are asking here is why statements made on behalf of a trafficking information notice recipient should be impacted by the clause because of late provision of evidence. What does this cover? Is a medical report, for example, to be impacted by the clause so that its credibility is doubted because the recipient gave information late? Is analysis of the truth of what a social worker or a counsellor has said on behalf of the trafficking survivor to be impacted by the clause as well? We are really just asking this. What does it mean? What is the scope of the fact that this scheme applies to statements made on behalf of the trafficking information notice recipient and not just by the recipient himself or herself?
Tom Pursglove
Again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for setting out his case for the amendment. We know that, given the nature of modern slavery and human trafficking, many individuals often struggle to provide information relating to their abuse. That is why these measures are supported by the provision of legal aid to support possible victims in understanding the process and the national referral mechanism. It is also for that reason that the clause is specifically drafted to capture information provided by the victim or on their behalf.
All relevant information should be considered, whoever provides it, when decision makers are taking into account the provision of late information. Not to do so would create an artificial divide between different cohorts of individuals, depending on who provides the information for consideration. That could inadvertently encourage misuse of the system by leaving it open for individuals to seek to use others to provide all information late, knowing that its late disclosure will not be part of the consideration of credibility, when they could provide it themselves. That could delay disclosure and therefore our ability to identify and support individuals at the earliest opportunity as well as reducing opportunities for misuse. To give a practical example, I am confident that if someone else failed to press “Send”, the individual affected would not be impacted negatively by that.
For the reasons that I have outlined, I respectfully encourage the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
Again, I am grateful to the Minister for his answer and we will consider it. I am still not absolutely clear on precisely what the scope of the provision is and whether, for example,
“a statement…on behalf of the person”
would include a medical statement—a medical report—so that its credibility would be damaged just because the person who underwent the medical report disclosed information late. We will go away and think about that. I think the Home Office may need to give it some consideration as well, but in the meantime I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Anne McLaughlin
I beg to move amendment 175, in clause 47, page 42, line 24, leave out from “account” to the end of the subsection and insert
“of all the factors that may have led to the person providing the information late.”
This amendment would remove the presumption that delayed disclosure in relation to slavery or trafficking will be deemed damaging to a person’s credibility.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 163, in clause 47, page 42, line 26, at end insert—
“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2) ‘good reasons’ include, but are not limited to—
(a) the impact of trauma, including avoidant behaviours and memory fragmentation consistent with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder;
(b) distrust of authorities, including fear of punishment or a lack of confidence in the confidentiality of information sharing;
(c) fear of reprisals against them, their children, families or friends if they make an allegation of slavery;
(d) experiencing pressures and fears related to bonded debt;
(e) where the claimant was under the age of 18 years at their time of arrival in the UK or at the time of their exploitation;
(f) where the claimant has diminished capacity;
(g) fear of repercussions from people who exercise control over the individual;
(h) a lack of understanding of Modern Slavery including being unable to identify themselves as a ‘victim’;
(i) narrative reasons including being unable or unwilling to identify themselves as a ‘victim’;
(j) Stockholm syndrome; and
(k) an ongoing or previous relationship with the trafficker.”
This amendment seeks to define “good reasons” for late disclosure.
Anne McLaughlin
We know that it is common for the impact of trauma on trafficking survivors to result in late disclosure of the trafficking experiences. I will not repeat things that we have already said, but let us not pretend that we do not know that already. The clause places an additional burden on people to demonstrate good reasons for their late disclosure, or lose credibility and be less likely to be recognised and given the support essential to recover—in as much as one can—from the crimes that have been visited on them, as a trafficked person. They are no less in need, however, and for that reason, amendment 175 would stop the very common delayed disclosure of information from damaging a victim’s credibility.
Holly Lynch
We very much support the SNP’s amendment 175, which, as we heard, seeks to strike “as damaging” from the clause and hand that discretion back to the Home Office decision maker, as the Minister has already gone to some lengths to assure Members will be the case.
I will also speak to our amendment 163. We seek to mitigate the Government’s refusal to spell out what, if anything, would constitute a good reason for late disclosure. In Committee on Tuesday, the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, argued for a similar approach during our debates on part 2. The Minister responded that
“the situation will be set out clearly in guidance. We think that is the better approach, because it allows greater flexibility on the sorts of factors that might be relevant to the disclosure of late information, and obviously on matters that are relevant to individuals circumstances.”––[Official Report, Nationality and Borders Public Bill Committee, 26 October 2021; c. 333.]
I understand the points that the Minister made, but he will appreciate that for the Opposition, it is feels although he is somewhat putting the cart before the horse. We are being asked to consider the clauses in blind faith without the guidance, and one way he could address that is by including something in the Bill. As the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said earlier, we can debate only what is in front of us.
I expect one thing we can agree on is that no list can ever be exhaustive. I suspect that, as we have heard, the most convincing reasons for late disclosure are ones that we cannot comprehend. It would be nonsense to think that any list would be exhaustive, but without having in front of us any indication of what good reasons might be, we are being asked to take a leap of faith too far. The reasons in amendment 163 include, but are not limited to, a person’s fear of reprisals against them, experiencing pressures related to bonded debt, and being unable to recognise themselves as a victim.
In discussing part 2, again, the Minister went on to say that
“the Home Office will have discretion over who is served an evidence notice and the extent to which credibility is damaged by late evidence”,
and that
“claimants who raise matters late will have the opportunity to provide reasons for that lateness—and where those reasons are good, credibility will not be damaged. Decision makers will have the discretion to determine the extent to which credibility should be damaged, and that determination need not by itself be determinative of a claim”––[Official Report, Nationality and Borders Public Bill Committee, Tuesday 26 October 2021; c. 333.]
I felt that the Minister was very much talking up the discretion that the competent authority decision makers would have, in order to offer us assurances, but that is not reflected in the primary legislation in clause 47. I would be grateful if he could confirm that “good reasons” will be set out within the guidance for NRM decision making, as was the commitment for asylum decision making in part 2.
I would be grateful if the Minister also confirmed when that guidance will be published, and when the training, which he described as being necessary in accompanying the guidance, will begin. I hope he will recognise that amendment 163 is measured and sensible and that he will agree to adopt it.
Tom Pursglove
I thank hon. Members for their genuine interest in these matters and for bringing forward their amendments. By introducing a statutory requirement to provide information before a specified date, victims of modern slavery will be identified at the earliest opportunity, ensuring that those who need protection are afforded it quickly. This measure is supported by the provision of legal aid to ensure that possible victims feel able to share information in a safe and supported manner.
It is important to state that the requirement to bring forward information related to being a victim of modern slavery does not mean that referrals brought late will not be considered; all claims of modern slavery will be considered, irrespective of when they are raised. We have purposefully not defined “good reasons” in the Bill, and the detail on how to apply “good reasons” will be set out in guidance for decision makers. That is the appropriate place, giving the Government the flexibility to respond to our ever-increasing understanding of modern slavery victims.
We will of course work carefully with stakeholders as we operationalise guidance to ensure that decision makers have the tools to recognise the effect that traumatic events can have on people’s ability to accurately recall, share, or recognise such events in some instances, while not seeking to prejudge their decision making by placing this detail in legislation. However, as has been recognised, we cannot legislate for every instance where someone may have “good reasons” for providing late information. To attempt to do so would be impractical. It would also limit the discretion and flexibility of decision makers, who are best placed to consider all factors on a case-by-case basis.
Amendment 163 would have the perverse impact of individuals facing different requirements simply because their situation is excluded from the amendment. It also ignores the possibility that a person may identify as one of the listed categories, but their information may be late for unrelated reasons. It would therefore create a blanket acceptance for late information in specific prescribed circumstances, while a vulnerable individual who did not fall within the specified categories would face a different test on whether they had good reason for providing late information. That would be unfair.
As I have set out, it is important that we are clear on the consequence of late disclosure of information in order to provide clarity for decision makers and victims, and to deter possible misuse of the system. Removing the reference to impacting credibility, as amendment 175 seeks to do, would remove our ability to require the provision of information up front. A duty to provide information requires a consequence and I think we are all agreed that seeking information on modern slavery issues up front is of benefit to all. The clause already includes mitigations to the possible consequence of damaged credibility, providing clear safeguards while still addressing the issue of potential misuse. The solution is not to stifle the clause of any robustness.
As I stated, more detail on good reasons and the credibility considerations will be set out in guidance. We will work to ensure that this takes account of vulnerabilities related to an individual’s exploitation. However, as I have outlined, we believe that removing the consideration of credibility as damaging would impede the ability to reduce potential misuse and reduce the impetus to identify victims as early as possible. As a result, that would perpetuate the issues that these clauses are designed to address, to the detriment of victims.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am still not sure that the Minister has addressed a fundamental point here. The worry is that if somebody genuinely is a victim of trafficking—I hate even having to describe people in that way—and misses that deadline, the fact that there are possible consequences of that, even if they might have a good reason, means that all they know is that they have missed the deadline. It is a huge disincentive for them to then come forward with other information. That is the whole point, and I still do not think that has been addressed by the Government.
Tom Pursglove
I recognise the sincerity of the hon. Gentleman’s concern about this. What I would say to him, as I have now said many times, is that I expect appropriate decisions to be taken on a case-by-case basis, taking proper account of all the circumstances, mitigations and issues that people bring forward in relation to good reasons. I am confident that that process can be properly developed and delivered in a way that is responsive to those sorts of issues. That is why—to address the point made by the hon. Member for Halifax—it is difficult to put a precise time on when that guidance will be put in place, for the simple reason that we want to engage properly with the sector in the way that I have outlined. I want that to be a thorough process and for the guidance to be put in place in an appropriate manner that is as exhaustive as possible, but does not lack common sense and means that proper consideration is given to the many varied reasons that people may have for providing information late, for example.
Anne McLaughlin
I have a couple of points to make. My hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East made the point that once people get past the deadline, they will be terrified to come forward. What will the Minister do about those people—
Tom Pursglove
I apologise for interrupting the hon. Lady in mid-flow. I just want to provide some clarity on this point. If there are reasonable grounds to believe that someone is a victim, they will get positive identification even if the information is provided late. I want to be clear about that and place it on the record.
Anne McLaughlin
But the Government are refusing to accept amendment 163, which would put in the Bill what some of the good reasons could be. The Minister says that he will allow decision makers to have discretion, but what he is actually doing is allowing them to have discretion not to accept some perfectly valid reasons—including trauma, as we have covered. I would love to press the amendment to a vote, but we have to pick our battles in this place, so I reluctantly beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
Amendment 163 has already been debated. Do the Opposition wish to move it formally?
Holly Lynch
The Minister has heard my comments, and we anticipated his response. We will follow the issue closely, but at this stage we will not press it to a Division.
Neil Coyle
I beg to move amendment 181, in clause 47, page 42, line 31, at end insert—
“(5) The provision of relevant status information identifying a person as a likely victim of human trafficking for sexual services shall constitute a “good reason” for the purposes of this section.”
This amendment would mean that the credibility of victims of human trafficking for sexual services would not be called into question by reason of the late provision of information relating to that fact.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 187, in clause 47, page 42, line 31, at end insert—
“(5) Subsection (2) does not apply where the person is a victim of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) the person may be considered a victim of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation if there is evidence that the person—
(a) Has been transported from one location to another for the purposes of sexual exploitation;
(b) Bears signs of physical abuse including but not limited to—
(i) Branding
(ii) Bruising
(iii) Scarring
(iv) Burns; or
(v) Tattoos indicating gang membership;
(c) Lacks access to their own earnings, such as by having no bank account in their own name;
(d) Has limited to no English language skills, or only such language skills as pertain to sexualised acts;
(e) Lives or stays at the same address as person(s) meeting the criteria in paragraphs (a) to (d); and
(f) Sleeps in the premises in which they are exploited.”
Under this amendment, late provision of relevant status information would not be taken as damaging the credibility of the person providing the information if that person were a victim of trafficking for the purposes of commercial sexual exploitation.
Amendment 182, in clause 48, page 42, line 36, at end insert—
“(za) at the end of paragraph (a) insert—
(aa) the sorts of things which indicate that a person may be a victim of human trafficking for sexual services;”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to issue specific guidance on the sorts of things which indicate that a person may be a victim of human trafficking for sexual services.
New clause 42—Offence of human trafficking for sexual exploitation—
“(1) A person commits an offence if the person arranges or facilitates the travel of another person (“V”) to the United Kingdom with a view to V being sexually exploited in the United Kingdom.
(2) It is irrelevant whether V consents to the travel (whether V is an adult or a child).
(3) A person may in particular arrange or facilitate V‘s travel to the United Kingdom by recruiting V, transporting or transferring V, harbouring or receiving V, or transferring or exchanging control over V.
(4) A person arranges or facilitates V‘s travel to the United Kingdom with a view to V being sexually exploited in the United Kingdom only if—
(a) the person intends to sexually exploit V in the United Kingdom during or after the travel, or
(b) the person knows or ought to know that another person is likely to sexually exploit V in the United Kingdom during or after the travel.
(5) “Travel” means—
(a) arriving in, or entering, the United Kingdom,
(b) departing from any country outside the United Kingdom in circumstances where the person arranging or facilitating V’s travel intends that the destination will be the United Kingdom.
(6) A person who is a UK national commits an offence under this section regardless of—
(a) where the arranging or facilitating takes place, or
(b) where the travel takes place.
(7) A person who is not a UK national commits an offence under this section if—
(a) any part of the arranging or facilitating takes place in the United Kingdom, or
(b) the travel consists of arrival in or entry into, departure from, or travel within, the United Kingdom.
(8) A person who commits an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life;
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine or both.”
Neil Coyle
I have always wanted to be a dame—[Laughter.]
I thank Tom Farr of CEASE and Kat Banyard of UK Feminista for assisting in the drafting of the amendments and for their valuable work. Before I address each amendment in turn, I want to quickly highlight the concern that we have seen online in response to today’s discussions about some of the language that the Minister has used, specifically the issue of “genuine cases”. It is my understanding that nine out of 10 “reasonable and conclusive grounds” decisions were positive last year, and I gently urge the Minister to consider the impact of his words, especially when it comes to more people coming forward in the future. He said that he will listen to the sector. I hope that is a genuine offer, given that the sector does not feel that it was listened to. The consultation period was very brief and unexpected and has left the sector very unhappy.
Amendment 181 would help ensure that the credibility of victims of human trafficking for sexual exploitation would not be called into question by a late disclosure of being trafficked, which clause 47 would do. If a person discloses that they have been a victim of human trafficking for sexual services, the lateness of the claim should not matter.
As we are all aware, the treatment of trafficked women and children subjected to sexual exploitation is unimaginable. It is widely understood to severely impact on their ability to escape from the situation they find themselves in. For many, it impacts on their ability even to understand or admit what has happened to them, for reasons of denial and other issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax raised in the debate on clause 46.
There is a bureaucracy behind the Government’s plans. Many individuals who have been sexually exploited are wholly unaware of the process of having to declare themselves as a victim of sexual exploitation. Many are likely to be suspicious of any involvement with the authorities. There may be a very good reason why a person feels that way, including that they have not been in control of their activities and are unaware that they have committed specific immigration offences or other criminal offences that they have been forced to engage in under duress, such as soliciting.
Clause 47, in practice, means that if trafficking status is disclosed at a late stage, that will have a devastating impact on credibility. That simply cannot be justified. As my hon. Friend argued, victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation must not be precluded from legal protections simply because they are too frightened or traumatised—we have previously discussed post-traumatic stress disorder—to disclose information as soon as they come to the attention of the authorities. To encourage disclosure can very often take time and sensitivity, something that the Home Office does not always currently allow for, and which the proposals in this Bill will affect to an even greater level. The amendment would make sure some of the most vulnerable people who have been trafficked continue to be protected under the law.
Amendment 187 supports amendment 181. It details how a person making a late disclosure of trafficking for sexual exploitation might better be identified by any relevant authority. A person may be considered a victim of trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation in a number of ways: first, if there is evidence they have been transported from one place to another for the purpose of sexual exploitation; secondly, if a person has signs of physical abuse, including but not limited to branding, bruising, scarring, burns or tattoos; thirdly, if a person has no access to their own earnings—for example, a person who does not have access to a bank account—fourthly, if a person has limited or no English language skills, could not cope on their own and has been managed previously; fifthly, if a person lives at the same address as anyone who meets any of these criteria; and finally, if they sleep in the same place they have been or were exploited.
Although authorities may have the best interests of an exploited individual at heart when investigating any trafficking-related crime, they may not even be aware of how to recognise such an individual, given the distinct and specific treatment that they have been subjected to. Putting these comprehensive but by no means exhaustive guiding factors into the Bill aims to ensure that authorities have a deeper understanding of the factors they should be aware of and how to identify and help victims.
It is important to note that it is often only when the authorities make wider arrests of criminal gangs that exploited individuals are discovered, usually in brothels or closely-controlled transient places of residence. In a situation of criminality, it may be difficult for authorities to discern who may ultimately be responsible for such criminality.
Acknowledging that exploitation often manifests in ways such as physical and mental trauma, as well as a total lack of autonomy over their own lives, will improve the current legal situation in two tangible ways. First, it may deter lengthy and expensive prosecutions of victims of exploitation, who may otherwise fall between the cracks and be prosecuted for an offence they committed under duress. Secondly, it will put into law current Crown Prosecution Service policy, which is to treat these individuals as victims as and where they are discovered. That is not happening now—we see the prosecution rate for sex crimes in this country at a historic and terrible low.
Amendment 187 would allow the UK to further build its status as the world leader it wants to be when it comes to a toolkit to combat human trafficking and sexual exploitation. These individuals must be viewed as victims of crime and not criminals requiring punishment.
Amendment 182 is an alternative probing amendment that would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the specific factors that may indicate that somebody is a victim of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. I hope the Minister will give an indication of whether that is the direction of travel for the Government.
The amendment would also provide greater clarity for the relevant authorities. As already said, it would prevent the prosecution of individuals who may have been compelled to commit offences while being sexually exploited, as well as providing a framework for authorities to refer to when trying to discern exactly the type of exploitation that has taken place. I hope that the aim behind these amendments will be welcomed by the Minister today, even if they are not accepted.
New clause 42 would put into law a specific offence of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. The clause makes it an offence to arrange or enable the travel of another person for the purpose of sexual exploitation, regardless of whether the person consented to travel. Arranging or enabling travel can be done in numerous ways: by recruiting a person, by moving or carrying a person, by holding or receiving a person, or by transferring or exchanging control of a person.
Trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation means planning to sexually exploit a person during or after travel to the UK, or knowing another person is planning to sexually exploit a person during or after travel to the United Kingdom. Travel means arriving in the UK or leaving any country outside of the UK if the destination is the United Kingdom. A UK national commits the offence regardless of where the facilitating, arranging or travelling takes place. A non-UK national commits the offence by facilitating, arranging or travelling into and out of the UK. Committing the offence carries up to life in imprisonment if tried in a Crown court and would be a welcome step forward.
New clause 42 is necessary because while the Modern Slavery Act 2015 covers exploitation more broadly, the issue of sexual exploitation, specifically within the commercial sex industry, now merits being recognised as a distinct offence due to the catastrophically high numbers of trafficking victims brought into the commercial sex industry in the UK, organised by serious organised crime outfits.
The link between trafficking and commercial sexual exploitation—industrial-level prostitution—is undeniable, and the problem is getting worse. During the covid pandemic there was a 280% increase in the advertising of sexual services online in the west midlands, with the women being predominantly of eastern European origin. A 2010 report suggested that at least 10,000 women involved in off-street prostitution were victims of trafficking or non-UK nationals who were highly vulnerable. These statistics are shocking. We are not seeing provisions in current legislation to match the scale of the problem in the country.
Introducing new clause 42 would ensure that authorities and the Government recognise these intrinsic links and would aid in all our efforts to combat the scourge that is human trafficking and broader violence against women and girls. The benefits of the clause would include, firstly, requiring authorities to dig deeper to examine whether human trafficking has taken place when investigating any prostitution-related offence. Second, it would protect victims of sexual exploitation who have been trafficked. If an individual is being investigated for a prostitution-related offence, it is wholly unacceptable that they should be prosecuted for acts committed under duress or threat of violence from exploitative traffickers.
Placing this specific offence in law would encourage authorities to think more carefully about whether individuals who may initially be viewed as criminals are, in fact, victims of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. It would further allow for the specific prosecution of those who traffic people for the purposes of sexual exploitation, and the full scale of what is going on would perhaps become clearer. Amendments 181, 187 and 182 and new clause 42 would ameliorate and offer some specific protection to women trafficked into the UK for sexual exploitation. I hope the Government will look favourably on these probing proposals.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Members for setting out, through the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, their case and for putting forward their amendments. I appreciate their consideration of these clauses and their concern for a vulnerable group of individuals. They have raised important issues around identifying victims who have faced the most heinous crimes.
Ensuring that clause 47 enables decision makers to take account of individuals’ vulnerabilities is fundamental to our approach. That is why we have included the condition of good reasons, and ensured that decision makers have the flexibility and discretion to appropriately consider those without prejudging what that should cover. What constitutes good reasons has purposefully not been defined in the Bill: the detail on how to apply good reasons will be set out in guidance for decision makers, as we have already discussed. That will give decision makers the tools to, for instance, recognise the effect that traumatic events may have on individuals’ ability to accurately recall, share or recognise such events, while maintaining a case-by-case approach. Doing so in guidance will also ensure that we have the flexibility to update and add to the range of considerations undertaken by a decision maker in exercising discretion.
To create a carve-out for one group of individuals, as amendments 181 and 187 seek to do, would undermine this approach and create a two-tiered system based on the type of exploitation faced. I am sure this is not the intention of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, but amendment 181 could also incentivise individuals to put forward falsified referrals regarding the specific forms of exploitation, or delay removal action. We believe that the right approach is to provide more detail on the varied and complicated reasons that may constitute good reasons in guidance, where these can be explored in more detail and where we can be more flexible as our understanding of exploitation develops.
Neil Coyle
The Minister has said that the intention is to address some of the issues and concerns raised by organisations and by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East in the guidance. Can I request that the Minister meets those organisations and the hon. Member before Report, to make sure that any guidance plans take those concerns fully into account their concerns?
Tom Pursglove
I have made this point several times now, but it is certainly worth repeating: there is a real willingness and desire to engage thoroughly in relation to the development of the guidance. I would of course be very happy to consider any meeting requests that come in the usual way, but I assure the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark that there is a firm commitment here, which I have made several times. As I have said, the hon. Member is a canny parliamentarian, and will take every possible opportunity to hold Ministers to account on that commitment to engage constructively with the shaping of the guidance.
Neil Coyle
There is a real test here, because the Minister is saying that he wants to listen to the sector. The sector is saying that it does not feel particularly listened to up to this point. It is a simple request to meet before Report, and the Minister has not quite said yes.
Tom Pursglove
What I would say to the hon. Member is that if he makes contact with my office in the usual way, with information about who he would like me to meet alongside him, I will absolutely consider that appropriately.
Decision makers’ considerations will include the indicators highlighted in the amendment, but they will also consider a wider range of potential reasons and indicators to avoid focusing specifically on one victim cohort. This approach will allow decision makers to consider each case on its merits while considering all the information relevant to that case without prejudice. To do otherwise would not be appropriate or fair to all victims.
Amendment 182 seeks to insert a specific reference to human trafficking for sexual services into clause 48. We are agreed that this provision must enable decision makers to identify the most vulnerable victims, including victims of trafficking for sexual services. However, to set out a particular purpose of trafficking on the face of the Bill would fragment the types of exploitation victims have faced.
Exploitation for the purpose of human trafficking is defined under section 3 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and that definition includes sexual exploitation. This is supported by the modern slavery statutory guidance in section 49 of the Act, which sets out considerations that may indicate that a person is a victim of human trafficking for sexual services. The existing guidance provides detail on indicators of specific types of modern slavery, including indicators that apply specifically to victims who have suffered from sexual exploitation. I am certain that hon. Members agree that there should be no grading of exploitation, and it is correct that exploitation for any one purpose should be considered with the same severity as exploitation for other purposes. We believe that to set out one particular purpose for exploitation on the face of the Bill would create fragmentation. Our guidance already provides detail on indicators of several types of modern slavery.
I will now turn to new clause 42. As I have already stated, I agree with hon. Members that the abhorrent crime of trafficking in individuals for the purposes of sexual exploitation should be treated with the utmost seriousness. That is why section 2 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 already accounts for human trafficking offences, and makes specific reference to sexual exploitation in section 3. In fact, the Modern Slavery Act allows for a wider provision of the offence. Section 2 makes human trafficking an offence in any part of the world, which includes trafficking to the UK but also trafficking within the UK, which the amendment does not.
Neil Coyle
I think the sector has a concern that the proposal in this legislation undermines the Modern Slavery Act and measures to encourage and support victims who have come forward. I hope that the Minister will hold that meeting before Report, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Tom Pursglove
Clause 47 sets out the consequence if an individual who has been served with a slavery or trafficking information notice as discussed under clause 46 provides information relating to being a victim of modern slavery after the specified time period. The clause aims to ensure that possible victims are identified as early as possible to receive appropriate support and to reduce potential misuse of the national referral mechanism system from referrals intended to delay removal action. Under clause 47, the decision maker must decide whether information provided through the one-stop process is outside the specified time limit and therefore is late. This consideration will take into account whether there was a good reason for the late information, such as the impact of trauma, but where there are no good reasons, an individual’s credibility is damaged due to the provision of late information.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister referred to abusing the process but he has not said much about what evidence there is for this problem. What is the scale of it? Much like statelessness, perhaps he could write to us with the evidence of what it is that the Government are trying to get at here. The big problem is the three-year delay for making decisions. Is not that the problem rather than anything that the Minister has referred to?
Tom Pursglove
I recognise the invitation to write with more detail around this and I am happy to do that. That would be advantageous to the Committee. Given that time is getting on and we want to continue to make progress, I am very happy to take that request back to the Department. I will provide that information.
The Government will ensure that any changes to processes as a result of these measures are designed in a way that accounts for the impact of trauma. This includes ensuring that individuals working in the system are aware of the factors that can affect the task of obtaining information such as the effects traumatic events can have on people’s ability to accurately recall such events. This assessment will be set out in guidance for decision makers and we will engage stakeholders as we develop it. We will continue to consider all referrals on a case-by-case basis to ensure that support is tailored to the needs of genuine victims.
Holly Lynch
We intend to vote against clause 47. It is closely linked to clause 46 and I will try to avoid repetition as we are returning to elements that have been well discussed under part 2 on Tuesday.
The number of survivors able to receive support through the national referral mechanism will be reduced as a result of clause 47.
As the Human Trafficking Foundation outlined in written evidence:
“Introducing a trafficking information notice and so converging immigration with human trafficking risks creating another layer of bureaucracy and so would likely increase the length of time survivors must wait in the NRM.”
If we are to ensure that victims with complex psychological and physical needs are not punished by the system or left in limbo while their claims are processed, the clause cannot stand part of the Bill.
As other hon. Members have said, the Home Office’s own statutory guidance states:
“Victims’ early accounts may be affected by the impact of trauma. This can result in delayed disclosure, difficulty recalling facts, or symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder… It is also vital for decision makers to have an understanding of the mitigating reasons why a potential victim of modern slavery is incoherent, inconsistent or delays giving details of material facts… Throughout this process it is important to remember that victims of modern slavery have been through trauma”.
The clause runs completely contrary to that guidance.
The VITA Network explained in its consultation response to the new plan for immigration that:
“Psychological trauma causes profound disturbances to normal brain function and memory, including memory loss and inconsistencies”
in recollection. We know that a high proportion of trafficked people experience violence prior to and during trafficking. Long after they have escaped exploitation, many still fear that harm will come to them and their families if they disclose information about their experiences. It is often those who are most in need of protection who will find it the hardest to disclose such information.
In 2015, the PROTECT programme was established. It was an independent piece of research, commissioned and funded by the Department of Health and Social Care’s policy research programme, and led by King’s College London and the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. The programme aimed to develop evidence to inform the NHS response to human trafficking, and it was comprised of surveys and qualitative research, including interviews with trafficked people and with NHS and non-NHS professionals. It found that psychological distress was highly prevalent: four fifths of women in contact with shelter services screened positive for anxiety, depression or post-traumatic stress disorder at interview.
My hon. Friend the shadow Minister told the harrowing story of Gloria in his contribution on Tuesday, and demonstrated why the clause will be damaging to those who have been subject to trauma. The clause flies in the face of best practice and runs contrary to all we heard from witnesses in oral evidence. Earlier this week, my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark made excellent points about how PTSD is just one reason why the approach in the clause will be unworkable and unconscionable for those who really need our help. We do not seek to punish or discredit other victims for late disclosure, so why are the Government seeking to do so in this case? The clause highlights the inconsistencies and the unjust nature of the Government’s approach.
It is also deeply worrying that the Government have offered no clarity in subsection (2) on the timescales within which individuals would have to provide that information. Will it be days, weeks, months? I would be grateful if the Minister gave us an indication of his thinking on that. As things stand, the clause will put barriers between victims and the support that they need to recover and secure prosecutions against the real criminals, who we all want to see brough to justice. On that basis, we cannot support clause 47.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move amendment 183, in clause 48, page 42, leave out line 38.
This amendment would ensure that the threshold applied (in the Modern Slavery Act 2015) when determining whether a person should be considered a potential victim of trafficking remains at its present level.
The amendment would leave out line 38 in clause 48, which moves the threshold from someone “may be” a potential victim of trafficking to someone “is” a potential victim of trafficking, to ensure that the threshold applied in the Modern Slavery Act 2015 when determining whether a person should be considered a potential victim of trafficking remains at its present level. It is our view that we should seek to build on the commitments in the Act, not undermine the hard-fought progress that it achieved. As I have raised already, the Government are seeking to tear up what were at one time world-leading principles in the Act, and to do so via an immigration Bill, conflating two very different processes.
The reception that clause 48 has had from across the sector should have stopped the Government in their tracks. The amendment is essential to ensure that we can identify victims effectively, rather than creating additional barriers to the national referral mechanism. Currently, around nine in 10 of all reasonable and conclusive grounds decisions are positive. In 2020, the Single Competent Authority made 10,608 reasonable grounds decisions and 3,454 conclusive grounds decisions. Of those, 92% of reasonable grounds decisions and 89% of conclusive grounds decisions were positive. Additionally, in 2020, 81% of all challenged negative reasonable grounds decisions were overturned.
Judging by the Home Office’s own data, we can conclude that the current threshold is set at an appropriate level, so why are the Government seeking to raise it? Referral into the NRM is possible only when made by a designated first responder who has identified someone as a potential victim of trafficking and secured their informed consent to make a referral. That means that there should already be a very high level of positive reasonable grounds decisions at the threshold of “suspect but cannot prove”, as the referral should not have been made if that threshold had not been reached.
It is important to remember that currently we are identifying only a small fraction of the estimated number of victims of trafficking. The Centre for Social Justice has estimated that the number of people trapped in modern slavery in the UK might be in excess of 100,000. Furthermore, there is still no pre-NRM specialist support available in the UK, despite the Government recognising the need for it to facilitate disclosure through having time in a safe space to receive information and advice in their 2017 announcement of places of safety. I would be grateful if the Minister told us why there is no mention of places of safety in the Bill—a point that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East made earlier.
With the Government failing to deliver on their own promises, initial identification is therefore an even bigger priority. Every Child Protected Against Trafficking made the valid point that for someone to just fall short of the new threshold will make certain victims vulnerable to being re-trafficked. Would we not all be more satisfied knowing that professionals have had a proper look at a situation that gives first responders cause for concern by staying with a “may be” rather than an “is” threshold, when the data speaks for itself on that? The amendment is therefore essential in maintaining the threshold at a level where victims who have built up the courage to seek help are identified and admitted to the NRM.
Tom Pursglove
I thank hon. Members for their interest and valuable contributions to the debate. They have raised important issues around identifying victims who have faced the most heinous crimes. Under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings—ECAT—to which the UK is a signatory, certain obligations flow if there are
“reasonable grounds to believe that a person has been a victim of trafficking”.
The amendment seeks to leave the reasonable grounds threshold as it stands, which is where there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person may be a victim of trafficking.
It is crucial that decision makers are able to quickly and appropriately identify possible victims. That is why we have proposed this minor change to the reasonable grounds threshold to closer align with our international obligations under ECAT and with the devolved Administrations. To not make that change would undermine the clarity on decision making. Additionally, as the amendment relates specifically to the provision of assistance and support to persons, it would create a different threshold from that applied when determining whether a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking. That would create significant ambiguity around the reasonable grounds threshold and create further separation from our international obligations. For those reasons, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Halifax to withdraw her amendment.
Holly Lynch
I am not entirely satisfied with that response, so I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Nationality and Borders Bill (Thirteenth sitting)
Tuesday 2nd November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 November 2021 - (2 Nov 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 5 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 7 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Electronic devices switched off, please, and masks on, if possible, as a courtesy to colleagues. No food and drink in the room, and all that sort of stuff. You will have noticed that there is a change of Minister this morning. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Welcome, Mr Whittaker. We crack on.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 185, in clause 48, page 43, line 3, leave out from “determination” to end of subsection (4) and insert
“determinations mentioned in paragraphs (c) and (d) are to be reviewed by the Multi-Agency Assurance Panels, who will have the power to overturn the determinations made by the competent authority.”
This amendment seeks to introduce Multi-Agency Assurance Panels at the reasonable grounds stage and will enable them to overturn decisions made by a competent authority.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship once again, Sir Roger. I both congratulate and commiserate with my neighbour, the hon. Member for Calder Valley, on his rapid promotion this morning to take forward an incredibly important piece of legislation. I wish him all the very best with the rest of the week.
Amendment 185 seeks to build upon the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and introduce multi-agency assurance panels at the reasonable grounds stage, as well as enabling them to overturn decisions made by a competent authority. That would ensure that multi-agency scrutiny is applied at the first stage, offering an important safeguard. Multi-agency assurance panels were part of a range of reforms to the national referral mechanism that were announced in 2017, following the NRM review commissioned by the Home Secretary in 2014. A recent review provided key recommendations, such as establishing new multidisciplinary panels headed by an independent chair, with a view to replacing the decision-making roles of UK Visas and Immigration and the UK Human Trafficking Centre with a single competent authority.
At present, there is multi-agency scrutiny only of negative conclusive grounds decisions, which, even then, is limited, with panels having the power only to ask the single competent authority to review a decision, as opposed to overturning it. A recent review of the national referral mechanism multi-agency assurance panels conducted by the Anti-Trafficking Monitoring Group found that
“at present, MAAPs do not adequately assure NRM decision-making”,
the reasons for which include that there is
“no multi-agency involvement in the reasonable grounds stage of the NRM, undermining confidence that there are any checks on bad decision-making at this first stage”.
The report also pointed to
“MAAPs lack of decision-making powers”
and times at which
“the evidence reaching the panels is minimal and of poor quality”.
The amendment applies those recommendations and highlights that, as the reasonable grounds stage is effectively the gateway to all anti-trafficking support, an extra level of safeguarding should be available to ensure good decision making. Both the amendments tabled to clause 48 are necessary to ensure that we are not turning our back on victims and restricting opportunities for individuals to refer into the NRM and receive the support they need. The measures have been widely endorsed across the sector and seek to introduce examples of best practice. I therefore strongly hope that the Minister will join us in endorsing these changes.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Craig Whittaker)
It is a pleasure to serve under you, Sir Roger, but not particularly in this role. However, as always, it is a pleasure to be sitting on a Committee that you are chairing.
I thank the hon. Member for Halifax for her valuable contribution on this point. Decision making is of course central to our ability to support possible and confirmed victims of modern slavery. That is why, throughout the Bill, as she will know, we have discussed ways for that to be done as quickly and fairly as possible. It is in that vein that we have sought to clarify the reasonable grounds and conclusive grounds thresholds in primary legislation, to support that effective decision making. It is also why we are committed to reviewing the guidance that under- pins the reasonable grounds test to ensure that it best supports that.
Central to that work is the premise that the reasonable grounds decision should be made quickly. Currently, where possible, that is within five working days of referral to the national referral mechanism. That timeline enables us to quickly identify possible victims and ensure that they receive the appropriate support that they need. All decision makers receive robust training to support that process, and any negative reasonable grounds decisions will be reviewed by a second caseworker or a manager/technical specialist to ensure that all decisions taken are in line with the policy. An individual, or someone acting on their behalf, may also request reconsideration of a negative reasonable grounds decision by the competent authority where there are specific concerns that a decision made is not in line with the policy, or if additional evidence becomes available that would be material to the outcome of a case.
At the conclusive grounds stage, we already have a process whereby negative decisions are considered by those multi-agency assurance panels. That process is set out in the modern slavery statutory guidance for England and Wales, under section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and non-statutory guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland. We believe that that is the right place for the process, enabling us to adapt it in future to changing needs. To put in place the duty for multi-agency assurance panels to review all reasonable and conclusive grounds decisions would cut across that approach. It is not appropriate for that to be set out in primary legislation, as amendment 185 seeks to do, as that would remove the ability to change such a process to appropriate bodies and needs in the future.
Moreover, the amendment would add a new power whereby multi-agency assurance panels can overturn competent authority decisions, rather than the current approach of asking the competent authority to review a decision in specific circumstances. It is right that only designated competent authorities have a decision-making role. The current approach supports a culture of continuous improvement.
As I have set out, we do not believe that primary legislation is needed here. The current multi-agency assurance panels have been subject to an evaluation, and we will consider the conclusions and lessons learned in due course. If in the future we wished to consider multi-agency assurance panels at the reasonable grounds stage, or to change their remit, it would follow that that, too, would be a question for guidance.
Although I presume not intentionally, the amendment would also remove the provision that clarifies that the conclusive grounds threshold test is based on whether, on the balance of probabilities, an individual is a victim of modern slavery. That is the current test that is applied, in line with our obligations under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that decision making in such circumstances is made very difficult by the fact that many people who are victims of modern slavery will not declare that because it is part of the deal with the people traffickers, and many people who claim to be victims of modern slavery are not victims but are using it as a way of getting their asylum claim accepted?
Craig Whittaker
I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He is right that one of the key points in the process is that decision makers have the ability and the training to know what they are looking for to identify whether people are victims of modern slavery.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is stepping in as Minister, but he just said that the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby was right in his assertion that many of those who claim to be asylum seekers are not. Could he remind us of the Home Office statistics on that issue?
Craig Whittaker
I thank the hon. Member for that question. Unfortunately, I do not have those statistics for him, but I will ensure that he gets them by the end of today. I will ask officials to bring forward those numbers.
It is essential that the provision that clarifies that the conclusive grounds threshold test is based on whether, on the balance of probabilities, an individual is a victim of modern slavery remains in the Bill to provide legislative clarity to that threshold. For the reasons that I have outlined, I respectfully ask the hon. Member for Halifax to withdraw the amendment.
Holly Lynch
I have heard some of the Minister’s attempts at reassurance. I have real concerns about some of the changes to the reasonable grounds decision. We heard in earlier discussions on the Bill about the introduction of trafficking information notices, which I am concerned will affect the need to take the reasonable grounds decision quickly. The amendment could have been a step towards improved confidence in, and scrutiny of, those early decisions, so I continue to implore the Government to consider introducing those panels in the guidance. It may not need to be in primary legislation, but I hope that the Minister has heard the case for that approach. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 176, in clause 48, page 43, line 17, leave out subsection (7).
Under this amendment and the corresponding amendment to clause 57, the Secretary of State would no longer be able to change the definition of slavery and human trafficking by regulations. Instead, any changes to the definition of slavery would require primary legislation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment 177, in clause 57, page 51, leave out lines 42 and 43.
Under this amendment and the corresponding amendment to clause 48, the Secretary of State would no longer be able to change the definition of slavery and human trafficking by regulations. Instead, any changes to the definition of slavery would require primary legislation.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Sir Roger. Last week, I was speculating about how long the Immigration Minister might be in post, but I was still shocked. Seriously, we all pass on our best wishes to him for a speedy recovery. I congratulate the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury, the hon. Member for Calder Valley, on his temporary promotion.
On the whole, we have stayed out of debates on the clause, despite having lots of sympathy for what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Halifax, has been saying. The clause largely applies only to England and Wales—distinct legislation is in place in Scotland and Northern Ireland. However, one part of the clause amends the “Interpretation” section of the 2015 Act and that does extend to Scotland and Northern Ireland. With the amendment, we are just posing some questions for the Minister. I appreciate that it is not easy for him to answer in these circumstances, so anything in writing afterwards would be more than acceptable.
Under the 2015 Act “victim of slavery” and “victim of human trafficking” are defined as applying to people who are victims of those respective crimes in the first couple of sections of that part of the legislation. That seemed a logical, straightforward and consistent way of doing things—define the criminal offences and then set out support regimes for victims of those offences. I have heard no complaint that that definition causes problems, but clauses 48 and 57 of the Bill—to which my amendments relate—will use a different definition of modern slavery.
The new definitions do not totally supplant the existing definitions of victims of modern slavery or trafficking in the 2015 Act, but they add a new and potentially different definition for the purposes of identification and support of the victims. The question therefore arises as to why we should have one definition of a victim for some purposes, but another for the purposes of identifying those to be supported? If there is to be a different definition, why is it not on the face of the Bill? Why is it, somewhat bizarrely, left to the Secretary of State to define in regulations what must be two of the most fundamental concepts for the purposes of this part of the Bill?
We do not know how the Secretary of State will use the powers, so that is another question for the Minister: what is the intention? It could be that she wants to be generous and to adopt a wider definition for the purposes of identifying and supporting victims and survivors. In line with other provisions of the Bill, however, it could be that she wants to be more restrictive and to confine the category of people who can get support to a much narrower group. If Parliament really wants to be back in control, it should not be allowing the Government to pass legislation such as this. I simply ask the Minister for an explanation as to why it has been done in this way.
Craig Whittaker
I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for his questions. Basically, he asked whether we are amending the definition of modern slavery, and the straightforward answer is no.
To underpin the measures in the Bill, we are creating a power to make regulations to define the meaning of “victim” in accordance with our ECAT obligations. The definition of a victim of slavery or trafficking for the purposes of the Bill will be set out in regulations made under the affirmative procedure.
The hon. Gentleman also asked why we are raising thresholds as such. As I said before, the proposed measure in this Bill will amend the wording of the reasonable grounds threshold in the Modern Slavery Act so that it mirrors some of our ECAT obligations. Alongside this, we are reviewing the reasonable grounds test and the corresponding guidance for decision makers to ensure they are best able to identify genuine victims and reduce the potential for non-genuine victims to misuse the system.
Stuart C. McDonald
I thank the Minister for his answer. I have made the point I need to make, which is that it is not appropriate to leave it to regulations to define these two fundamental concepts. I am sure this is something that will be pursued in the House of Lords. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move amendment 1, in clause 49, page 43, line 33, leave out “30” and insert “45”.
This amendment would increase the recovery period for victims of slavery or human trafficking from a minimum of 30 days to a minimum of 45 days.
This amendment would ensure that victims of modern slavery continue to receive a recovery period of at least 45 days, bringing this provision in line with current statutory guidance. We strongly welcome the inclusion in domestic law of a recovery period with support for victims, and we support this decision. However, the reduction of the minimum recovery period during which victims in England and Wales receive support from the current 45 days to 30 days is a worry.
The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner said in her written correspondence with the Home Secretary that the average length of time it takes for a conclusive grounds decision to be made in 2020 was 465 days. It is therefore difficult to understand why the Government are seeking to reduce the timescale from a target they are already significantly failing to meet. Their focus should be on increasing the efficiency of decision making, rather than reducing the already short recovery time to which victims are entitled.
In its written evidence to the Committee, Hope for Justice highlights that the explanatory report on the European convention on action against trafficking in human beings clearly states that the purpose of the recovery and reflection period is to allow victims to recover and escape the influence of traffickers. A reduction of this period therefore represents a step backwards in our ability to offer effective protection to victims of trafficking.
The assistance and support that should be provided during this recovery period is essential and wide-ranging, and it may include mental health support and counselling, legal advice, secure housing and access to social services. It also allows the police time to gather evidence during their investigation and to establish a working relationship with victims, strengthening their ability to secure a prosecution. It is estimated that there are between 6,000 and 8,000 modern slavery offenders in the UK, yet there were only 91 prosecutions and 13 convictions in England and Wales last year for specific modern slavery offences as a principal offence, and only 267 prosecutions for all related crimes.
Both sides of the Committee can agree on our desire to see more perpetrators of human trafficking and slavery brought to justice. This clause is a disappointing backward step away from the appropriate period necessary to break the bonds of slavery and to allow victims to establish a relationship with the relevant agencies in order to support their recovery and secure a prosecution.
Justice and Care has highlighted that many victims already decline to enter the national referral mechanism. As we have heard, Care UK says that 2,178 adults referred by first responders declined entry into the NRM last year. We have discussed the barriers that some might experience, including not recognising that they are, in fact, a victim, but it can also be because it is not immediately obvious what support the NRM provides for victims. This reduction in the recovery period certainly is not going to help.
I anticipate that the hon. Member for Calder Valley is about to tell me that under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, the current threshold is set at 30 days. However, the minimum of 45 days in the UK, which was established in 2009, was a clear distinction that we could be proud of, and it is unclear why the Government are seeking such a change. Victims in Northern Ireland and Scotland are entitled to longer periods of support—the recovery period in Scotland is actually 90 days. I ask the Minister to outline how the change will have a positive impact for victims in any way. Amendment 1 would ensure that victims are protected and that we do not undermine the progress that has been made so far by reducing the recovery period further.
I will speak to clause 49 more broadly. I draw the Minister’s attention to subsection (2), which states:
“A conclusive grounds decision may not be made in relation to the identified potential victim before the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day on which the positive reasonable grounds decision was made.”
I welcome the sentiment, but I wonder whether he could address the concerns raised by Dame Sara Thornton, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, that there are pilot schemes under way to test approaches to devolving national referral mechanism decisions for children to local safeguarding partners. As part of the pilots, conclusive grounds decisions are being taken at the same time as reasonable grounds decisions, where the evidence is strong enough to do so. I hope that the Minister will join me in welcoming that approach, and although I am worried about the clause’s intended consequences, I also hope that he will recognise that this could be an unintended negative consequence, which we can hopefully all agree would be wholly regrettable. The clause is relatively simple and we do not support it standing part of the Bill.
The Chair
In the light of the hon. Lady’s comments, we will also consider clause 49 stand part.
Stuart C. McDonald
I will be brief, because I fully endorse what the shadow Minister has said. I absolutely welcome the fact that the measure will be in statute, but I share her concern and astonishment that the Government have decided, for no apparent reason, to reduce the prescribed recovery period to 30 days. Yes, that is consistent with the trafficking convention, but equally so is 45 days. There is nothing in the convention to say that it cannot be done and, for all the reasons she outlined, that was a welcome additional safeguard in the UK’s approach.
What is the Home Office driving at here? What signal does it send by making this change? As the shadow Minister pointed out, it is completely artificial, given where we are with average decision times. In one sense, this is just about sending signals. What a signal it sends—that we want to reduce the support given to folk who are suspected of being victims and survivors of trafficking. I support the amendment and endorse everything that the shadow Minister said.
Craig Whittaker
I thank both hon. Members for their contributions. Let me see if I can answer some of their questions. Basically, there is no need to amend clause 49 to provide a 45-day recovery period as that is already provided for in guidance. The guidance is the statutory guidance under section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, where victims will still receive a 45-day recovery period unless disqualifications apply.
The hon. Member for Halifax is right when she quotes our obligations under the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, which require us to provide a 30-day recovery period or, as the legislation states, until
“the conclusive grounds decision is made.”
In 2020, the average time for conclusive grounds decisions was actually 339 days. That long period stems from pressures on the system, which we are working to reduce through our transformation project, to ensure that victims get certainty much more quickly. This period is notably much longer than the 45 days that the hon. Member is proposing.
With regard to how that impacts on devolved pilots, as set out in the new plan for immigration, the Government are also piloting new ways of identifying child victims of modern slavery that will enable decisions to be taken within existing safeguarding structures by local authorities, the police and health workers. This approach will enable decisions about whether a child is a victim of modern slavery to be made by those involved in their care and ensure that decisions made are closely aligned with the provision of local needs-based support and any law enforcement response. The Government will continue to monitor the consequences of this measure and whether it will reduce further flexibility around decision making.
On that basis, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment and to support the clause as drafted.
Holly Lynch
I thank the Minister for his response. We have seen this approach at previous stages of the Bill. The Minister cites the realities of processing times, but the fact that it is 45 days in the statutory guidance shows why the Bill is an absolute nonsense and does not make the first bit of sense. We should ignore it and trust the guidance. There is a commitment to driving down the processing times anyway. I hope that the Minister can therefore see why the amendment was tabled. On that basis, I will press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move amendment 180, in clause 50, page 44, line 4, at end insert—
“(aa) the person was aged 18 or over at the time of the circumstances which gave rise to the first RG decision;”.
This amendment seeks to preclude those exploited as children from being denied additional recovery periods if they are re-trafficked.
The Chair
In line with what appears to be custom and practice, with this it will be convenient to consider clause stand part.
Holly Lynch
Clause 50, as drafted, should not stand part of the Bill. The amendment would ensure that those exploited as children will not be denied additional recovery periods if they are re-trafficked or if additional periods of trafficking are disclosed. Children, in particular, who make up 47% of those referred to the national referral mechanism, are at serious risk of being trafficked and going missing from care. In 2017, one in four identified trafficked children were reported as going missing. The number of children referred to the NRM is also rising, with last year seeing an almost 10% increase compared with the previous year. The average number of missing incidents for each trafficked child has also increased, from 2.4 to 7.4 between 2014-15 and 2017-18. Therefore, amendment 180 is even more vital, considering the worrying trends we are seeing.
Every Child Protected Against Trafficking UK has warned that clause 50
“may severely impact child trafficking survivors”
who are at high risk of going missing and being re-trafficked, particularly when
“they transition to adulthood and require access to support and protection through the NRM.”
To make that point, I want to share a real-world case study provided by ECPAT UK that demonstrates why our amendment is necessary.
Huang was referred to the local authority children's services at age 17, following a police operation in a nail bar. He was also referred as a potential victim of trafficking into the NRM and received a positive reasonable grounds decision. He was accommodated by the local authority. He told his support worker that he had been scared because his family back home were receiving threats to pay back his debt. Shortly after, he went missing. He was found by the police just after his 18th birthday and went on to develop trust with his lawyer, where he disclosed for the first time a significant period of exploitation in Vietnam, across Europe and in the UK, prior to being found in the nail bar. He remains in fear, and while the dangers facing his family back home persist, sadly, there is still a high likelihood that he will go missing again.
Without amendment 180, Huang may be unable to be referred to the NRM again, given the new disclosure of previously unknown periods of exploitation. As he is now 18, he would not be looked after by children’s services. Clause 50, as it stands, will place him at great risk of subsequent re-trafficking in the absence of access to safe accommodation and support through the NRM during his reflection and recovery period.
The increase in the number of British children in the NRM in relation to child criminal exploitation gives us further cause for concern. I recently met officers from the Metropolitan Police Service who are leading the response on trafficking, slavery and exploitation. They told me that it is becoming standard practice that when a child or young person is sent on their first county lines journey, their exploiter will arrange for them to be robbed of the drugs they have been instructed to sell. When they then have to come back and explain what has happened, they are immediately told they have to work off the value of the drugs. That traps them in debt bondage, even though the real criminal will have recovered the drugs, having arranged what can sometimes be a particularly violent mugging in the first place, so in reality there is no debt.
It would not be unusual for children in such vulnerable and exploited positions to be identified by the authorities but then go missing from the NRM because of the risks that persist. They must be treated as a safeguarding concern and not by way of immigration compliance, not least because so many of those children are British nationals. So I ask the Minister again: why are children subject to clause 50, given their particular vulnerabilities? Amendment 180 seeks to right that wrong. I am sure all colleagues will agree that a child rights-centred approach, which ensures children’s safety and their protection, must be a priority. I therefore hope the Minister will reflect on the points we have made and accept Amendment 180.
More broadly, clause 50 has the potential to exclude trafficked children and adults from being identified following re-trafficking, thereby leaving them unable to access the support they should be entitled to. I worry that with this clause the Government are suggesting that making repeat claims of having been trafficked undermines someone’s credibility. However, we also know that traffickers are increasingly coaching those they are exploiting on what to say should they be identified by authorities. An expectation is placed on the victim that they will return to their exploiters due to their perceived debt bondage, in order to avoid consequences for them or often their families.
Re-trafficking has increasingly become a part of a trafficker’s operating model, so why are we not responding to that? The changes negatively affect the victim and not the perpetrator of such crimes. It also appears to contradict the identified need for individual assessment and support, as required under ECAT. The Government have described the clause as necessary
“to prevent the recovery period being misused by those wishing to extend their stay in the UK and to remove unnecessary support and barriers to removal where these are not needed”.
Will the Minister present the evidence to support that claim? That explanation fails, not least, to recognise that the most common nationality of all referrals to the NRM for victims of modern slavery in 2020 was that of UK nationals, primarily referred for criminal exploitation. We know that children make up the lion’s share of those referrals. Does that not make the Government stop and think about what is in the clause?
There is a fear that the NRM is being misused by those wishing to extend their stay in the UK. Without amendment 180, the clause means that we are sending children, both migrant and British, back into the arms of their exploiters. We plead with the Minister to think again about the clause. We cannot see it stand part of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
I support the amendment and join the calls for the clause not to stand part of the Bill. I very much echo the comments of the shadow Minister. Like her, and as on previous occasions, I find myself not at all clear why the clause is necessary, and what problem it is driving at. Again, I find myself asking for evidence. I have not seen or heard about an issue with abusive additional trafficking claims sparking extra NRM recovery periods. I recognise that that could absolutely happen in theory, but we need much more by way of evidence before we enact such a clause.
Even though someone might be describing earlier events of trafficking, disclosure of that additional information and trafficking or slavery histories could have all sorts of significant implications for that survivor. It could, for example, mean a break from a controlling partner. It could give rise to other dangers for them or to new trauma. Furthermore, as the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner has noted, survivors can feel more able to disclose their trafficking experiences relating to one particular form of exploitation than another, so forced labour can sometimes be disclosed earlier than sexual exploitation, due to feelings of shame or mistrust.
The fact that if the competent authority considers it appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case another recovery period can be granted is better than nothing, and it is good that that provision is in the clause, but that protection needs to be considerably strengthened to ensure that those who need it will have it. As matters stand, we have no idea how that analysis is going to be undertaken. What if the disclosure of this new information leads to new dangers or new trauma? Surely we would all agree that that should require a new decision and a new recovery period, but there is nothing in the Bill to say that that would definitely happen.
Perhaps the clause should be reversed—the Home Office might want to consider turning the presumption around, so that we assume instead that a new recovery period would be needed unless we are satisfied with a very restricted route for a very restricted range of reasons, and the reasonable grounds decision should not occur. The Home Office needs to explain its thinking here.
Finally, on the issue of trafficking, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and the Rights Lab at the University of Nottingham are conducting research on that subject at this very moment in time. I urge the Home Office to wait to see the evidence, rather than jumping in with two feet.
Craig Whittaker
I would first like to clarify that the clause does not prevent individuals who have been re-trafficked from receiving a further recovery period. Rather, the clause introduces a presumption against multiple recovery periods where an individual has already benefitted from a recovery period and the further reported exploitation happened prior to the previous referral into the national referral mechanism and period of support. This is not a blanket disqualification from multiple recovery periods; it is focused on removing the presumption for multiple recovery periods where the period of exploitation happened before the original recovery period was provided.
The clause will provide further recovery periods where required—for example, where an individual has a second referral for an incident that happened before the first incident for which they were referred and have already received a recovery period. It may not be appropriate or necessary to provide the further recovery period. A discretionary element is included, underpinned by guidance, so that cases are considered on an individual basis.
Stuart C. McDonald
I put to the hon. Gentleman the suggestion I made towards the end of my contribution: that he reverses the situation so that the presumption is that somebody does need an additional recovery period unless there are specific circumstances that mean it is not appropriate. Is that something he could pass on to his ministerial colleague, for when he takes the Bill forward?
Craig Whittaker
As I have said, there is already a provision for the decision makers to amend the care and support package needed on a case-by-case basis. That is the case for recovery periods as well. On the matter of children, I recognise the complexity of children’s vulnerabilities, as well as those of other modern slavey victims. As a result, this clause has scope to consider an individual’s circumstances, even where the new referral for exploitation occurred prior to the previous recovery period. That is why, under this clause, individuals will be considered for more than one recovery period on a case-by-case basis, taking into account their specific needs and vulnerability. Safeguarding and ensuring the welfare of children will, of course, be taken into account as part of any decision to withhold a recovery period.
Further details of how to apply this discretionary element will be outlined in guidance for decision makers. This will ensure that victims of modern slavery who genuinely need multiple periods of protection and support actually receive it. It would not be appropriate to have a blanket approach to children, but our proposed approach ensures that their vulnerabilities are considered. I hope that, in the light of that explanation, the hon. Member for Halifax will be content to withdraw her amendment.
Holly Lynch
I thank the Minister for that contribution. I have been consistently concerned by the lack of provision for children and young people within the clauses before us. With that in mind, I will not be withdrawing amendment 180.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move amendment 164, in clause 51, page 44, line 31, at end insert—
“was aged 18 or over at the time of the circumstances which gave rise to the positive reasonable grounds decision and—”
This amendment would exclude children from the disqualification from protection measures outlined in clause 51.
The Chair
I will take the stand part debate with this, and would like to explain why. Where there are relatively short clauses with only one amendment to them, experience tells me that it is sometimes better to take the stand part debate with the amendment, because discussions that might be out of order in debate on the amendment can be in order if clause stand part is taken with the amendment. In other words, it allows for a greater freedom of discussion.
Holly Lynch
Thank you for that advice, Sir Roger.
Like a number of our other amendments, amendment 164 seeks to ensure that no child victim of trafficking or modern slavery is denied protection. Clause 51 introduces the following reasons why someone would be disqualified from protection: they are a threat to public order, or they have claimed to be a victim of modern slavery in bad faith. The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton, says in her letter to the Home Secretary on the Bill:
“I have grave concerns about this clause because it casts a wide net, with the potential to prevent a considerable number of potential victims of modern slavery from being able to access the recovery and reflection period granted through the NRM. Without such support prosecution witnesses will be unable to provide witness evidence and this will severely limit our ability to convict perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups.”
She says these changes will make it harder to convict perpetrators and go after organised crime groups. I doubt any of us came into politics to pass laws that work to the advantage of criminals, so why is the clause included in the Bill?
The Children’s Society has emphasised concerns regarding the impact on children who are victims of child criminal exploitation. In 2020, of the 47% of referrals to the NRM that were for children, 51% were for criminal exploitation. According to the National Crime Agency, referrals to the NRM for British children have grown due to an increase in child criminal exploitation, particularly by groups using the county lines model. The average custodial sentence length given to children has increased by more than seven months over the last 10 years, from 11.3 to 18.6 months in 2020.
A case study supplied by the Children’s Society following a serious case review by Waltham Forest Safeguarding Children Board is one of the most depressing of the many case studies we have been sent during our preparations for this Committee. Child C was a vulnerable child who lived in Nottingham. He was regularly excluded from school and was eventually home-schooled. His family noted that he regularly ran away from home. In January 2018, his mother said he was threatened by an older youth, who said that Child C had money for them. The incident was reported to Nottinghamshire police, but the police have no record of it. Also in January, Child C was arrested by police in possession of an air gun, a knife and cannabis. He later informed the youth offending team that an older boy had given him these. The youth offending team worked with Child C on a programme designed to highlight the dangers of carrying weapons. The incident was reported to the multi-agency safeguarding hub, but no further action was taken because of the youth offending team’s involvement.
Child C moved to Waltham Forest in April 2018. In October 2018, he was arrested in Bournemouth in what is known as a cuckoo flat—a person’s home that criminals take over and use to facilitate exploitation. There was significant evidence of drug use and sales in the flat. Child C was found to be in personal possession of 39 wraps of crack cocaine, and was arrested for possession of class A with intent to supply. That was a pivotal moment in providing support to the child. For the first time, the authorities in Waltham Forest had been presented with completely unequivocal evidence that Child C was being criminally exploited. From that point, he had multi-agency involvement and a further conviction for carrying an offensive weapon. The case study ends with Child C being murdered in January 2019.
That is the operating model for county lines gangs. We know that criminally exploited children are driving up referrals to the NRM, meaning that children will be coerced into committing crimes as part of their exploitation. That is explicit in section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. It is unclear what, if any, assessment the Government have made of how children will be affected by changes in clause 51 and the risk to them of remaining in exploitative situations. Disqualifying child victims from protection is incompatible with the duties on local authorities and other public bodies under section 11 of the Children Act 2004 to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. I urge the Minister to adopt amendment 164 and stand with child victims of modern slavery; it will allow him to go after the criminal gangs who will welcome this clause.
Clause 51 is incompatible with the duties on local authorities and the Home Office to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. It fails to take into account that children are at greater risk of exploitation owing to their developing capacity and, under the UN convention on the rights of the child, should never be denied protection. The fact that the Government have decided to ignore those fundamental principles to protect the most vulnerable children is simply shocking. The Government’s equality impact assessment promises to mitigate the adverse impact on vulnerable people but fails to identify any exemptions or specialist support for children in part 4 of the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
I rise to support the amendment and to make the case for the removal of the clause. The amendment is absolutely right, and excluding any survivors, especially children, from the scope of the clause will alleviate its worst impacts. The whole clause is bad.
Unlike with previous measures, it is absolutely apparent what the Government are driving at this time, but there is already a perfectly good procedure for dealing with this issue. Guidance implementing the European convention on action against trafficking says that where there is an improper claim of victim status, or there are public order grounds for doing so, the state can make a negative conclusive grounds decision and decide not to observe the reflection and recovery period. That remedy is available right now. How many times has that remedy been used in the United Kingdom? I hope the Minister can answer that, now or later.
The Home Office wants to go much further and help itself to a different remedy. Despite Home Office claims, nothing in the convention justifies simply failing altogether to make a conclusive grounds decision. On the contrary, article 10 of the convention requires states to identify victims, and that position is recognised in the Home Office’s guidance. That is why the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner has expressed, as we have heard, serious concern about the compatibility of the clause with ECAT—they just are not compatible. The measures will not only breach international obligations, but they will be counterproductive in the fight against trafficking and slavery.
We have already heard one or two of the case studies provided by the commissioner. I will add one more, from the Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit. It relates to the case of Z, who was trafficked to the UK after being used for prostitution in Europe for a number of years. Her child had been removed from her by the traffickers. She managed to escape from the traffickers in the UK, and used a false document that she grabbed during her escape, as she wanted to go back to Europe to find her child. She was arrested and prosecuted for a document offence and given a sentence of more than 12 months after being advised to plead guilty. Trafficking was never explored as part of the criminal process. Later, Z was referred to the NRM and claimed asylum. The Home Office agreed that she was a victim of trafficking, and she was then given leave to remain on that basis. It also agreed not to pursue deportation because of her trafficked status.
After Z was referred to the NRM, a decision still had to be made about whether she was a victim of trafficking. The Home Office ultimately decided to grant her leave to remain and halt deportation, having been required to make that decision. Had the clause been in force, Z would never have been identified as a victim of trafficking; she would have been deported. That would have been absolutely dreadful for Z, who would have lost out on support and help that she clearly needs for her recovery, but it is also dreadful for many others, because it will clearly make it infinitely more difficult to track down Z’s traffickers. They will not be apprehended, and other people will fall victim to the very same crime, as is shown by the other case studies provided by the Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit, and by the commissioner in her letter to the Home Secretary.
In short, people who need support will be denied it, and the perpetrators of the crimes against them will not be caught and punished. As we have heard, the clause will simply encourage traffickers to target those who have criminal convictions and who are sentenced to more than two at once, and even compel them into criminal activity precisely so that the exclusions will apply to them if the trafficker threatens to disclose their crimes. We have heard from the commissioner that that is already the traffickers’ modus operandi—excuse me; my Latin is terrible. The reason is that traffickers know that the absence of support and removal from the country will make it easier for the trafficker and their colleagues to avoid justice. The clause is, in essence, a gift for people traffickers, and it totally undermines the work of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
I will briefly mention some other problems. The commissioner has rightly expressed concern about the huge breadth of offences that would be caught by the provision, particularly as it includes sentences imposed outside the UK that might not reflect sentencing guidelines in the UK; that could mean that minor offences are brought within scope. Will the Minister confirm that trafficking victims who enter the UK in breach of clause 37 of the Bill would end up in prison, possibly for even three or four years, and would therefore be excluded from support? A huge proportion of survivors will be left with the threat of exclusion from support hanging over them, putting them in even more vulnerable position.
Why is the expression “bad faith” used in the clause, rather than the convention’s wording or the wording of the guidance that the Home Office has put in place, which relate to “improper purpose”? The use of a different form of words needs to be explained. Why is it that in some cases, suspicion of certain offences, rather than an actual conviction, is enough for exclusion? The key point is that if we do not identify victims, neither do we identify traffickers. In breach of the convention, the clause expressly provides for that, so it should be amended.
Craig Whittaker
Let me see whether I can answer some of those questions. The hon. Member for Halifax asked whether the clause is incompatible with the statutory safeguarding responsibilities. The answer to that question is no, it is not incompatible at all with the statutory safeguarding responsibilities. Section 45 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 is a criminal defence, but clause 51 of the Bill is a very separate system. Section 45 is separate from the public order disqualification. A section 45 defence is not applicable to the serious crimes set out in schedule 4 of the Bill. The Government will of course continue to work with local authorities to safeguard children and take their particular vulnerabilities into account on a case-by-case basis.
I will just highlight one or two points that piggyback on the back of what the Government are doing in this field. The hon. Member for Halifax mentioned county lines, and we have invested in specialist support for the under-25s and their families who are affected by county lines exploitation in London, the west midlands and Merseyside. We also fund a missing persons safe call service—a national, confidential helpline for young people, families and carers who are concerned about county lines exploitation—and the Home Office is funding the Children’s Society’s prevention programme, which works to tackle and prevent child criminal exploitation, child sexual abuse and exploitation, and modern-day slavery and human trafficking on a regional and national basis. There is also a public awareness campaign that started in September, which is called Look Closer. What I would say to the hon. Member for Halifax is that the public order grounds for disqualification are set out in ECAT, in which it is envisaged that the recovery and reflection periods will be withheld—
Stuart C. McDonald
That wording is absolutely right. It is possible for the recovery period to be withheld, but the convention absolutely does not allow for a decision to be made on public order grounds. It is absolutely contrary to article 10 of the convention. Does the Minister have anything that can help him with that point?
Craig Whittaker
As I have already explained, such decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis. Regardless of whether they are children or vulnerable people, it is important that all aspects of the individual’s case are taken into account, such as whether they have been exploited and to what extent.
Stuart C. McDonald
I do not want to make life difficult for the Minister, because I know he is in a very difficult situation, but the point is that it will not happen on a case-by-case basis, because decisions will not be made at all. As a result of the clause, people will just be excluded altogether from having a decision made about them. The point is that there is no case-by-case basis. It is an absolute blanket, and huge swathes of people will just not have a decision made about them, with no assessment made of whether they might be a victim of trafficking.
Craig Whittaker
I thank the hon. Member for his further intervention. I will take some advice on the technicalities in what he says, but that is not my understanding of what the clause says. I have already said that the decision to withhold recovery periods on public order grounds will be made on a case-by-case basis. That will balance the need to safeguard exploited individuals against public protection concerns and allow the Secretary of State to withhold the protections of the national referral mechanism, where the particular circumstances of an individual mean it is appropriate to do so.
Neil Coyle
In light of the fact that the Minister is asking for the amendment to be withdrawn and given his understanding that decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis, can the Minister tell us if the guidance that goes with the legislation will set out the exemptions and the process by which cases will be decided on an individual basis, and if there will not be the blanket exemption that is the Opposition’s understanding?
Craig Whittaker
Of course we will fully assess the issues in policy guidance. The hon. Member is exactly right that it will be set out in policy guidance, to ensure that due account is taken of the circumstances, so that any permitted actions, including prosecutions, are proportionate and in the public interest. It is right that the Bill seeks to target ruthless criminal gangs who put lives at risk by smuggling people across the channel.
The changes are not intended to deter people from seeking help from the authorities when they are being exploited and abused. However, it is right that we should be able to withhold protections from serious criminals and people who pose a national security threat to the United Kingdom. Indeed, ECAT envisages that the recovery period should be withheld in such cases, and it does not specify an age limit either, in answer to the question asked by the hon. Member for Halifax. It is important that the UK maintains this scope, as set out in ECAT. I hope in light of this explanation, hon. Members will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. As we have heard from the interventions made by hon. Members, the case studies before us mean that we have grave concerns about clause 51. The assurances that the Minister has sought to make do not overcome some of the barriers that clause 51 will put in place.
I look forward to hearing more detail about the Children’s Society projects that the Government are funding and the Look Closer campaign, which I very much welcome, but, as things currently stand, this is much more of a blanket exemption than the Minister has tried to suggest. The very broad public order definitions in the Bill go beyond the intention that he has tried to explain, so once again I am concerned that children will be particularly vulnerable to the negative impacts of clause 51 if unamended, so I am minded to press amendment 164 to a division.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move amendment 4, in clause 52, page 46, line 9, after “50A” insert—
“Meaning of assistance and support
‘(1) For the purposes of guidance issued under section 49(1)(b) and regulations made under section 50, “assistance and support” includes but is not limited to the provision of—
(a) appropriate and safe accommodation;
(b) material assistance, including financial assistance;
(c) medical advice and treatment (including psychological assessment and treatment);
(d) counselling;
(e) a support worker;
(f) appropriate information on any matter of relevance or potential relevance to the particular circumstances of the person;
(g) translation and interpretation services;
(h) assistance in obtaining specialist legal advice or representation (including with regard to access to compensation);
(i) assistance with repatriation, including a full risk assessment.
(2) Assistance and support provided to a person under this section—
(a) must not be conditional on the person’s acting as a witness in any criminal proceedings;
(b) may be provided only with the consent of that person;
(c) must be provided in a manner which takes due account of the needs of that person as regards safety and protection from harm;
(d) must be provided to meet the needs of that person having particular regard to any special needs or vulnerabilities of that person caused by gender, pregnancy, physical or mental illness, disability or being the victim of violence or abuse;
(e) must be provided in accordance with an assistance and support plan which specifies that person’s needs for support and how those needs will be met for the full duration of the period to which that person is entitled to support under this Act.
(3) Nothing in this section affects the entitlement of any person to assistance and support under any other statutory provision.
50B”
This amendment would define the types of assistance and support that must be provided to a victim of modern slavery in England and Wales in line with Article 12 of the European Convention on Actions Against Trafficking in Human Beings; and conditions associated with its provision.
The Chair
With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment 2, in clause 52, page 46, line 16, leave out from “receiving” to the end of line 19 and insert
“in their physical, psychological and social recovery or to prevent their re-trafficking.”
This amendment would define the objective of assistance and support in line with Article 12 of the European Convention Against Human Trafficking 2005.
Amendment 3, in clause 52, page 46, line 16, at end insert—
‘(6A) When a person who is receiving assistance and support under this section receives a positive conclusive grounds decision, the Secretary of State must secure assistance and support for at least 12 months beginning on the day the recovery period ends.”
This amendment would give modern slavery victims in England and Wales with a positive conclusive grounds decision the right to receive support and assistance for at least 12 months.
Clause stand part.
Holly Lynch
The amendments seek to incorporate our international legal obligations under ECAT within the provisions of support available to victims during the recovery period, as well as extending statutory support for those who have received a positive conclusive grounds decision.
Having already discussed the changes to the recovery period in our discussion of clause 50, I will not repeat myself, but it is important to consider these amendments alongside the provisions in clause 50. We share the concerns of Christian Action, Research, and Education, or CARE, which has worked with us on amendment 4, that clauses 52 and 53 have the potential, if they remain unamended, to
“make matters worse for victims”.
Amendment 2 would update the definition of the reasons for providing a recovery period as solely to harm
“arising from the conduct which resulted in the positive reasonable grounds decision in question,”
and replace it with the requirement to assist a person
“in their physical, psychological and social recovery or to prevent their retrafficking.”
Therefore, amendment 2 would put into the Bill the wording of article 13 of ECAT, which provides support
“necessary to assist victims in their physical, psychological and social recovery”.
The British Red Cross has highlighted that
“making support dependent on specific ‘harm’ caused by the ‘conduct’ that led someone to be identified as a victim, fails to recognise the reality of human trafficking”.
The Home Office’s own research from 2017 says that
“unlike most crimes, which are time-limited single events, modern slavery is a hidden crime of indeterminate duration”—
in that it involves multiple locations and individuals. Therefore, amendment 2 better reflects the Home Office’s own assessment of the nature of human trafficking.
Amendment 4 seeks to set out the types of assistance and support that must be provided to a victim of modern slavery. Colleagues will be aware that presently neither the Modern Slavery Act 2015 nor the Bill includes such a provision, and therefore amendment 4 would fill a significant void in the legislation. The types of assistance and support include a range of provisions, such as safe accommodation, medical advice, a support worker, access to translation services, counselling, and assistance in obtaining legal advice or representation.
Amendment 4 is a practical and reasonable measure, and one that we hope will provide a sense of certainty and security to support survivors as they move towards recovery and towards justice, as confidence in the process grows, which will foster trust between agencies and victims, and enable more perpetrators to be brought before the courts. The types of assistance defined are basic provisions that victims should be entitled to if they are to rebuild their lives.
Building upon this idea of defining assistance, amendment 3 would offer long-term support to survivors with a positive conclusive grounds decision, stipulating that the Secretary of State must also secure assistance for at least 12 months, beginning on the day that the recovery period ends.
Given that there is no mention of statutory support after a conclusive grounds decision, amendment 3 seeks to correct another considerable omission from the Bill. In 2020, the Centre for Social Justice said:
“Long-term support is a further significant gap in the support system. In recent years a number of reports have concluded that the lack of long-term support puts victims of modern slavery at risk of homelessness, destitution and even re-trafficking after they exit the NRM support provision. It also has a significant negative impact on their engagement with the criminal justice system”.
This approach has broad support, as these amendments would build upon the recommendations made by the Work and Pensions Committee in 2017, which stated that
“There is very little structured support for confirmed victims once they have been given a ‘Conclusive Grounds’ decision...We recommend that all victims of modern slavery be given a personal plan which details their road to recovery, and acts as a passport to support, for at least the 12 month period of discretionary leave.”
Similar measures were also incorporated in the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill introduced by Lord McColl of Dulwich, which awaits its Second Reading in the House of Lords. That Bill was greatly welcomed across the human trafficking sector and by all parties.
To summarise the case for amendments 2, 4 and 3, they are vital in expanding support for victims, and can boast wide support. I very much hope that the Minister will reflect on their merits.
On clause 52 more broadly, we welcome the fact that support for victims in England and Wales is being placed on a statutory basis during the recovery period, but this change is undermined by the limitations on support, and the decision to reduce the minimum recovery period from 45 to 30 days under earlier clauses. The clause introduces provisions for assistance and support only
“if the Secretary of State considers that it is necessary”
for recovery, mental health and wellbeing purposes, and crucially only if the recovery is from harm caused directly by the trafficking.
In the explanatory notes, the Government state that the intention behind the clause is to implement the UK’s ECAT obligations under article 13 to provide a recovery period to potential victims of modern slavery, but that is not really what has been included in the Bill. The explanatory report on ECAT says that articles 12 and 13 are
“an important guarantee for victims and serve…a number of purposes.”
This wording emphasises the “guarantee” of support, and its serving different purposes. By contrast, the clause narrows the scope of the recovery support received solely to support needed as a result of harm
“arising from the conduct which resulted in the positive reasonable grounds decision in question.”
The Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit claims that as a result, the clause will
“create a huge evidential burden on survivors, in demonstrating that their recovery needs are linked to their experiences of having been trafficked”.
It adds that the clause will also
“necessitate an increase in the number of medico-legal reports that the Competent Authority will be required to consider.”
To summarise, the clause has the potential to further disqualify victims from support entirely. It has nothing at all to offer a person who had physical and mental needs before being trafficked—needs that may have been a factor in them having been targeted by criminal gangs. It risks trapping victims in an endless cycle of exploitation, which will undermine our ability to identify victims and prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes. For these reasons, the clause should not stand part of the Bill in its current form.
Craig Whittaker
I thank the hon. Lady for raising important issues around the support and assistance offered to victims of modern slavery and trafficking. Support for potential victims is a fundamental pillar of our approach to assisting those impacted by this horrendous crime and reducing the risk of their being re-trafficked. We are agreed on the importance of placing the entitlement to support in legislation, which is what the clause will do. Our intention in our drafting was to provide victims with certainty about the circumstances in which support is provided through the NRM; we know that is imperative in aiding their recovery. To this end, we have sought to put in clause 52 that support will be provided where
“it is necessary for the purpose of assisting the person receiving it in their recovery from any harm to their physical and mental health and their social well-being arising from the conduct which resulted in the positive reasonable grounds decision in question.”
Amendment 2 would restrict this support to where it was needed for a victim’s
“physical, psychological and social recovery or to prevent their re-trafficking.”
This provides less clarity on what these terms mean for victims and decision makers, reducing the clause’s effectiveness in supporting victims. Our approach is not to do as amendment 4 suggests and go into detail in the clause on the types of support provided, but to instead do that in guidance. The reason is twofold: it provides us with the flexibility to tailor support to victims, and to ensure that we are able to amend the guidance and support as our understanding of victims’ needs changes.
After entering the NRM, potential victims are entitled to access a wide range of specialist support services to help them rebuild their lives. This includes safe house accommodation, financial support, and a social worker to assist with access to services including, but not limited to, health care, legal advice and translation services. Following a positive conclusive grounds decision, confirmed victims’ ongoing recovery needs are assessed, and a clear plan is tailored to their specific recovery needs to help them transition out of support and back into a community, where this is possible. Confirmed victims’ recovery needs are assessed to ensure that the overall support package provided through the modern slavery victim care contract is specific to the individual. This needs-based approach ensures that the Government provide targeted and personalised support to victims to help them recover and rebuild their lives.
Neil Coyle
The Minister said earlier that the tailored plan would support someone until they move back into the community. Can he confirm that that support will be provided whatever setting the person is living in, not only to those who happen to be in a detention centre or accommodation centre, for example?
Craig Whittaker
I think I have made it quite clear that the amendment would restrict the ability to assess on an individual, case-by-case basis, as the clause intends. I also went on to say that the time period for that is up to six months but is not limited. I hope that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question. Amendment 3 would go against that approach and would not increase benefits to victims. For the reasons I have outlined, I respectfully invite the hon. Member for Halifax to withdraw the amendment.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful to the Minister, once again, for his response. He paints a picture of the NRM that I do not think would be recognised by those working with it on the frontline. We heard testimony from those within the NRM that it was not clear that they were even in it, because it was not clear what provisions or support they were receiving. I wish it was the case that the description and the offer of support that he outlines were there in reality.
The Minister says the discretion within the Bill is necessary in order to facilitate going further and doing more, but we know that discretion is also used to offer less than we think is appropriate for victims who require that support. We will continue to argue and make the case for amendments 2, 3 and 4, but in the interests of time, we will simply vote against clause 52 in its entirety. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
For future reference, I understand that abstentions are supposed to be recorded by saying, “No vote”, although I am happy to be corrected. I am not always right.
Clause 53
Leave to remain for victims of slavery or human trafficking
Holly Lynch
I beg to move amendment 7, in clause 53, page 47, line 12, after “Kingdom” insert
“for a minimum 12 months”.
This amendment would give modern slavery victims in England and Wales with a positive conclusive grounds decision leave to remain for a minimum of 12 months.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 5, in clause 53, page 47, line 14, leave out from “recovery” to the end of line 16 and insert “personal situation,”.
This amendment would define the criteria of providing leave to remain in line with Article 14 of the European Convention Against Human Trafficking 2005.
Amendment 189, in clause 53, page 47, line 21, at end insert—
“(2A) If the person is aged 17 or younger at the point of referral into the National Referral Mechanism, the Secretary of State must give the person leave to remain in the United Kingdom if that is in the person’s best interests.
(2B) In determining the length of leave to remain to grant to a person under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State must consider the person’s best interests and give due consideration to—
(a) the person’s wishes and feelings;
(b) the person’s need for support and care; and
(c) the person’s need for stability and a sustainable arrangement.”
This amendment seeks to incorporate the entitlement to immigration leave for child victims (as per Article 14(2) of ECAT) into primary legislation.
Amendment 6, in clause 53, page 47, line 22, leave out subsections (3) and (4).
This amendment would remove the criteria of not granting leave to remain if assistance could be provided in another country or compensation sought in another country.
Holly Lynch
Amendments 7, 5 and 6 concern the provisions to provide leave to remain for survivors of trafficking. Similar to our amendments to clause 52, amendment 5 seeks to bring the provisions in line with article 14 of ECAT by changing the criterion for providing leave to remain from “recovery” to “personal situation”. The reference to “personal situation” recognises that leave is necessary for a range of reasons. The explanatory report to ECAT states:
“The personal situation requirement takes in a range of situations, depending on whether it is the victim’s safety, state of health, family situation or some other factor which has to be taken into account.”
Amendment 6 would remove the criterion for not granting leave to remain if assistance could be provided in another country or compensation sought in another country. It is not clear why the Government introduced that criterion, and I would be grateful if the Minister could outline in his response how he could possibly envisage that working in practice.
Amendment 7 provides a clear minimum timeframe for granting leave to remain, thereby creating more certainty for victims. Under the Home Office’s current guidance on assessing discretionary leave for survivors of modern slavery, leave to remain is granted for a mixture of different time periods—sometimes as little as six months. Those timeframes are short, and the inconsistency can set back recovery.
In 2017, the UK Government issued figures on grants of leave to confirmed modern slavery victims. Some 21% of confirmed victims who were neither UK nor EU nationals were granted asylum in 2015. A group of more than 13 frontline charities that are expert practitioners in providing support to victims of slavery highlighted the problem, stating that:
“The support currently provided to survivors of human trafficking and modern slavery is not meeting recovery needs. Government funded support ends abruptly and too early and there is little information or data as to what happens to survivors in the longer term. The current situation leaves survivors with little realistic opportunity to rebuild their lives, with some ending up destitute, vulnerable to further harm or even being re-exploited.”
The Government may argue that they are already providing support for confirmed victims in England and Wales through the recovery needs assessment. However, under the RNA, victims are not guaranteed long-term support. Victims will receive a minimum of 45 days of move-on support, with the RNA determining how much—if any—extra support is required under the modern slavery victim care contract; that extra support will be for a maximum of six months at time, and may be only a few days or weeks.
Furthermore, Labour believes that victims’ needs are not fully addressed in the RNA. In the 2020 annual report on modern slavery, the support recommended by victim support workers was agreed to in full by the Home Office in only 53% of cases, which raises questions as to whether the process genuinely responds to victims’ needs or is, instead, focused on moving victims out of the service. In summary, amendments 7, 5 and 6 are necessary to address the fundamental challenge facing victims and provide them with far greater certainty.
Amendment 189 is necessary because all child victims must be granted immigration leave in line with their best interests as standard, as stated in international law and UK guidance. The amendment seeks to incorporate the entitlement to immigration leave for child victims as per article 14 of ECAT into primary legislation. It will specify that if the person is aged 17 or younger at the point of referral into the national referral mechanism, the Secretary of State must give the person leave to remain in the United Kingdom if that is in the person’s best interests, giving due consideration to a victim’s need for support and care and a sustainable arrangement.
The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner has echoed concerns on the lack of clarity around what the clause would mean in practice for children, with this having been acknowledged in the Government’s response to the new plan for immigration consultation. Dame Sara Thornton states
“it is disappointing that this detail was not included as part of the Bill”,
and we share that frustration. There is no consistent public data available on the outcomes for potential child victims of trafficking, but evidence shows that our current policies are not being implemented adequately.
Every Child Protected Against Trafficking requested data through the Freedom of Information Act on the immigration outcomes for those exploited as children, the response to which showed alarming results in the data. It found that only about 5% of child-related considerations resulted in a positive decision for discretionary leave. The data indicates that discretionary leave is not being granted to children as victims of trafficking, and that in the small number of cases where it is, the average length of grant is short, suggesting that decisions are not being taken with their best interests as a primary consideration, providing minimal stability.
How many child victims of trafficking were subsequently granted indefinite leave to remain under the policy is unknown but, based on those figures, we can estimate that they are few. That is despite the explicit current policy that states the need to consider the length of leave, including a grant of indefinite leave to remain in line with the child’s best interests. That requirement is set out to fulfil the Secretary of State’s statutory obligation under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to safeguard and promote the wellbeing of children. All child victims of trafficking must be granted immigration leave in line with their best interests as only standard, as stated in international law and UK guidance.
Stuart C. McDonald
I want to say a few words in support of the amendments, which have the SNP’s full support. Currently, while someone might be in limbo for a long time, they are more secure the day after their referral into the NRM than they are the day after they receive a positive conclusive grounds decision, and that is not right. If they have been accepted as a survivor of trafficking, it makes them less secure. We should move towards a period of automatic leave to remain. The provision of leave is often an absolute prerequisite for meaningful recovery. With some security of status, the ability to seek employment or education and participate in the community builds confidence and stability, and the amendments broaden the number who will achieve that stability.
We also absolutely agree that there are problems regarding consistency between article 14 of the trafficking convention and current Home Office guidance. That is what amendment 5 would fix, so we support it. The convention speaks of allowing leave where necessary, given a survivor’s personal situation, and the explanatory report to the convention refers to issues around safety, their state of health, and the family situation or similar. The Home Office guidance calls for a much broader, individualised human rights and children’s safeguarding legislation-based approach, which seeks to protect and assist a victim and safeguard their human rights. Decision makers are to assess whether a grant of leave is necessary to meet the UK’s objectives under the trafficking convention and to provide protection and assistance to that victim owing to their personal situation. The current guidance is therefore closer to the convention than what is in this Bill.
The clause considerably reduces the scope of article 14 and the idea of a personal situation by adopting wording from the totally different article 12 and not offering any justification for that. The purpose and aim of leave to remain is recovery first in the host state if a survivor seeks that before any further upheaval is forced on them. That helps a survivor, and it helps us with law enforcement. It is also the only realistic way that they will be able to seek redress through compensation from those who exploited them. Pursuing such compensation from abroad just does not happen in practice.
Putting emphasis on the possibility that protection might be offered in the survivor’s home state, as the clause does, risks undermining a proper analysis of the personal circumstances as a whole and risks putting survivors back to square one and at risk of re-trafficking. Crucially, watering down the current position will mean fewer survivors remaining here or being in the best position to work with law enforcement authorities to bring the perpetrators of these awful crimes to justice. Again, that is dreadful news for survivors, but dreadful news for all of us as the perpetrators will escape punishment and other people will become the next victims. We support these amendments and call on the Government to explain why they do not just adopt the wording of article 14 of the European convention.
Craig Whittaker
The Bill is groundbreaking in its provision of a specific grant of temporary leave to remain for confirmed victims of modern slavery by putting it in primary legislation. Clause 53 sets out the circumstances in which a confirmed victim may qualify for a grant of temporary modern slavery-specific leave. I think we all agree that this is a crucial provision that enhances the rights of the victims. Our approach is to set out the circumstances in which this new form of leave to remain will be provided, giving victims and decision makers clarity as to entitlements, in line with our international obligations.
In contrast to amendment 7, the clause does not seek to specify the length of the leave conferred on an individual, as that will be determined through an assessment of the specific circumstances of the individual. This approach is designed to provide flexibility based on an individual victim’s needs. To specify the length of time up front is not required in legislation, as that can be better—
Neil Coyle
The Minister is right: a huge number of organisations welcome the specific leave to remain on these grounds. Perhaps he could tell us the average length of time that it takes to prosecute gangs on these specific circumstances and whether it is the Government’s intention to protect anyone who has been trafficked for the entire period of the case in order to prevent them from being intimidated if they are outside the UK and in their country of origin, for want of a better term.
Craig Whittaker
The hon. Gentleman will know from his own experience that that is done through the criminal justice system in this country. If any victim or any person needs to be taken into any form of witness protection, that will be done via the courts. You may want to come back in.
Neil Coyle
But I am asking very specifically about the circumstances in clause 53(2)(c), where the Government are offering leave to remain on these specific grounds. Is it the Government’s intention that that leave to remain is extended for the period of any case involving the individual who is believed to have been trafficked?
Craig Whittaker
As I have said, each individual case will be considered on an individual, case-by-case basis. That is why the measure is written the way it is—so that decision makers can make individual decisions, based on individuals’ needs and support.
Neil Coyle
Let us try it the other way round. Can the Minister confirm that it is not the Government’s intention to end leave to remain during criminal proceedings if that could mean that someone is forced to leave the UK and could be at risk of intimidation in another country?
Craig Whittaker
As I clearly stated in my previous answer, each individual case will be treated on the merits of that case, so it will be the decision makers’ decision as to what action, care or support will be needed for the individual.
Let me go back to what I was saying about amendment 7. To specify the length of time up front is not required in legislation, as that can be better met through provision in guidance and flexibility for the decision makers to determine it.
With regard to amendment 5, I think we agree that the primary aim here is to provide clarity to victims on the circumstances in which they are eligible for a grant of temporary leave to remain. To support clarity of decision making, we have sought to define the circumstances in which victims are eligible for a grant of modern slavery-specific leave. By contrast, amendment 5 would reduce clarity by providing that leave should be granted where necessary to assist the individual in their “personal situation”, without actually defining the term “personal situation”. This is why we have chosen to define what we mean by “personal situation” in this clause, for domestic purposes, and have set out that temporary leave to remain will be provided where it is necessary to assist an individual
“in their recovery from any harm arising from the relevant exploitation to their physical and mental health and their social well-being”.
Stuart C. McDonald
But the point is that “personal situation” is the wording in the convention and it is also the wording in the Home Office’s own guidance, and I do not understand it to have created problems for the Home Office up to this point. The problem is that this Bill is narrowing the scope of the circumstances that will be taken into account when considering this.
Craig Whittaker
The clause defines what personal circumstances mean. Amendment 5 does not do that and, in doing so, reduces clarity for victims. That is completely against the aim of the clause, which is to give clarity to victims.
Neil Coyle
Could the Minister provide some statistics to help us—I do not expect him to have this to hand, but perhaps he can respond in writing—on the average length of these cases, the number of people granted leave to remain who were believed to be victims of traffickers and the average length of the leave to remain they granted? Those would be useful statistics for the Committee and for the House ahead of Report.
Craig Whittaker
I have resisted saying these words, but I will make sure that we write to the Committee with those statistics if they are available.
The link to exploitation is an important one, and it is based on our Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings obligations to assist victims in their recovery. Given that the aim is to provide a clear framework to deliver certainty for victims and decision makers, I do not think that amendment 5 would enhance that at all. Turning to amendment 189, I recognise the importance, again, of bringing clarity to victims about the circumstances in which they are entitled to temporary leave to remain. That is exactly what clause 53 will do. I understand the particular vulnerabilities of children, and I can reassure the Committee that these are built into our consideration of how the clause will be applied.
Clause 53, in contrast to amendment 189, seeks to clarify our interpretation of our international obligations and it brings clarity for victims and decision makers, too. It purposefully does not use terms such as
“the person’s wishes and feelings”,
which are unclear and would not enable consistent decision making.
We are also clear that all these considerations must be based on an assessment of need stemming from the individual’s personal exploitation. Amendment 189 seeks to remove that link to exploitation, moving us away from the core tenets of our needs-based approach. It would not support victims in better understanding their rights; nor indeed would it help decision makers have clarity on the circumstances in which a grant of leave is necessary.
I want to be clear that clause 53 applies equally to adult and child confirmed victims of modern slavery. Crucially, through this clause, we have already placed our international legal obligations to providing leave for children in legislation—which I think we all agree is a milestone in itself.
I want to reassure the Committee that decision makers are fully trained in making all leave to remain decisions, including considering all information to assess the best interests of the child and to account for the needs to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children. All decision makers will receive training and up-to-date guidance on the policy outlined in clause 53.
For the reasons I have outlined, such changes do not add clarity and, in our view, are not required. I hope the hon. Member for Halifax will not press her amendments.
Holly Lynch
I thank the Minister, once again, for his contribution. In the interests of time, I will seek to move amendment 189 formally as, once again, I am not satisfied that the appropriate provisions for children have been recognised. I will gently make the point that statutory guidance has been referred to so often as the place where we would look for further detail on how the Bill would actually affect people’s lives that it would have been diligent to produce the statutory guidance at the same time as the Bill. That would have given Members the ability to really scrutinise it in full.
With that in mind, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment proposed: 189, in clause 53, page 47, line 21, at end insert—
“(2A) If the person is aged 17 or younger at the point of referral into the National Referral Mechanism, the Secretary of State must give the person leave to remain in the United Kingdom if that is in the person’s best interests.
(2B) In determining the length of leave to remain to grant to a person under subsection (2A), the Secretary of State must consider the person’s best interests and give due consideration to—
(a) the person’s wishes and feelings;
(b) the person’s need for support and care; and
(c) the person’s need for stability and a sustainable arrangement.”
This amendment seeks to incorporate the entitlement to immigration leave for child victims (as per Article 14(2) of ECAT) into primary legislation.—(Holly Lynch.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Craig Whittaker
I beg to move amendment 72, in clause 53, page 48, line 10, leave out “reasonable” and insert “conclusive”.
This amendment corrects a drafting error.
Craig Whittaker
The Government have tabled a minor amendment to subsection (9) of the clause to reflect that a grant of leave comes after the positive conclusive grounds decision rather than the reasonable grounds decision. Subsection (9) has therefore been amended to provide that the relevant exploitation for the purpose of granting leave under subsection (2) of the clause means the conduct resulting in the positive conclusive grounds decision rather than the positive reasonable grounds decision. This corrects a minor drafting error.
I will briefly speak on clause 53. It reflects our commitment to supporting victims of modern slavery by setting out in legislation, for the first time, the circumstances in which a confirmed victim may qualify for a grant of temporary modern slavery-specific leave. The aim of the clause is to provide clarity to decision makers as to the circumstances in which confirmed victims qualify for temporary leave to remain. It is a Government priority to increase prosecutions of perpetrators of modern slavery. As such, the legislation makes it clear that where a public authority such as the police is pursuing an investigation or criminal proceedings, confirmed victims who are co-operating with this activity and need to remain in the UK in order to do so will be granted temporary leave to remain, to support that crucial endeavour. The clause will ensure that victims and public authorities have surety about victims’ ability to engage with prosecutions against those who wish to do harm.
Holly Lynch
I have heard the Minister’s opening remarks on clause 53 stand part. Only 11% of confirmed victims with a positive conclusive grounds decision between 1 January 2016 and 31 March 2020 received discretionary leave. I therefore ask the Minister to make it clear how an individual’s need for leave will be judged under the criteria in the Bill, and to provide us with clear evidence on how he believes that clause 53 is in keeping with the ECAT obligations.
As colleagues are aware, just weeks ago the High Court delivered a significant judgment that foreign national victims of human trafficking should be granted leave to remain, which really requires starting from scratch on these clauses. The ruling came following the case of a 33-year-old Vietnamese national who was coerced into sex work in Vietnam back in 2016, before being trafficked to the UK in the back of a lorry. From November 2016 to 2018 she suffered further exploitation, being forced to work in brothels and cannabis farms. In April 2018, she was identified as a victim of human trafficking. However, as is the case with many victims, she was charged with conspiring to produce cannabis, and was sentenced to 28 months imprisonment. In May 2019, a trafficking assessment was sought once again by her lawyers, to which the Home Office responded that it had no record of her case; she was later placed in immigration detention. It was not until her legal representatives made a further referral that she was finally recognised as a victim. In his judgment, Mr Justice Linden said,
“The effect of the refusal to grant the claimant modern slavery leave is that she is subject to the so-called hostile environment underpinned by the Immigration Act 2014.”
Craig Whittaker
Let me see whether I can answer some of those questions. The hon. Member for Halifax asked how the clause is compatible with ECAT, and where is the certainty. This measure will clarify in primary legislation the obligations set out in article 14 of the European convention on human rights, and clarify the policy that is currently set out in guidance. This confirms that victims of all ages, including children, who do not have immigration status will automatically be considered for temporary leave. A grant of temporary leave to remain for victims of modern slavery does not prohibit them from being granted another, more advantageous, form of leave, should they qualify for it. It continues to be the core principle of the approach to modern slavery—
Holly Lynch
The Minister refers to a piecemeal approach to extending leave—and extending leave—and extending leave. That is preventing victims from moving on with their recovery, from trusting the agencies and from establishing relationships that will lead to the prosecutions that we all hope for. Since he says that further extensions are likely, could we not reflect on more significant periods of leave being given in a single grant?
Craig Whittaker
I am a little surprised that the hon. Lady says “piecemeal approach”. I thought I was very clear throughout the process that it is a highly trained decision maker that will be looking at each individual on a case-by-case basis. They will have the ability to look at the individual person’s needs and extend. That approach is at the opposite end of the spectrum to the “piecemeal approach” mentioned by the hon. Lady.
Neil Coyle
I think the Minister is suggesting that there would be variation in the lengths of leave provided. Can he set out that it is the Government’s expectation that there would not be a minimum, bog standard six months that everyone is given, and that there will be quite considerable variation in the periods provided?
Craig Whittaker
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention asking for clarity. He is absolutely right; decisions will be made on the basis of individual needs. I can understand where the word “piecemeal” comes from, but the reality is that if an individual’s mental and physical health and wellbeing support needs mean that those periods need to be extended, the individual highly trained decision maker will have the ability to extend the period.
Neil Coyle
The Minister is again saying extend, rather than grant for the necessary period. Coming back to the criminal prosecution case, it is very unlikely that the case will be heard within six months. It will not even get to court within six months, let alone be heard. Is it the Government’s expectation that someone will be protected with a period of leave that covers a court case? Will the individual decision maker have access to the average statistics on the time it takes to hear a case of this nature?
Craig Whittaker
I do not think that the decision maker will need the statistics on the average timescale for a decision. What they will need to make a decision is the individual person’s history and needs, which is what they will use throughout the process. If they need six months, they will get six months. If they need longer than that—whether for a court case or other circumstances —that is intended to be allowed for the individual.
There was one more question on how we assess the victim’s needs to be met in another country. The policy will make it clear for the first time in legislation that confirmed victims with recovery needs stemming from their exploitation will be entitled to a grant of leave where it is necessary to assist them in their recovery. Decision makers will assess, in line with guidance and available country information, whether the support and assistance required by the victim to aid their recovery is readily available in their country of return. This will be carried out on a case-by-case basis, in line with individual assessments for each victim.
Amendment 72 agreed to.
Question put, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
The Opposition have indicated that when we return this afternoon they wish to make brief remarks on clause 54 and 55 taken together and then discuss clause 56 separately. We will then take clause 57 without debate. I hope that is clear.
Nationality and Borders Bill (Fourteenth sitting)
Tuesday 2nd November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 2 November 2021 - (2 Nov 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 7 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I highlight an announcement, given the decision about events in Parliament today. Members are strongly encouraged to wear masks when they are not speaking, in line with current Government guidance and that of the House of Commons Commission. Please also give each other and members of staff space when seated and when entering and leaving the room.
Clause 54
Civil legal aid under section 9 of LASPO: add-on services in relation to the national referral mechanism
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider clause 55 stand part, as announced by Sir Roger at the end of the morning sitting.
The Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty’s Treasury (Craig Whittaker)
Identifying and supporting victims at an early stage is a key part of the Bill, and the new one-stop process. To underpin that process, clause 54 provides for legally aided advice on the national referral mechanism to be provided to individuals who are already receiving legally aided advice on an immigration or asylum matter. The additional advice will be free to the individual.
The provision of legally aided advice under the clause will help the individual’s lawyer to provide holistic advice on the individual’s situation as a whole, looking at the range of protection-related issues, including modern slavery. Advice under the clause will additionally help to identify and support potential victims of modern slavery at an earlier stage. Potential victims of modern slavery will be able to understand what the NRM does and able to make an informed decision as to whether to enter it and obtain the assistance and support provided under it.
The Government are firm in our commitment to identifying and supporting all victims of modern slavery. The clause seeks to ensure that individuals are provided with advice on the NRM at the same time as they are receiving advice on an asylum and immigration matter, which will enable more victims of modern slavery to be referred, identified and supported.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms McDonagh. Clause 54 amends the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 to enable advice on referral into the NRM to be provided as add-on advice where individuals are in receipt of civil legal services for certain immigration and asylum matters. Although I and many other colleagues welcome the fact that the Government have recognised the importance of legal aid as part of the process, we argue that legislating for it only as an add-on misses the opportunity to extend access to all those who would benefit from it—I include the Home Office as one of the main beneficiaries of people having access to proper advocacy and advice from an early stage.
In England and Wales, 63% of the population do not have access to an immigration and asylum legal aid provider, due simply to a lack of provision—what is known as a legal desert. Where there are providers, many are operating beyond capacity. Sadly, it is therefore commonplace for support workers to be unable to find lawyers for clients who are victims of trafficking.
It is not reasonable to expect vulnerable victims to be able to navigate the system without legal representation. It is vital that this is provided at the earliest stage possible. As the Public Law Project and JUSTICE have pointed out:
“The provision of legal aid to individuals who seek redress is not simply a matter of compassion, but a key component in ensuring the constitutional right of access to justice, itself inherent in the rule of law and an essential precondition of a fair and democratic society. Failure to provide it can amount to a breach of fundamental rights under the common law and/or the European Convention on Human Rights.”
We believe victims deserve better than what is set out before us in the Bill. The Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit has highlighted how the single competent authority is currently sending out template witness statements as a guide for how they should be prepared. They warn of the legal implications of the document even in the absence of a lawyer. That is unacceptable. I am sure the Minister agrees that it would make for an improved system with more integrity and fewer errors—the very sort of system he proposes—if a broader approach to legal aid was adopted.
It is also fair to argue that access to legal aid remains somewhat of a postcode lottery, with many outside London and the south-east experiencing difficulties in accessing legal assistance. I take this opportunity to highlight the great work of the Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit in attempting to widen access, having developed an online referral system for support workers to simplify the process for sourcing legal aid representation. However, it should not fall to organisations such as ATLEU to plug the gaps in the system. We wish to see improved access through this clause.
Similarly, the Government state in the explanatory notes to the Bill that clause 55 is designed to provide an add-on to legal aid on referral to the NRM if the victim has been granted exceptional case funding and is being advised in relation to the claim that their removal from or requirement to leave the UK would breach the Human Rights Act 1998. That means that clause 55 does not provide a route to pre-NRM advice for those who are not already in receipt of legal aid via the scope of another matter, and therefore does not provide free legal aid pre-NRM for all trafficking cases.
In scrutinising these measures, we have worked closely with the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, which I thank for having been so generous with its expertise, as I know it is for MPs right across the House, and for providing real-life examples that demonstrate the scale of the issue. It said:
“We assisted the pro bono department of a non-legal aid law firm when they helped a potential survivor apply for exceptional case funding—ECF—in August 2020. The funding was requested in order to provide advice on an NRM referral and associated immigration advice. This application was refused. A request to review the decision was refused. A decision on a second review is pending a final decision from the Legal Aid Agency. One ground of refusal at first review stage was that no decision had yet been made to remove the individual as they had not come forward to the authorities, and if a decision to deport or remove a client from the United Kingdom is made, an application for ECF could be made at that stage. The application remains undecided 13 months after the original submission.”
The system is a mess, Minister. It is the Opposition’s view that free legal aid and advice for potential victims of slavery and trafficking in the UK pre-NRM should not be limited to cases with existing immigration and asylum aspects. Only then will the Government’s offer of legal advice on referral to the NRM work in practice. In summary, the proposals contained within clauses 54 and 55 do not fully address the existing shortcomings in the system—another missed opportunity.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 54 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 55 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 56
Disapplication of retained EU law deriving from Trafficking Directive
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Craig Whittaker
The trafficking directive—the directive on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims—was adopted by the UK on 5 April 2011. The Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings—ECAT—is the principal international measure designed to combat human trafficking. The trafficking directive is intended, in part, to give effect to ECAT. ECAT’s objective is to prevent and combat trafficking by imposing obligations on member states to investigate and prosecute trafficking as a serious organised crime and a gross violation of fundamental rights.
Following the end of the transition period on 1 January 2021, the UK is no longer bound by EU law, but ECAT remains unaffected. Therefore this Government intend, by means of clause 56, to disapply the trafficking directive in so far as it is incompatible with any provisions in the Bill. That will bring legislative certainty to the Bill and how its clauses will apply. It will also provide further clarity to victims about their rights and entitlements.
The Government maintain their commitment to identify and support victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, as part of the world-leading NRM. The Modern Slavery Act 2015 and ECAT, which sets out our international obligations to victims, remain unaffected, as do the UK’s obligations under article 4 of the European convention on human rights.
I commend the clause to the Committee.
Holly Lynch
I thank the Minister for his opening remarks on clause 56. The explanatory notes on the clause state that, as the Minister has just outlined,
“the Trafficking Directive should be disapplied in so far as it is incompatible with any provisions in this Bill.”
There are some substantial and quite technical inconsistencies here that need to be worked through, and to do so we have had to enlist legal expertise from the Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit and others, so I thank them all for their service.
The trafficking directive is part of a suite of measures designed to combat the crime of trafficking. The EU has introduced several legislative measures to strengthen the protection of victims of human trafficking, including the 2011 EU directives on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings, and protecting victims of trafficking.
I turn first to the heading of clause 56—“Disapplication of retained EU law deriving from Trafficking Directive”. Subsection (1) refers to
“Section 4 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018”,
which saved the trafficking directive in domestic law, so that it continued to have effect on or after the UK left the EU at the end of December 2020. However, it has the opposite effect, by stipulating that any
“rights, powers, liabilities, obligations, restrictions, remedies and procedures derived from the Trafficking Directive”
that were saved cease to apply,
“so far as their continued existence would otherwise be incompatible with provision made by or under this Act.”
Therefore, our primary concern about clause 56 is that the power to disapply the rights derived from the trafficking directive will cease the rights and remedies available to victims generally as a matter of domestic or EU law that continues in force in the UK.
The world’s largest group of modern slavery researchers, Rights Lab, has argued:
“After eight years of the government’s general position being that the rights under the Trafficking Directive were already in domestic law, the choice to legislate now in the Nationality and Borders Bill—to reduce and restrict rights and entitlements through Part 4 of the Bill—and the presence of the express power to disapply them in the event of an incompatibility with the Bill in Clause 56 is concerning. The government should instead ensure that rights under the Trafficking Directive continue to apply in UK law, by incorporating it, and further, it should incorporate ECAT in domestic law and end the fragmented approach to victim identification, protection, and support.”
The clause will also threaten the Government’s ability to combat the perpetrators of human trafficking, as it will further undermine the response to criminal justice and the rights of victims of trafficking as victims of crime in the victims of crime directive and relevant codes of practice. Additional concerns have been voiced in relation to the rights under the NRM of victim identification and support and non-penalisation. For example, article 8 of the directive provides for the non-prosecution or non-allocation of penalties to victims, and requires the UK to ensure that competent national authorities are entitled not to prosecute or impose penalties on victims of trafficking in human beings for their involvement in criminal activities that they have been compelled to commit as a direct consequence of being subject to any of the acts referred to in article 2.
Therefore, that directive is clearly threatened by clause 56 and other provisions of part 1 of the Bill, including clause 51, which I appreciate is precisely why this Government want to disapply it. However, I am afraid that that is just the wrong judgment call.
In conclusion, the clause is incompatible—
Craig Whittaker
I am not sure whether the hon. Member is aware that the transition period for this measure finished in January, so in effect it has already been disapplied.
Holly Lynch
I thank the Minister for his intervention. We are into the thick of the legal technicalities. These points are from some of the leading legal experts on the subject. They are not entirely satisfied that clause 56 is compatible, and that we are not missing some of the protections that have been hard fought for, with good reason.
In conclusion, the clause is incompatible with the UK’s legal international obligations and will have far-reaching consequences. For that reason, it should not stand part of the Bill.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 150, in clause 58, page 52, line 19, at end insert—
“(3A) Before making regulations under this section, the Secretary of State must consult the ethical committees of the relevant medical, dental and scientific professional bodies and publish a report on the consultation.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with ethical committees of medical, dental and scientific professions before making regulations in their area, and publish a report on the consultation.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 168.
Government new clause 29—Interpretation of Part etc.
Government new clause 30—Persons subject to immigration control: referral or assessment by local authority etc.
Government new clause 31—Persons subject to immigration control: assessment for immigration purposes.
Government new clause 32—Use of scientific methods in age assessments.
Government new clause 33—Regulations about age assessments.
Government new clause 34—Appeals relating to age assessments.
Government new clause 35—Appeals relating to age assessments: supplementary.
Government new clause 36—New information following age assessment or appeal.
Government new clause 37—Legal aid for appeals.
Paul Blomfield
I understand that the Government seek to delete clause 58 and replace it with new clauses 29 to 37, which provide more detail. However, the detail does not offer any reassurance; quite the contrary.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that new clause 32 makes amendment 150 superfluous, as it talks about the scientific input into age determination?
Paul Blomfield
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he is completely wrong and I will explain why shortly.
In existing clause 58 and the new Government clauses, the Government want to introduce new regulations and a standard of proof for age assessments, to compel local authorities to assess age, to allow the use of “scientific methods” to assess age, despite widespread concerns from professional bodies about the validity or accuracy of any such methods, and to penalise children for not consenting to these potentially harmful interventions.
Children who come to the UK on their own, from countries such as Afghanistan, Sudan and Eritrea, face a unique problem when asked to prove their date of birth. The registration of births and the importance placed on chronological age differs across the world, and many are genuinely unable to show official identity documents, such as passports or birth certificates, because they have never had them in the first place, they have had them taken away from them, they have lost them in the chaos of fleeing, or sometimes they have had to destroy them en route.
Disputes over age can also arise from a lack of understanding of the way in which dates are calculated in other countries and cultures, and associated confusion over what is being said by a child about his or her age. So, one might reasonably ask, why are the Government making so much of this issue?
Mr Goodwill
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that there are incentives for adults to pass themselves off as children? If the age assessment is done incorrectly, the result could be adults being placed in schools or local authority care, putting children at risk.
Paul Blomfield
He can have another go if he wants.
I hear what the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby is saying. I remember watching a BBC programme recently—I think it was on the BBC—on the Kindertransport. The same debate was had about Jewish refugees fleeing Nazi Germany after Kristallnacht. Some were slightly older than the age restriction of the time. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman thinks that this legislation would have been appropriate at that time. We could have turned them around and sent them back to the Nazis.
Paragraph 24 of the explanatory notes states:
“Since 2015, the UK has received, on average, more than 3,000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children per year. Where age was disputed and resolved from 2016-2020, 54% were found to be adults”.
Clearly, 54% is a big number, but the data in the notes is more than a little selective.
According to Home Office statistics, for the most recent normal year unaffected by the pandemic, which was 2019, there were 4,005 unaccompanied children applications. Of those, 748 had their age disputed and 304 were found to be adults. That is just over 7% of child applicants. The problem is that that is in no way as prolific as purported by the explanatory notes. The actual number is likely to be lower, because the Home Office stats do not include decisions later overturned following advocacy or reviews by judges.
Again, the Government have a problem finding evidence to justify a proposal in the Bill. This is clearly not the first time this has happened. I see that the Home Secretary got herself into trouble with the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee today by being unable to come up with the facts to justify one of her wilder allegations about those crossing the channel. Nevertheless, the Government are ploughing ahead with their plans to use scientific methods to assess age.
I now turn specifically to new clause 32, which does not offer any of the clarity that the right hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby suggested. Proposed new subsection (2) mentions the
“types of scientific method that may be specified”,
and that the two specified might be included. However, proposed new subsection (9) goes out of its way to state:
“This section does not prevent the use of a scientific method that is not a specified scientific method for the purposes of an age assessment under”
the previous proposed new section,
“if the decision-maker considers it appropriate to do so”.
New clause 32 is therefore saying: “Any scientific method that we can come up with at any time in the future will be legitimate.”
Mr Goodwill
I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make, but I am worried that he is saying, “Well, we’ll give a lot of people the benefit of the doubt”, which could result in large numbers of adults being placed in settings that are appropriate for children. Surely he is aware that since the 2003 case, age assessments have been Merton compliant. Any actions that the Government take to follow through on the Bill becoming law will obviously be tested in the courts in the same way as the early years situation.
Paul Blomfield
I refer the right hon. Gentleman to what my amendment 150 proposes. All it asks is that the Government should be required to take into account relevant scientific and medical evidence, consulting reports of the ethical committees of the appropriate medical and dental professions, on the Government’s planned use of scientific methods for assessing age.
What do the experts think? The British Dental Association called dental X-rays for age assessments “inaccurate and unethical”, which is a theme that relates to the rest of the Bill—it will not do what it says it will do. The Government apparently told some journalists that they do not plan to use dental X-rays anyway, but the Bill leaves that option open, so forgive us if we do not take casual briefings to journalists on the side as a way to determine the Government’s future conduct on this issue.
The Government are apparently planning to use wrist X-rays, which the British Medical Association tells us it has “serious concerns” about because
“they would involve direct harms without any medical benefit to the individual”,
as radiation exposure over a lifetime should be kept as minimal as possible. The BDA agrees:
“The process of radiography is a medical procedure that should be carried out only for medical purposes, and where the patient stands to benefit. Exposing children to radiation when there is no medical benefit is simply wrong.”
The BMA also warns that
“the evidence supporting the accuracy of the process is extremely weak”.
We are back to the same old theme: there is no real evidence to support what the Government are doing. The BMA goes on to say that the process is particularly weak where,
“as in the case of most asylum seekers, there is a shortage of appropriate age and cultural comparators.”
Yet again, Ministers are introducing ineffective proposals without any evidence, making those seeking asylum—in this case, children—part of the narrative of “Let’s assume bad faith, and let’s assume that everybody is trying to play the system.” It will not work, but it is designed to grab headlines and to make it seem as though the Government are talking tough, rather than dealing with the genuine issues on which we agree, such as stopping those who are forced out of desperation to make journeys across the channel. I urge the Minister to accept our amendment or, better still, to just withdraw the clause.
The Chair
The Public Gallery is becoming a little crowded. I encourage everyone sitting there to spread out as much as possible, to ensure social distancing.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I would like to speak to clause stand part, and I support everything that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central has already said. We all recognise how important it is to get age assessments right, while acknowledging that it will always be an imperfect process. As he said, what precisely is the nature and scale of the problem that the Government are driving at here? Of course, it is important to ensure as far as possible that adults are not placed in child settings, but the overall tenor of the evidence that we have received is that placing children in adult settings is an even greater risk. If a young adult is placed in a setting designed for older children, there will at least be child-specific safeguarding and other age-appropriate support. If a child is wrongly placed in adult reception and immigration processes, there are no such protections, and such a decision can have profound impacts on and consequences for a child.
First and foremost, we should continue to think about age assessments as a function of the child protection and safeguarding system, not of the immigration system. The responsibility should remain with social workers, whose expertise and experience make them by far the best people to undertake such assessments where support is required. We should preserve the current position, which does not place an evidential burden on a child or young adult but leaves the decision makers to weigh up all the evidence to a reasonable degree of likelihood. The Home Office has quite simply offered no sound reasons for undermining that arrangement and for imposing a higher standard of proof.
Mr Goodwill
I have just had a look at the NHS website and it says that having an X-ray is equivalent to one or two days of background radiation. If someone takes a short-haul flight, the amount of radiation they are likely to be exposed to is probably more than an X-ray, particularly if it is on a limb and not on the main body.
Stuart C. McDonald
I do not have access to that webpage, but the right hon. Gentleman has access to the extensive evidence submitted to the Committee by the BDA. It is a two-sided issue. First, it is not appropriate to subject people to radiation, and in this case there is no informed consent. The evidence is clear. The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health is clear that an assessment can be no more accurate than two years either side. The British Society for Paediatric Endocrinology and Diabetes is clear that we cannot assess a child’s age just physically or by analysing bones.
In short, if a decision maker says that somebody is 18 years old, the person is just as likely to be 16 or 20. These new clauses leave the Secretary of State with powers that are far too broad. She should at least be required to have consent and approval from professional bodies, whether medical, dental or scientific. The insistence that so-called scientific methods can be used anyway if the decision maker considers it appropriate—as enabled by new clause 32(9)—totally undermines the other safeguards. It must be removed.
Mr Goodwill
The hon. Member is very generous in giving way. Is he saying, in effect, that in every case we should take the person’s word for how old they are and treat them as children, even if there is scientific evidence that they may be many years older than 18?
Stuart C. McDonald
No, I am not saying that. What I am advocating is the position at present—that the decision maker looks at all the evidence that is available in the round. If somebody is 50, I cannot imagine them needing an invasive scientific procedure to establish that they are over 18. I am not by any stretch of the imagination saying that we just take somebody’s word for it. I am advocating for the status quo. By all means the Government can introduce some sort of advisory board, but that should not supplant and take over the functions of local authorities—but that, unfortunately, is how I see these new clauses working.
The new clauses suggest that there will be implications for a person’s credibility if they choose not to undergo the medical procedures. I object, as a point of principle, to Parliament telling decision makers what to think about someone’s credibility when it is those decision makers—not us—who know the circumstances of the decision that they have to make. It is particularly objectionable given that professional medical bodies thoroughly object to these so-called scientific procedures. Despite the fact that professional bodies have said that these tests are inappropriate, the Government are telling decision makers that, if a young person says, “Well, the medical professionals say this is inappropriate, so I won’t undergo this,” they must find that young person lacking in credibility.
I repeat the point I made in relation to earlier clauses about the impugning of the credibility of those making statements on someone’s behalf. It is especially bizarre that a medical report by a multi-disciplinary panel of experts could have its credibility maligned simple because a child or young adult refuses to undergo one of these so-called scientific methods of testing introduced through regulations by the Secretary of State. Not only is it bizarre; it also undermines the fundamental idea that people should be able to give free consent to medical procedures and examinations, and not be pressured into them. Similarly, it undermines the principle that such a procedure should happen only if it delivers a scientific benefit for that person.
What consultation has there been? We have not been able properly to scrutinise or ask questions of relevant witnesses in relation to these specific provisions. Is consent to be sought from devolved Governments on the basis that large tracts of these new clauses relate to how local authorities should exercise functions related to devolved legislation? In the absence of assurances on any of those fronts—the evidence of problems, proper consultation and devolved consent—the case for change is absolutely not made. On the contrary, there are all sorts of dangers in these clauses that could have serious consequences for children.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
I will be brief, as I have just a couple of questions. Ethics aside, as is the want of this Government—if that is not the case, why are they running away from the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central?—I want to look at the issue of estimating the maturity of a child’s skeletal system by comparing images with databases of children of the same age and gender. Do children in Ethiopia develop at a comparable rate to children in the UK, because I understand that that is who they are going to be compared to? Do children in Eritrea and Sudan develop at the same rate? The British Medical Association seems pretty certain that they do not. If that is the case, how long will it take to build databases of comparable images for each country or region, and has that work started?
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
The Government have tabled new clauses 29 to 37 to replace clause 58, which was a placeholder clause on age assessments. Colleagues have already made the point about lack of scrutiny. Having received these new clauses so late in the day, we have not had a chance to see proper evidence, because we were not aware of what has been said. Clearly, as part of its role a Committee must have time to scrutinise. I am sure we will do the best we can with the time we have been given, but it really is not best form to have so many Government new clauses so late in the day on such an important issue.
We are concerned that the age assessments referred to in new clauses 29 to 37 risk violating children’s rights. I thank the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, a coalition of over 60 organisations, for its excellent briefing on these new clauses and for sharing its concerns about their inclusion in the Bill. If implemented, the new regulations and measures on age assessments will significantly increase the risk that children in the system will be treated as adults and criminalised. Before we discuss specific measures, it is worth noting that age assessments are not straightforward, nor are they an exact science. The measures in this Bill fail to recognise that it is impossible to determine age precisely, especially when there is an absence of documentation, which is often the case. By introducing a higher standard of proof in age assessments, more children in the system will be wrongly treated as adults, with devastating consequences.
For unaccompanied children in the asylum system, age is fundamental to receiving the support and protection they need. In the UK, age determines how or whether someone is supported by children’s services and has access to education; whether they are provided with asylum support by the Home Office and dispersed to a different part of the UK; and whether they are accommodated or detained with adults. It is imperative that we get age assessment right, and we all agree that there are clear safeguarding issues when people claiming to be children are later found to be adults, but it is also true that the effects of children being wrongly treated as adults are significant. I therefore urge colleagues to consider those safeguarding risks in relation to new clauses 29 to 37.
New clause 29 defines various terms, including “age-disputed person”, which governs the persons to whom the provision on age assessments will apply. As it stands, new clause 29 will mean that age assessment is required whenever there is insufficient evidence to be sure of age. Of course, as we know, this is true in many if not all cases. In practice, this clause therefore puts the burden of proof on a child to prove that they are under 18.
This is problematic for a couple of reasons. Children who come to the UK on their own from countries such as Afghanistan face challenges when asked to prove their date of birth. First, the registration of births and the importance placed on chronological age differs across the world. Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, there is often a lack of documentation. For example, many children who come to the UK have never had official identity documents in the first place, or have had documents taken from them or destroyed during their journey to the UK.
It is worth sharing an example, and I thank the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium for bringing it to the Committee’s attention, as it highlights both the challenges in determining age accurately and the impact of wrong decisions. This case refers to a young person named K, who arrived in the UK from Iran and was held in a police station. He was 16 years old when he left Iran, and he told the staff at the police station his date of birth. They explained that, based on the date of birth, he was now 17.
K was then questioned by someone—he believes they were from social services—who did not believe he was 17, as they believed he looked older. Before entering the UK, K had been living in the jungle in Calais, and had not properly washed for a long time and had grown a beard. K was pressured into accepting he was 18 years old, and the Home Office recorded his age as 18. This meant he was not referred to a local authority for a full age assessment and was dispersed into adult asylum support accommodation in a hotel. He was the only child in the hotel and was left very scared. He reported that adults in the accommodation were taking drugs and he could not eat during his time there.
K managed to get in contact with the British Red Cross, and a safeguarding referral was made to the relevant local authority. The local authority promptly arranged to visit the young person, and two social workers agreed that it was highly likely that K was the age he was claiming to be. K was immediately moved and provided with full support under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. The local authority completed a full needs assessment and quickly took action to refer him to a GP, dentist, optician and immigration solicitor, and supported him to enrol in college. He had been suffering from asthma, and had not received any medical support since he arrived in the UK.
K’s case highlights what can happen when a young person is wrongly considered an adult in the asylum system, and the effects are stark. They lose access to the support and protection they need. That is why we must be incredibly careful to develop appropriate and fair age assessments, and also ensure that they are a function of the child protection and safeguarding system more widely.
In relation to K’s case, I have mentioned the fact that children are in hotels, and there is a real question about what safeguarding goes on in hotels. I know the Minister is deputising today, but could he look into that for me and to write back to me, or ask officials to do so at some stage, about what safeguarding for children does go on in hotels?
In new clause 30, the Home Office will be given the power to make regulations on how to assess age and introduce a standard of proof on the balance of probabilities for age assessments. The current standard when age is disputed in the context of an asylum appeal, developed through years of case law, is that of a reasonable degree of likelihood. Given the complicated nature of assessing age, introducing such a high standard of proof would significantly increase the risk of children being wrongly treated as adults. Indeed, new clause 30 undermines current statutory guidance from the Department for Education, which makes it clear that age assessments
“should not be a routine part of a local authority’s assessment of unaccompanied or trafficked children”.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It will probably not shock Committee members that I support what the Government are doing on age assessments. Ultimately, it is about ensuring that we protect our young people in our United Kingdom. When people say that they are children and will be in a classroom surrounded by people of a similar age, we need to make sure that they are indeed children.
As a former teacher, I understand the importance of this. As a former head of year who had responsibility for safeguarding, covering welfare, attendance and the behaviour of young people, it makes no sense to me why anyone would oppose a measure to make sure that people who claim to be young people are indeed young people. An individual who has nothing to hide should have nothing to fear in this regard. It is absolutely essential that age assessments take place to make sure that people claiming to be of school age are indeed of that ilk, because ultimately other young people could be put in a very vulnerable situation.
Stuart C. McDonald
We want age assessments to be as accurate as they can be at the moment, not just through the work of social work groups but with input from outside. Does the hon. Gentleman have any concerns about the impact on children who end up being wrongly placed in adult facilities?
Jonathan Gullis
Of course—absolutely. Young people should not be placed in a situation like that, for safety reasons. As a former teacher, I would not want a 14 or 15-year-old to be somewhere they felt unsafe. The problem is that we have a broken asylum system that needs fixing. Age assessments can be avoided if people do not try to enter the country illegally, but come by safe and legal routes, where we can have documentation.
There are other ways to prove someone’s identity, age and application, as we have done in Afghanistan and Syria, which will ultimately be a much better system than having illegal economic migrants crossing the English channel from Calais and entering this country illegally. They are putting a huge strain on the public services of our country and on the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, whose area is the fifth largest contributor to the asylum dispersal scheme.
Age assessment is absolutely essential. It is another way of reminding people that if they make an illegal entry into this country they will face a number of procedures to verify the credibility of their asylum claim, their identity and their age, in order to ensure we protect our country’s young and vulnerable people. It is the right and proper thing to, and I fully applaud the Minister on pushing this essential clause.
Craig Whittaker
Let me start with amendment 150. I would say to the hon. Member for Sheffield Central that his amendment applies to all aspects of age assessments, not only the use of scientific measures. As such, it is extremely broad, although I do not know if that remains his intention.
The Home Office takes its statutory duties towards the welfare of children very seriously. The current age assessment system is desperately in need of reform. We have heard many reports from local authorities about the prevalence of adults posing as children and claiming services designed for children, including accommodation, education and social care. This poses significant risks to the welfare of genuine children in our care system and undermines the integrity of the immigration system. Equally, we need to safeguard vulnerable children from being placed in adult services, although I am not sure I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield Central when he said that this is headline grabbing.
We must do everything in our power—whatever that is—to safeguard children, including vulnerable and unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
Holly Lynch
The Government were less enthusiastic about protecting children under part 4 of the Bill.
Craig Whittaker
I do not think that deserves a response because I do not believe any Member of the House, wherever he or she sits, would advocate that we leave children vulnerable in the system.
One measure we look to pursue is the use of scientific methods, as has been said. Assessing someone’s age is an incredibly difficult task. It is only right that in this complex and sensitive area we seek to improve and expand the evidence base on which decisions can be made. We are aware there are ethical concerns around the use of certain scientific methods for age assessment, which is why new clause 32 includes a number of changes to the Bill to ensure proper safeguards are in place for those who are asked to undergo a scientific age assessment.
First, the Secretary of State may only specify a scientific method of age assessment in regulations once she has sought scientific advice and determined that the method in question is appropriate for assessing a person’s age. I expect that scientific advice to also cover related ethical considerations. Secondly, a scientific method of age assessment will not be performed unless the appropriate consent is given by or on behalf of the individual on whom the method is to be performed. We will be as transparent as possible about the nature and consequences of the specified method where consent is required once an appropriate method has been identified. Thirdly, where a person has reasonable grounds for refusing to undergo a scientific age assessment, they will not be required to undertake one. That decision will not then count against them.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister is outlining what he sees as safeguards. I am unconvinced. New clause 32(9) seems to say that nothing prevents the use of a scientific method, even if it is not specified in regulations and so on, if the decision maker considers it appropriate and, where necessary, consent is given. Given that there are implications if consent is not provided, that surely rides roughshod over all the other protections that the Minister just outlined.
Craig Whittaker
I will come on to that when I discuss further measures in new clause 32, but our opinion is that the amendment is not necessary and I ask the hon. Member for Sheffield Central to withdraw it. On the new clauses, clause 58 is one of the six clauses drafted as placeholder clauses of introduction, as indicated in the explanatory notes and memorandum for the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. It was drafted as such in the interests of transparency to make clear our intention to bring forward substantive provision on age assessment. New clauses 29 to 37 are intended to replace clause 58 entirely.
Before I touch on the other clauses, regarding new clause 32, we have already said that determining a young person’s age is an inherently difficult task. One of the questions posed earlier was how we do that as a comparator between other young people growing up in less well-developed countries. Under current arrangements where an individual’s age is disputed, local authorities must already undertake an age assessment. That typically involves two appropriately qualified social workers undertaking a series of interviews with the young person and taking into account any other information that is relevant to their age. However, even where those assessments are conducted thoroughly and reach reasoned conclusions, they are fraught with difficulty, as one would imagine. Such assessments can have a wide margin of error. We are aware of cases where a Merton-compliant age assessment, as they are called, has been conducted on the same individual by different social workers and has come to very different conclusions about the person’s age. Given that context, the use of scientific age assessments represents an additional and important source of evidence to help decision makers in a difficult task, allowing them to better come to accurate judgments. At the end of the day, that is our aim.
Various scientific methods of age assessment are already in use across most European countries, and have been for several years. In Finland and Norway, which I mentioned earlier, radiographs are taken to examine development of the teeth and the fusion of bones in the wrist. Two certified experts perform the age assessment and must jointly agree on the person’s age. In France, X-rays are taken to examine the fusion of the collarbone, alongside dental and wrist X-rays. In Greece, dental X-rays are used alongside social worker assessments.
Anne McLaughlin
What are the experts comparing with? My question is, will they be comparing the bone density or whatever with that of children of the same age in the UK, knowing that the development of children from other parts of the world is very different, or will they have a database of comparable images of the skeletal system—whichever part they are using—from each of the other countries? Is that something that is happening at the moment, or will they just be compared with UK-based children?
Craig Whittaker
I suspect that the answer to the hon. Lady’s question is that how that is assessed will be down to the individual scientific advice given on the individual case at the time. I cannot see a like-for-like comparator for a child from Ethiopia or Sudan, which was mentioned earlier, being a child in this country. That is why the scientific evidence is a much more accurate way of assessing. It can be a great tool in the arsenal of assessing a child when compared with our existing system, which is the Merton assessment by two individual social workers. Given the challenges of assessing an individual’s age, we see no good reason why such technologies should not also be used. In all good faith, this is one of several tools in the arsenal. To further enhance my answer to the question asked by the hon. Lady, the precise scientific method of assessment will be specified in regulation, following scientific advice.
We are also making it clear within new clause 32 that a decision maker will be able to draw a negative credibility inference if an individual refuses to undergo a scientific age assessment without reasonable grounds. The introduction of any scientific method would be entirely undermined if someone who was asked to undergo such an assessment could simply refuse to co-operate. By legislating to develop our own scientific age assessment capability, we hope to emulate best practice across Europe and to ensure that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are provided with the care they are entitled to in a safe environment.
Let me turn to the rest of the amendments in the group before I answer some of the questions. Amendment 168 is consequential on new clauses 32 and 33. It provides that the regulation-making powers in the clauses are commenced automatically two months after Royal Assent.
The purpose of new clause 29 is to define an “age-disputed person” and to set the parameters to whom the age-assessment clauses apply. It clarifies the meaning of a number of terms, including “age-disputed person”, “immigration functions”, “immigration officer” and the respective definitions of “local authority” in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. The clause also defines the meaning of “relevant children’s legislation” across the four nations of the United Kingdom.
New clause 30 relates to the establishment of a decision-making function in the Home Office, referred to as the national age assessment board, or the NAAB, as I think the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate referred to it. The NAAB will have responsibility for conducting age assessments of age-disputed persons on referral from the local authority or another public authority specified in regulation. Where an age-disputed person is referred to the NAAB by a local authority, the NAAB assessment will be binding on both the Home Office, in relation to immigration functions, and the local authority when determining access to children’s services. Alongside new clause 30, new clause 31 relates to the establishment of the NAAB. While most NAAB age assessments will be conducted on referral from a local authority, the new clause stipulates that the NAAB may, in certain situations, conduct age assessments on age-disputed persons for the sole purpose of deciding whether or how the Secretary of State should exercise any immigration functions.
Stuart C. McDonald
Will the Minister say a little bit more about the NAAB? Who will be appointed to it, how will it generally undertake assessments and how will its independence from the Home Office be ensured?
Craig Whittaker
I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will answer him before I finish answering the other questions, if indeed I can find the answer in my book.
I have covered new clause 32 quite extensively. New clause 33 provides the Secretary of State with the power to make regulations about the way in which age assessments are to be conducted under the provisions in new clauses 30 and 31. It will provide the Secretary of State with the power to provide more clarity on what a comprehensive age assessment should entail, including, where appropriate, existing elements of age assessment case law. It will be mandatory for local authorities and the Secretary of State to follow these requirements when conducting age assessments. New clause 34 provides for a right of appeal to the first-tier tribunal for an age-disputed person who has been subject to age assessment. In considering an appeal, the tribunal will be able to consider any evidence it deems relevant. It will determine the age of the age-disputed individual and assign them a date of birth.
New clause 35 provides clarity in a number of areas related to the appeal of an age assessment decision. First, a person who brings such an appeal must do so while they are here in the United Kingdom. If they leave the United Kingdom before the appeal is finally determined, the appeal is discontinued. Secondly, the clause provides for the appellant to apply to the tribunal for an order. Pending the outcome of the appeal, the local authority must exercise its function under children’s legislation as if the person is the age they claim to be. Where an age assessment has been made and the individual has not brought an appeal, or has concluded the appeal process, new clause 36 provides a mechanism for them to make further representations to a decision maker where they have new evidence to submit in support of their claimed age. That covers all the specific parts of the new clauses.
The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate asked me about hotel accommodation. In cases involving a child, local authorities obviously will have obligations to look after them. For adults, hotels are not detention centres, and adults are not held their against their will. There is a duty of care on the local authority when someone is placed there; it is required to give wraparound care for that individual, particularly for children. I cannot really see children being placed there by themselves, but I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying about where there is an issue around age. Somebody could slip through the net, but the local authority would be required to give wraparound care.
Paul Blomfield
The Minister may be about to pre-empt me, but I do not think he has answered the questions raised by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East in relation to the national age assessment board, so will he at least undertake to write to us on that issue?
Craig Whittaker
No, I have not finished yet. I am not quite ready to sit down, but I will answer that question. Basically, the board will predominantly consist of qualified social workers who, through being dedicated to the task of conducting age assessments and through training and the sharing of expertise, will achieve a more consistent and accurate approach to the task of age assessment. As Members have probably seen, such professionals are referred to as a “designated person” in the new clauses, and the board will have responsibility for conducting age assessments on age-disputed persons on referral from the local authority, as I said. Local authorities will retain the ability to conduct age assessments if they prefer to do so. If they believe that a person is actually the age they claim to be, they must inform the Home Office accordingly.
The hon. Member for Sheffield Central asked whether binding local authorities’ hands is just a power grab from central Government. The answer to that question is no. If local authorities wish to carry out their own assessments, they will be able to do so—without question, that will be the case. On that basis, I commend the new clauses to the Committee.
Paul Blomfield
I have listened carefully to the Minister’s observations. To be fair, he made a good fist of defending the indefensible, but he failed to answer the concerns expressed by me and the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East in relation to the way that subsection (9) of new clause 32 drives a coach and horses through all the reassurances that we have been given. His criticism of the amendment as being a bit broad and involving quite a lot of work fails to acknowledge how narrow it is. It would simply require the Secretary of State to take advice before making regulations, and I therefore wish to press the amendment to a vote.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Paul Blomfield
I beg to move amendment 151, in clause 59, page 52, line 33, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State must publish impact assessments on the effect of the provisions in this section on—
(a) nationals from countries falling within subsection (3), and
(b) the United Kingdom’s economy and trade.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to publish impact assessments with regard to the effect this clause might have on both nationals from countries in subsection (3) and the UK economy and trade.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Clause stand part.
Government amendment 80.
Government new clause 9—Removals from the UK: visa penalties for uncooperative countries.
Government new clause 10—Visa penalties: review and revocation.
Paul Blomfield
The amendment would require the Home Secretary to publish impact assessments on the effect of clause 59 both on nationals from the countries in subsection (3) and on the UK’s economy and trade.
The Government plan to replace clause 59 with Government new clauses 9 and 10. This is a slightly more developed version of the proposal to punish the nationals of countries if the Government consider their Governments to have been unco-operative on returns. The explanatory notes for clause 59 do not explain its purpose—because it was a placeholder clause, there was no detail—so I assume it is to act as an incentive for countries to co-operate with returns, but I hope that the Minister will seek to provide some evidence of that.
The explanatory notes do state that
“a very small number of countries do not cooperate”
with returns, suggesting that penalties would apply only to a limited number of states. However, a report in The Daily Telegraph on 15 October—presumably briefed by the Government, which is the way we seem to get information these days—said that
“Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Eritrea and Philippines”
are countries understood not to co-operate with returns. We know that the majority of those on that list have conditions that mean returns are unlikely anyway, as there are strong asylum cases from them, so we know that the deterrents will not work. So, I would like to press the Minister a little bit more on what the Government expect to achieve with these revisions.
Mr Goodwill
Surely what the hon. Gentleman says defies logic. If we are going to give visas to nationals of a particular country and we know there is a risk they may overstay, surely we can be more generous and more engaged with that country if we know that those overstayers can be removed. In the case of visas, we will have biometric data, so that there is no doubt about a person’s identity.
Paul Blomfield
I hear what the right hon. Member is saying, but the scope of this provision seems to go much wider than that. It seeks to introduce punitive measures, including on visa charges and so on, for individuals who may be applying, and I will develop that point. It is nothing to do with overstaying. This is about countries that are unco-operative on returns in other contexts.
I want to press the Minister on what the Government expect to achieve by this. For example, it is not in our interests to sanction doctors, nurses or engineers who have been recruited to the UK from one country with longer visa processing times or higher charges, and that would be deeply damaging for our diaspora communities. Again, it feels as if we have proposals picked from headlines, which are not in the country’s interests.
Mr Goodwill
It might help some of these countries if we did not plunder their health professionals, who have trained at the expense of that country, and actually trained our own instead.
Paul Blomfield
I am interested in that observation, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will lead the charge to persuade the Government to allocate far more resources for the training of health professionals and to tackle the crisis they have created within our health service over the past 11 years.
Amendment 151 will try to ensure that the Government are clear-eyed about the impact of their policy and the trade-offs they are prepared to make, as well as the impact on UK public services, communities and businesses. The amendment would allow the public to examine that trade-off, too. It would ensure that the Government track the impact of their policy, and are transparent with business and trade over the impact any visa penalties might have, either through reduced travel or through deteriorating relationships with those countries.
The Government talk a lot about global Britain, but through our examination of the Bill we have seen many threats to that and a lot of ways in which they plan on sowing discord with other nations around the world, damaging our reputation in the international community. I know that the Minister will not vote for clause 59 stand part, but I would welcome his thoughts on the wider impact of the replacement clauses, along the lines of my amendment. I would appreciate it if he could tell us whether any such impact assessments are being considered.
I have an important point to make about new clauses 9 and 10, to which I hope the Minister can respond. There is significant concern that these clauses will prevent people from joining refugees in the UK through the family reunion route. Let us consider the countries cited in The Daily Telegraph again: Pakistan, Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Eritrea and the Philippines. Since the start of 2019, 8,480 people from Iran, Iraq, Sudan and Eritrea have been granted refugee family reunion visas to join loved ones in the UK. That equates to just over half—53%—of all family visas granted over that period. Some 3,584 of those visas were for children and 5,771 for women or girls. The new clause, as drafted, would potentially apply to visas for refugees coming to the UK under one of the Home Office’s resettlement schemes, including the relocation scheme for Afghan nationals who have previously worked with the UK Government or applicants from Hong Kong for British national overseas visas.
So, if the Government are determined to proceed with these new clauses, at the very least new clause 9 needs to be amended to include an exemption for refugee family reunion and other protection routes. I should be grateful if the Minister would indicate whether the Government are willing to do that.
Anne McLaughlin
We support amendment 151 for the self-explanatory reason that we need to know the impact of these actions. We are not saying that visa penalties should never be imposed in any circumstances, but we share many of the concerns voiced by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central and I will focus on a couple of them.
The Government say this clause will incentivise other countries to co-operate with the UK Government to remove those who have no right to be in the country, but they have presented no evidence that this will be the case. Saying it is one thing, but if they are so confident of it they should do some work and, as the hon. Member for Sheffield Central asks in his amendment, publish a report examining the impact on our relations with other countries.
The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants says that this clause will affect, among others, workers, including key workers. Have not the Brexit restrictions on key workers coming into the country taught us anything? There are also tourists and their massive contribution to our economies; performers; students—who pay thousands of pounds to study at our universities, many of which would struggle to survive without them—and academics, among others, including the family members of British citizens. Again, we are punishing the wrong people.
Craig Whittaker
Starting with amendment 151, I reassure the hon. Member for Sheffield Central that the penalties are there to encourage countries to co-operate. There is international precedent for countries to have the power to impose penalties on countries that do not co-operate on the matter of returns.
Both the United States and the EU have similar powers to those we are seeking. Recently, the Council of the EU decided to suspend temporarily the application of certain provisions in the visa code to nationals of The Gambia, owing to the country’s lack of co-operation on readmission of third-country nationals illegally staying in the EU. The new powers in the Bill will bring the UK into line with our international partners and ensure that we are no longer lagging behind other countries.
I assure hon. Members that, given talk of penalties and exemption, family reunion will be an exemption to the penalties, as discussed.
Turning to amendment 151, I can assure the hon. Member for Sheffield Central that the power to impose visa penalties will be exercised only after consideration of the potential economic impact on the UK, and with full agreement across Government. Contrary to the hon. Member’s assertion that there is another Government leak, there is no current list: this will be done on a case-by-case basis, based on the impact across areas such as the economy, but also taking each Department into account. I also draw the hon. Member’s attention to new clauses 9 and 10, which—as we have already touched on—set out those visa provisions in more detail. I feel that this is a fairly straightforward part of the Bill, with no need for the hon. Member’s amendment.
Turning to new clauses 9 and 10 and Government amendment 80, a key function of the Home Office is the removal of individuals who have no legal right to be here, either by deportation or administrative removal, usually to the country of which they are nationals. We expect our international partners to work with us, as they expect us to work with them, to remove such individuals, as the UK does where our own nationals in other countries should not be in those countries. This is a critical component of a functioning migration relationship, and the vast majority of countries co-operate with us in this area. However, a small number do not.
As has been said, new clause 9 is designed to give the Government the power to impose visa penalties. Countries should no longer expect to benefit from a normal UK visa service if they are unwilling to co-operate with us on the matter of returning nationals. We will be able to slow down or suspend visa services for that country, and require applicants to pay a surcharge of £190 when they apply for a UK visa. Specifically, new clause 9 sets out when a country may be specified as unco-operative and the factors that will be taken into account when imposing visa penalties. Additionally, the new clause provides detail on the types of penalties that may be applied. It is a critical step in taking back control of our borders.
Briefly turning to new clause 10, visa penalties are intended to be a matter of last resort, and must not be in place longer than necessary. The new clause requires the Secretary of State to review the application of visa penalties every two months and revoke those penalties if the relevant country is no longer unco-operative. This provision is a safeguard to ensure that any visa penalties applied do not remain in place by default. Government amendment 80 is consequential on new clauses 9 and 10, providing that they will come into force two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
I commend new clauses 9 and 10 and Government amendment 80 to the Committee, and by your leave, Ms McDonagh, I request that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central withdraw his amendments.
Paul Blomfield
I was reassured by the commitments on family reunion, and I look forward to the Government’s bringing forward an amendment on that topic, perhaps in the House of Lords. I have taken the Minister’s other comments on board, so I will not press this amendment to a vote at this stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 59 accordingly disagreed to.
Clause 60 disagreed to.
Clause 61
Special Immigration Appeals Commission
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider Government new clause 11—Special Immigration Appeals Commission.
Craig Whittaker
Clause 61 is one of six clauses drafted as placeholder clauses, as we have said. New clause 11 is intended to replace clause 61. The new clause makes changes to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997 that are required to safeguard sensitive material. Current legislation allows for any immigration appeals and those judicial review challenges against exclusion, deportation or naturalisation and citizenship decisions to be certified so that they are heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission if certain criteria are met. Where a case is heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, sensitive information can be relied upon to defend the decision which, if publicly disclosed, would be damaging to the public interest.
Not all immigration decisions can currently be certified, however. For example, a person refused entry clearance as an investor, or who is seeking to work or study in the UK, cannot have their judicial review challenge to that refusal decision certified for SIAC. In contrast, a person appealing a decision to refuse them asylum could have the appeal against the refusal of their claim certified. The effect of not being able to certify a decision is that where there is a judicial review challenge to that decision a range of sensitive information that might otherwise be used to defend that challenge cannot always be disclosed. That has the potential to be damaging to national security.
The new clause will extend the power to certify immigration decisions to cover those cases that carry no right of appeal and where a JR challenging the decision cannot currently be certified. That will ensure that the JR can be heard before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. The test for certifying immigration decisions is not being changed by the new clause. It will still require the Secretary of State to certify that the decision being taken relies partly or wholly on information that, in her opinion, should not be made public in the interests of national security, in the interests of the relationship between the UK and another country, or otherwise in the public interest.
Bambos Charalambous
New clause 11, which replaces clause 61, significantly expands the jurisdiction of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. On the face of it, this is a highly draconian measure that has been introduced at a very late stage in the Bill’s passage through Parliament, limiting the scrutiny. The new clause will enable SIAC to consider applications and set aside immigration decisions where the Secretary of State certifies that information on which her decision is partly or wholly based should not be made public on national security grounds, in the interest of the relationship between the UK and another country or otherwise in the public interest.
That means that information relating to the decision will not only not be made public; it will also not be provided to the person to whom the decision applies. If we unpick that, the cases to which the new clause applies include a decision of the Secretary of State concerning an entitlement to enter, reside in or remain in the UK, or a person’s removal from the UK. We are therefore talking about not only immigration decisions but nationality decisions. The extended powers in the new clause affect not just foreign nationals but British citizens, and do not concern merely migrants but residents. It is a huge expansion of power, and when combined with broad interpretations of the public interest, as mentioned, the power will put British citizens and others with the right to remain at risk of being excluded from the UK. They will also be left with no information regarding why that decision has been made, because the Government believe that it is in the public interest to withhold it from them.
The new clause is not limited to cases where a person’s entitlement to enter or stay in the UK is said to be in the interest of national security; it applies also to cases where the denial is authorised by information that the Secretary of State says is in the public interest—information that is kept from the person affected. How are any of those people, including the British citizens, able to defend themselves against expulsion, or even exile, in such circumstances? The power given to the Secretary of State is enormous, and in practice the measures will curb justice by allowing the Secretary of State to process appeals by SIAC, instead of normal processes, denying people their rights to a full case.
Craig Whittaker
Let me address a couple of points. Basically, the hon. Gentleman is asking whether SIAC involves a further erosion of civil liberties. The direct answer to that is no—if anything, it is quite the opposite. New clause 11 allows the specialist court the ability to consider all evidence relied on to ensure that cases may be both brought and properly defended. In addition, the special advocate system, the disclosure procedure used in such hearings and other safeguards are designed to provide individuals with substantial measures of procedural justice in their difficult circumstances when, in the public interest, material cannot be disclosed to them directly.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 61 accordingly disagreed to.
Clause 62
Tribunal charging power in respect of wasted resources
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Bambos Charalambous
I will also speak to clause 63, because the two clauses seem to be interconnected.
We think that these provisions are unnecessary and should be removed from the Bill. The Government’s proposals in both clauses are unnecessary. The Bill requires the tribunal procedure committee to give the tribunal the power to fine individuals exercising a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation, or an employee of such a person, for
“improper, unreasonable or negligent behaviour”.
This broad formulation could have a chilling effect on the willingness of solicitors to take on difficult cases, for fear of risking personal financial liability. That may also extend to Home Office presenting officers who would similarly be liable under the measure.
The immigration tribunals already have all the case management, costs and referral powers that they need to control their own procedure. Giving new powers to immigration tribunals without establishing a basis in evidence for them is not warranted. The clauses will therefore make it harder for lawyers acting for people with immigration cases to do their job in immigration tribunal hearings.
Immigration law practitioners fulfil a key role in enabling access to the courts and therefore access to justice, so that a person who is the subject of an immigration decision may make their case properly and seek vindication. Lawyers, both solicitors and barristers, play an important role in facilitating the smooth functioning of the asylum process, helping their clients to navigate the system and providing an additional layer of filtering against meritless cases.
All lawyers have a responsibility to uphold the rule of law and are strictly regulated by several bodies to ensure that they act to the highest professional standard. As a former lawyer myself, I am aware of the rigorous regulatory regime of the Solicitors Regulation Authority, which includes duties to the court and duties of integrity. Solicitors also act in the best interests of their client, and that is vital in ensuring effective access to justice. Those who provide services to people seeking asylum in England and Wales are also likely to be doing so on a legal aid basis, for which the Legal Aid Agency provides a further means of scrutiny and oversight.
In acting for people subject to immigration control, among other things, immigration lawyers work with clients who may lack funds and legal aid entitlements; whose documents may be incomplete, missing or badly translated; and whose statements as to their past experiences may be hard to secure, on account of the ill treatment they have suffered in their country of origin.
In addition, much is at stake in immigration proceedings. A person subject to immigration control who loses their case may be subject to expulsion from the UK and face a risk of harm in their country of origin. They may be separated from their family, or may lose the life they have built up in the UK over many years, leaving their lawyer in the position of making difficult but arguable points on their behalf. The proposals in clauses 62 and 63 of the Bill will only make that task harder.
Labour shares the concerns of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association and the Law Society that immigration lawyers are being needlessly targeted by the new costs orders and charge orders, which are not necessary and do not apply in other areas of law. Immigration tribunal judges already have all they need by way of case management powers, costs powers and referral powers. Making the task of immigration lawyers harder prejudices access to justice, and has not been shown to be necessary by the evidence.
Craig Whittaker
Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that costs orders will only be made where representatives have been badly behaved and unreasonable without justification? In those circumstances, it is right that a representative should be required to pay wasted costs.
Bambos Charalambous
I will come on to that topic, but those powers already exist, and I do not think that further regulation of this type—forcing the tribunals committee to supply this information—is the correct way of going about this.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
We have just heard about the new special court, the new special tribunal and the new special advocate. We have new processes, new bureaucracy and new costs. Does my hon. Friend agree that this clause represents the veneer of the Home Office’s pretence to actually give a damn about value for money any more?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Throughout this Bill, some crumbs of legal aid have been provided in different circumstances, yet the Bill makes it difficult for lawyers to assist those people for whom legal aid is provided, and now they seem to be penalised for not being able to put forward the best case they can.
It is a well-established fact that access to justice includes equal protection under the law. Solicitors are fundamentally obliged to act in their clients’ best interests, which may involve adjourning a case due to a change in circumstances that they are not at liberty to disclose. That principle admits of no distinction between British nationals and foreign nationals, and those who are subject to UK law are entitled to its protection. In the context of UK immigration tribunal hearings, through which people subject to immigration control—non-citizens who cannot exercise democratic rights to shape the legislation to which they are subject—seek to vindicate their position against the state, that principle ought to warn against bearing down on them and their lawyers through an extra costs order and charging order regime that is inapplicable to British nationals in the wider courts and tribunals system.
Immigration tribunals already have the powers that they need to regulate their own procedures—as I have mentioned, they have case management powers, a costs jurisdiction and referral powers. Taking each in turn, they have extensive case management powers, as set out in rules 4 to 6 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) Rules 2014. Those tribunals already have a costs jurisdiction that enables them to make wasted costs orders against lawyers through the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007:
“(4) In any proceedings mentioned in subsection (1), the relevant Tribunal may—
(a) disallow, or
(b) (as the case may be) order the legal or other representative concerned to meet,
the whole of any wasted costs or such part of them as may be determined”.
Wasted costs are defined as
“any costs incurred by a party—
(a) as a result of any improper, unreasonable or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of such a representative, or
(b) which, in the light of any such act or omission occurring after they were incurred, the relevant Tribunal considers it is unreasonable to expect that party to pay.”
That costs jurisdiction is given further effect by the rules of procedure set out in rule 9 of the 2014 rules. An order for wasted costs may be made
“where a person has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings. The Tribunal may make an order under this rule on an application or on its own initiative.”
In practice, tribunals have the power to regulate their own procedure to avoid its abuse. In the context of applications for judicial review in the High Court, it is recognised that the Court may refer a lawyer to their professional regulatory body, such as the Solicitors Regulation Authority, where their conduct warrants it, thus potentially leading to disciplinary proceedings. A legal representative may be asked to show why the conduct should not be considered for referral to the relevant body, or why they should not be admonished. An immigration tribunal might consider making such a referral in appropriate cases. Alternatively, it may decide that the conduct might not be so serious after all and restrain itself.
In clause 62, the Government seek to give immigration tribunals additional new powers, so that they may charge a participant an amount of money if it is considered that the participant
“has acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently, and
(b) as a result, the Tribunal’s resources have been wasted”.
The fine would be a separate matter from the costs incurred by a party, and it would be payable by the other party. The charge would be paid to the tribunal. In this context, participants who may be ordered to pay a charge in respect of immigration tribunal proceedings include
“(a) any person exercising a right of audience or right to conduct the proceedings on behalf of a party to proceedings,
(b) any employee of such a person, or
(c) where the Secretary of State is a party to proceedings and has not instructed a person mentioned in paragraph (a) to act on their behalf in the proceedings, the Secretary of State.
(4) A person may be found to have acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently…by reason of having failed to act in a particular way.”
However, we are not told what that “particular way” is.
Clause 62 provides that rules may be made and may include the “scales of amounts” to be charged, and it is wrong that no framework has been provided for the scales of amounts to be charged. As a rationale for this innovation, it is said that:
“High levels of poor practice around compliance with tribunal directions, which disrupts or prevents the proper preparation of an appeal, can lead to cases being adjourned at a late stage.”
No actual evidence is adduced to support that proposition or to demonstrate that existing case management powers, wasted costs powers and powers of referral are inadequate to deal with such matters.
Clause 62 seeks to amend the cost provisions in the 2007 Act in order to put greater emphasis on making an order on grounds of unreasonable behaviour. A tribunal may make an order in respect of costs in any proceedings if it considers that a party, or its legal or other representative, has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting the proceedings. This is a power to make a costs order against a party and/or their lawyer. Unlike in considering wasted costs, the behaviour identified is solely that which is unreasonable, not behaviour that is improper or negligent. In carving out unreasonable behaviour in this way, there is a risk that the high threshold that applies in the wasted costs jurisdiction is lowered, and that such orders are made where the ordinary difficulties of running an immigration case have impeded its progress. It is unclear why additional regulatory measures are thought to be needed, indicating that the proposal is unnecessary. The tribunal procedure rules already have provisions for wasted costs, and tribunals have the power to refer cases of improper behaviour to the regulator.
Clause 63 provides that:
“Tribunal Procedure Rules must prescribe conduct that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is to be treated as—
(a) improper, unreasonable or negligent for the purposes of”
a charge in respect of wasted resources. Where the prescribed conduct occurs, the person in question will be treated as having acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently unless they can show evidence to the contrary, so there is a rebuttal presumption in relation to this. Here too there is a risk that conduct that does not meet the test for being unreasonable allows a wasted costs order to sneak back in. It is also not clear how wasted resources will be defined or quantified, which may lead to satellite litigation challenging the fine itself or the amount imposed, further increasing the burdens on a system already under immense pressure. The rules make provisions to the effect that if the tribunal is satisfied that the conduct has taken place, it must consider whether to impose a charge or make a costs order, though it is not compelled to do so.
According to the Home Office, in immigration tribunals,
“A range of conduct on the part of legal and other representatives…in the way proceedings are conducted or pursued”
is
“disrupting or preventing the proper preparation and progress of an appeal”,
but once again, no evidence is adduced to support that proposition, or to demonstrate that existing case management powers, wasted costs powers, and the power to refer are inadequate to deal with such matters.
Introducing further overlapping and potentially duplicative regulatory requirements may have the perverse impact of undermining the effectiveness of all relevant regimes, and increase complexity and bureaucracy. If solicitors are held personally liable for costs that arise for reasons outside their control, it could risk driving a wedge between them and their clients by creating a conflict of interest. The immigration tribunals already have all the case management cost and referral powers that they need to control their procedures. Adding new powers for immigration tribunals without establishing a basis for them in evidence is not necessary and is counterproductive. For the reasons I have outlined, we oppose clauses 62 and 63.
Stuart C. McDonald
I echo what the shadow Minister said. This is all really political theatre—a move to get immigration lawyers. As a former immigration lawyer, I cannot let these clauses pass without comment. In my experience, immigration lawyers are a group of people who do an invaluable job, and not one that there is a queue of folk desperate to do. It is a difficult job. Most clients have no resources; legal aid budgets are far from easy; many clients can be communicated with only through interpreters, who are often hard to find; and these lawyers are dealing with facts, circumstances, documents and other evidence from jurisdictions thousands of miles away. The pressures can be enormous. These lawyers are acutely aware that in some cases, if they get things wrong, the client’s life, liberty or human rights are at serious risk.
This group have been egregiously maligned by the Home Secretary and the Home Office. Here, they are singled out again. It is wrong, reckless and counter- productive. It is wrong because, not for the first time, we are being asked to make law on the basis of anecdote, rather than detailed evidence. As has been said, the immigration tribunals have all the powers that they need in their case management, cost and referral powers. They do not need these new, distinct and very controversial powers. Given the difficult job that we recognise these lawyers do, and the significant pressures that they face, the very last thing we should do is create a threat of their having to pay money for taking on a case. As the shadow Minister said, the measures create the risk of a conflict of interest, because solicitors could find that doing the right thing for their client, or following their client’s instructions, puts them at risk of having to pay a financial penalty.
The measures are also wrong because immigration lawyers have been singled out. I would have thought alarm bells would be ringing in the Home Office at the idea of putting in place a procedure that will apply only to lawyers operating on behalf of non-nationals. I suspect this would see the Home Office in court again. I could go along to the immigration tribunal and do something that I might do without facing consequences in the social security tribunal, employment tribunal, tax tribunal or any other tribunal; but I would find that in the immigration tribunal, there were special provisions in place for me to pay some sort of financial penalty. That seems odd.
Speaking of the tax tribunal, the provisions are essentially a tax. We do not know how much the tax will be, because we are not given any indication at all of the nature of the penalties involved, but it is a tax, because it is not compensation to the other party for wasted costs—we already have provision for that. The money goes straight to the Exchequer. On the other side of the coin, if the Government representative is guilty of this misconduct, the Government pay themselves. They hand over money to the Exchequer. There is not equality of arms, by any stretch of the imagination.
As the shadow Minister said, the measure is also counterproductive, because when the conduct described in the new procedure rules occurs, we will end up with endless hearings, and solicitors will be repeatedly made to come to hearings, just to explain why the situation happened. That is a waste of time, and in absolutely nobody’s interests. I have no idea what the Home Office is playing at here, other than performing political theatre and again having a go at immigration lawyers. If hon. Members want an example of vexatious, unreasonable conduct, they should read these two clauses, because that is exactly what they are.
Craig Whittaker
I have already spoken on clause 62; let me comment on clause 63. I apologise, Ms McDonagh, but I did not realise we were taking them together.
Representatives and relevant participants in the legal process on both sides have a role in ensuring that appeals run smoothly so that justice can be served. However, there has been clear judicial concern about the behaviours of some legal representatives in immigration and asylum cases, and we are seeking to strengthen the tribunal’s ability to tackle such conduct. As has been mentioned, judges can already issue a wasted costs order when a legal representative acts in a negligent, improper or unreasonable way that causes legal costs to be wasted. The tribunal can also award costs if a party to the appeal has acted unreasonably in bringing, defending or conducting proceedings, which is called an unreasonable costs order.
Costs orders are rarely made and are generally considered only at the request of the other party. To encourage more use of those existing powers, clause 63 provides a duty on the tribunal procedure committee to introduce tribunal procedure rules in the immigration and asylum chamber, which will lead judges to more regularly consider making a wasted costs order or an unreasonable costs order, or the new tribunal costs order introduced by clause 62. That will ensure that circumstances and behaviours that have warranted the making of costs orders previously will more often give rise to judicial attention. Existing case law identifies the types of circumstances and behaviours that have led to costs orders being made or considered, and the principles applied by the courts. Those have included showing a complete disregard for procedural rules, for example through abusing court processes in relation to evidence or the timing of applications.
Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill
Craig Whittaker
Thorough consideration has been given to the impact of clause 64 and what it adds to existing requirements under immigration rules and wider provisions. We have also taken into account the views of stakeholders. After further reflection, we have decided to remove the clause from the Bill in its entirety. As a stand- alone provision, that will not impact on the wider measures in the Bill. Consequently, clause 64 requires an amendment to remove reference to it, which is the purpose of Government amendment 81.
Bambos Charalambous
Am I right that the Government will vote against the clause?
The Chair
I understand that the Government plan to vote against the clause.
Question put and negatived.
Clause 64 accordingly disagreed to.
Clause 65
Pre-consolidation amendments of immigration legislation
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
Bambos Charalambous
This might seem innocuous but my concern is that it may be a power grab by the Secretary of State because the clause contains some quite strong measures on what the Secretary of State can do in relation to other parts of legislation. Can the Minister reassure me that my fears are not borne out by the consolidation measures in clause 65?
Craig Whittaker
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that clause 65 was taken from the “Windrush Lessons Learned Review”, which is why it is in the Bill.
Stuart C. McDonald
What is taken from that review is perhaps the need for consolidation of immigration legislation, nationality legislation and so on, which I would absolutely support. The challenge with the clause as drafted is that it proposes pretty huge and wide-ranging powers. The Secretary of State can amend pretty much any old Act of Parliament if, in her opinion, it facilitates what is otherwise desirable in connection with the consolidation. It could rewrite citizenship laws, for example, or the entire immigration system. There is a check on it in the sense that the regulations will not come into force until a consolidation Act is passed. There is a broader question about how often Governments tend to help themselves to massive Henry VIII powers when they rewrite all sorts of stuff. I have made that point a million times and nobody listens, so I will leave it at that.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 65 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 66 to 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69
Extent
Amendment made: 120, in clause 69, page 58, line 28, at end insert—
‘(4) A power under any provision listed in subsection (5) may be exercised so as to extend, with or without modifications, to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man any amendment made by any of the following provisions to legislation to which the power relates—
(a) section 37 (illegal entry and similar offences), insofar as it relates to the insertion of subsection (C1A) into section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971;
(b) section(Electronic travel authorisations)(electronic travel authorisations);
(c) section(Liability of carriers)(liability of carriers).
(5) Those provisions are—
(a) section 36 of the Immigration Act 1971;
(b) section 170(7) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999;
(c) section 163(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.”—(Craig Whittaker.)
This amendment amends clause 69 (extent) to provide that the amendments made by the provisions listed in new subsection (4) may be extended to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man under the Order in Council provisions listed in new subsection (5).
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 186, in clause 69, page 58, line 28, at end insert—
‘(4) Part 4 (modern slavery) only extends to Scotland to the extent that a motion has been approved by the Scottish Parliament, bringing it into force in Scotland.
(5) Part 4 (modern slavery) only extends to Northern Ireland to the extent that a motion has been approved by the Northern Ireland Assembly, bringing it into force in Northern Ireland.”
Under this amendment, Part 4 of the Bill would not enter into force in Scotland or Northern Ireland until the relevant devolved legislatures had given their consent.
I am sorry to have to take the Committee back to part 4 and modern slavery and trafficking. The amendment relates to a similar issue that I raised in connection with age assessments, because I tend to believe that certain provisions in part 4 encroach on devolved competences in relation to Scotland and Northern Ireland. Given the way that the part 4 is drafted, the Government have recognised that modern slavery and trafficking is a matter that is devolved to both those jurisdictions. That is why certain clauses do not impact on them. However, in this amendment, we are suggesting simply that the Government should go further. For example, in my view, the recovery period is clearly within the competency of the Scottish Government and I think, also, the Northern Ireland Assembly. However, clause 49 interferes with the start and end points of that period. Clauses 46 and 47 trample all over the idea that identification of victims of slavery and trafficking are devolved matters. So too does clause 51. For those reasons, I am prompting the Minister on what engagement there has been and is ongoing and whether a legislative consent motion should be requested from the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Ireland Assembly before the Bill is passed.
Craig Whittaker
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we have been engaging with the devolved Administrations, including at ministerial level, over the course of the Bill. I want to reiterate our commitment to continuing to work with the devolved Administrations as we look to operationalise the measures to ensure the policies work for the whole of the UK. Contrary to the spirit of working together across the UK, amendment 186 could lead to the scenario where decisions in reserved areas would operate differently across the UK, thereby reducing the clarity the Bill seeks to provide for victims and decision makers. In line with the devolved memorandum of understanding, the UK Government will continue to engage with the devolved Administrations both at ministerial and official level to ensure that we have time to fully understand any implications and adhere to our priority to safeguard victims. I urge the hon. Member to withdraw his amendment.
On clause 69, I begin by setting out the devolution position. Almost all of the Bill is about nationality, immigration and asylum, which are reserved matters to the UK Parliament. Almost all of the Bill, therefore, extends UK wide.
Neil Coyle
The Minister says “almost all” the provisions. Can he outline which are not?
Craig Whittaker
It is very kind of the hon. Gentleman to interject before I had finished my sentence. Some provisions will apply only to England and Wales. Those provisions are about matters that are devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland, but are reserved to the UK Parliament in England and Wales. They are civil legal aid, support for victims of modern slavery offences and the early release scheme.
Turning to the extent outside the UK, part 1— nationality provisions—will also extend to the Crown dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man, and also the British overseas territories. That follows discussions between the UK Government, the devolved Administrations, the Crown dependencies and the British overseas territories. I want to clarify that we intend to table a further amendment to add a permissive extent clause on Report. That will enable the Crown dependencies to adopt other parts of the Bill that are relevant to them.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response and for his assurances that engagement has been taking place and is ongoing. I accept that the amendment is not practicable, because it impinges on reserved matters. The other side of the coin is also true and this was about provoking a discussion about which parts of the Bill the Home Office has identified as relating to devolved matters. The Minister has listed some, which is helpful, but I do not think he has completely listed all that would apply and should be described as devolved. For example, age assessments quite clearly relate in some circumstances to devolved functions regarding children. More relevant to this amendment debate is modern slavery, as I said—for example, the length of the recovery and reflection period and various other matters in relation to identification of victims are, absolutely and definitely, devolved. That is why we have separate modern slavery and trafficking legislation in Northern Ireland and Scotland.
I have done what I needed to do, which is to suggest that the Home Office has a look at whether a legislative consent memorandum is required, but I will leave it there. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 69, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70
Commencement
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I beg to move amendment 107, in clause 70, page 58, line 30, leave out “and (4)” and insert “to (5)”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 109.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 108, in clause 70, page 58, line 42, leave out paragraphs (d) and (e).
This amendment is consequential on an Amendment 109.
Amendment 109, in clause 70, page 59, line 9, at end insert—
“(5) Sections 27 to 35 may not be commenced before—
(a) the Secretary of State has consulted with such parties as the Secretary of State considers appropriate on—
(i) the compatibility of each section with the Refugee Convention; and
(ii) the domestic and international implications of the UK adopting each section;
(b) the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a report on the outcome of that consultation stating which parties were consulted, and stating in respect of each section—
(i) the views of the parties consulted on its compatibility and implications;
(ii) the differences between the interpretation of the Convention provided by the section and any interpretations provided by the higher courts before the passing of this Act;
(iii) the reasons why the Secretary of State concludes that the section should be commenced; and
(c) both Houses of Parliament have considered that report and approved the commencement of each of the sections that is to be commenced.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5)—
“interpretation provided by the higher courts” means an interpretation provided by any judgement of the High Court or Court of Appeal in England and Wales, of the Court of Session in Scotland, of the High Court or Court of Appeal in Northern Ireland or of the United Kingdom Supreme Court that has not been superseded.”
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to hold consultations on the compatibility of Clauses 27 to 35 with the Refugee Convention, and to report to Parliament on such consultations, before the relevant Clauses enter into force.
Stuart C. McDonald
God loves a tryer, and I do try. The amendments are another attempt to encourage the Government to set out their legal thinking on the compatibility of the clauses cited in amendment 109 with the refugee convention. How do the Government think that the provisions in clauses 27 to 35 can be consistent with the refugee convention?
There is significant concern among some Members from all parties on this issue. So far, we have been told repeatedly by a Minister that the Government are committed to living up to their international obligations, and we have had a lot of assertions that the Bill is consistent with those obligations. However, as I have said, I am not aware of any lawyer with expertise in the area who supports that conclusion.
On the contrary, we have a detailed published opinion from Matrix Chambers that the Bill is absolutely not compliant with the refugee convention. Alongside that, organisations such as the Immigration Law Practitioners Association and various others have come to the same conclusion. Crucially, the ultimate authority on the convention, the UNHCR, published detailed reasoning for its view that certain clauses do not comply with the convention.
In the circumstances, I might be asking a little too much to expect a detailed legal treatise from the Minister today. However, he must at least accept that this state of affairs is not good enough. On the one side, we have extensive published arguments that the Bill breaches the refugee convention and, on the other side, we just have assurances that everything is in accordance with our international obligations. If MPs are to make a properly informed judgment on this on Report and Third Reading, it is incumbent on the Government to provide their legal arguments in more detail.
Craig Whittaker
We have listened carefully to the arguments in favour of amendments 107 to 109, which I will speak to collectively. I thank hon. Members for moving and tabling them, and I agree that it is important that the United Kingdom continues to meet its obligations under the refugee convention and other international conventions and treaties.
I am taking amendments 107 to 109 together because they all seek to achieve the same goal. We do not support them. They seek to delay the commencement of clauses 27 to 35 until their compatibility with the refugee convention has been consulted on and reported to Parliament. As the Committee knows, the UK has a proud history of providing protection to those who need it, in accordance with our international obligations under the convention. I assure hon. Members that every clause in the Bill, including clauses 27 to 35, adheres to our obligations under the refugee convention.
There is no uniform international interpretation of many of the key concepts in the refugee convention. That is an inevitable result of the very nature of international conventions. They are designed to be applied to a range of systems and scenarios across the globe, and to achieve consensus between many signatory states. Each signatory therefore needs to interpret the convention based on a range of sources and information to determine its meaning in good faith. That is not a black-and-white exercise, but one that the Government considered carefully before bringing the Bill to the House and one that we have now entrusted to Parliament in its consideration and considerable scrutiny of the Bill.
The legislative process, in which we are all so engaged today, is in itself a transparent and fully consultative process, as demonstrated by the several reports that the Committee has received on the compatibility of several clauses of the Bill with the refugee convention and other international obligations—including from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.
Clauses 27 to 35 are drafted to create clarity on what the key concepts of the refugee convention mean, driving improved consistency among Home Office decision makers and the courts, with the ultimate aim of making accurate, well-reasoned decisions quicker. That can only be beneficial for all who are involved with asylum seekers.
In the light of the points that I have made, I hope that hon. Members will agree not to press these amendments going forward.
Stuart C. McDonald
I have not succeeded in what I wanted to do, which was to move beyond assertion that there is compliance with the refugee convention and to hear a little more about why the Government think that that is the case. I accept the point that different countries have slightly different interpretations of certain provisions; that is legitimate. But there are clear arguments that what the Government are doing in relation to the evidential threshold, their definition of “particular social group” and, in particular, their total rewriting of article 31 on immunity from penalties is inexcusable and way beyond any margin of appreciation that Governments enjoy. I tried. I failed. I will accept that. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Craig Whittaker
I beg to move amendment 76, in clause 70, page 58, line 34, after “Part” insert “and the following provisions”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 77.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments 77, 123, 191, 78 and 167.
Clause stand part.
Craig Whittaker
Amendments 76 to 78, which relate to clause 57—interpretation of part 4—will ensure that the regulation-making power in this clause will come into effect at Royal Assent to the Bill rather than two months after Royal Assent. This is to ensure that the regulations that will define “victim of slavery” and “victim of trafficking” have time to progress through Parliament and themselves come into force by the time the remaining clauses relating to modern slavery commence. As currently drafted, clauses 16, 17 and 23 come into force two months after Royal Assent. Amendment 123 ensures that these clauses, which relate to priority removal notices, come into force by commencement regulations aligning with other provisions relating to priority removal notices. This is to ensure that all provisions relating to priority removal notices can commence simultaneously.
Amendment 191 removes the commencement provision regarding clause 42, as the clause is intended to be replaced entirely by new clause 20. Amendment 167 removes the commencement provisions regarding marker clauses 58 to 61—about age assessments, processing of visa applications from nationals of certain countries, electronic travel authorisations and the Special Immigration Appeals Commission—as these clauses have been removed and replaced by substantive clauses.
Clause 70 sets out the commencement of the clauses in the Bill. As currently drafted, the majority of the provisions in the Bill will be brought into force by regulations on a day appointed by the Secretary of State, with the exception of those in part 6, which commence on Royal Assent, as is usual, and those that come into force two months after Royal Assent.
Amendment 76 agreed to.
Amendment made: 77, in clause 70, page 58, line 34, at end insert—
“(a) section 57 (interpretation of Part 4), for the purposes of making regulations under that section;” —(Craig Whittaker.)
This amendment brings the power to make regulations defining “victim of slavery” and “victim of human trafficking” into force on the day on which the Act receives Royal Assent.
Craig Whittaker
I beg to move Government amendment 121, in clause 70, page 58, line 34, at end insert—
“(b) section (Notice of decision to deprive a person of citizenship)(1) and (5) to (7) (effect of failure to give notice of pre-commencement decision to deprive a person of citizenship);”
This amendment brings subsections (1) and (5) to (7) of NC19 (concerning the effect of a failure to give notice of a pre-commencement decision to deprive a person of citizenship) into force on the day on which the Bill receives Royal Assent.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 122.
Government new clause 19—Notice of decision to deprive a person of citizenship—
Craig Whittaker
New clause 19 allows the Secretary of State to amend section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 to permit that in certain limited circumstances a notice of deprivation does not have to be given to the person concerned, either where there is no way of communicating with them or where to make contact would disclose sensitive intelligence sources. To deprive someone of British citizenship is very serious and is rightly reserved for those whose conduct involves very high harm or who obtained their citizenship by fraudulent means. However, it cannot be right that the proper functioning of the immigration and nationality system grinds to a halt because an individual has removed themselves from contact with the Home Office, there is otherwise no other method of communication, or because our knowledge of a person’s whereabouts comes from sensitive intelligence sources which we do not wish to disclose.
Stuart C. McDonald
I will not say too much, because I need to give new clause 19 further consideration and to speak with stakeholders about it. Circumstances in which service is difficult because a person is out of contact happen pretty regularly in legal disputes that go through the courts. Rather than just shortcutting by having no procedure at all, what happens is that an alternative method is proposed, such as displaying a notice in newspapers. That was back in the old days; I assume that things have moved online since the dim and distant past when I was a practising solicitor. I wonder if there is a better way that does not result in someone being deprived of citizenship—which, as the Minister said, is a very serious matter—without any procedure having been followed at all.
It is controversial to retrospectively decide that decisions to deprive people of nationality are fine, even though they may not have complied with the laws that were in force at that time. Although provisions of this sort are necessary, I still have concerns that the circumstances in which no service would be required are drawn too broadly and that there may be other ways of doing this that do not undermine the clauses, without depriving people of having notice altogether. I leave it at that just now.
Amendment 121 agreed to.
Amendments made: 122, in clause 70, page 58, line 36, at end insert—
“(za) section (Notice of decision to deprive a person of citizenship)(2) to (4) (modifications of duty to give notice of decision to deprive a person of citizenship);”.
This amendment brings subsections (2) to (4) of NC19 (modifying the duty to give notice of a decision to deprive a person of citizenship) into force two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
Amendment 123, in clause 70, page 58, line 37, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment will secure that clauses 16, 17 and 23 of the Bill (evidence in asylum or human rights claims) will be brought into force by regulations rather than coming into force automatically two months after Royal Assent to the Bill.
Amendment 124, in clause 70, page 59, line 2, at end insert—
“(fa) section (Working in United Kingdom waters: arrival and entry), for the purposes of making regulations;”.
This amendment brings NC20 into force, for the purposes of making regulations (under the new section 11B for the Immigration Act 1971), two months after Royal Assent to the Bill. The rest of the clause will be brought into force by regulations.
Amendment 191, in clause 70, page 59, line 4, leave out paragraph (h).
This amendment is consequential on the amendment removing clause 42 from the Bill.
Amendment 78, in clause 70, page 59, line 5, leave out paragraph (i).—(Craig Whittaker.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 77.
Craig Whittaker
I beg to move amendment 79, in clause 70, page 59, line 6, at end insert—
“(ia) section (Counter-terrorism questioning of detained entrants away from place of arrival) (counter-terrorism questioning of detained entrants away from place of arrival);”.
This amendment provides for NC12 to come into force two months after Royal Assent to the Bill.
Craig Whittaker
Under schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act 2000, counter-terrorism police have the power to stop, question and if necessary, detain and search individuals travelling through UK port and border areas for the purposes of determining whether a person is or has been involved in terrorism. Currently, officers may exercise schedule 7 powers only when an individual is located within a port or border area and their presence in such an area is as a result of them entering or leaving the UK.
The rise in numbers of those attempting to cross the channel illegally, particularly via small boats, means it is impractical to keep large numbers of people, some of whom are minors or in need of medical assistance, at a port or piece of coastline without adequate facilities. Transporting these individuals to locations once they have been detained or arrested under the immigration Acts often means that examining them under schedule 7 is not possible as they are no longer within a port.
New clause 12 seeks to extend the scope of schedule 7 so that individuals who are in detention under immigration provisions are eligible for examination at the location they are taken to following their initial apprehension under immigration powers. Individuals at these locations will be eligible for examination, provided the officer believes they arrived by sea, were apprehended under the immigration Acts within 24 hours of their arrival and it has been no more than five days since they were apprehended. The full suite of powers and safeguards under schedule 7 will apply, including access to legal advice for those detained over an hour. In line with amendment 79, the new clause will come into force two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent.
The new clause will add a further layer to protect our national security by ensuring those who arrive in the UK illegally by sea can be examined for the purpose of determining their involvement in terrorist activity under the same power as if they had passed through conventional border controls.
Amendment 79 agreed to.
Amendments made: 167, in clause 70, page 59, line 7, leave out paragraph (j)
This amendment is consequential on the amendments removing Clauses 58 to 61 of the Bill.
Amendment 168, in clause 70, page 59, line 7, at end insert—
“(ja) section (Interpretation of Part etc) (1) to (4) (interpretation of Part 3A);
(jb) section (Use of scientific methods in age assessments)(1) to (3) and (8) (regulations about use of scientific methods in age assessments);
(jc) section (Regulations about age assessments) (regulations about age assessments);”
This amendment means that amendment NC33 (regulations about age assessments), and the regulation-making power in amendment NC32, will be commenced automatically, two months after Royal Assent, as will the clause that defines certain terms used in the regulation-making power.
Amendment 80, in clause 70, page 59, line 7, at end insert—
“(ja) sections (Removals from the UK: visa penalties for uncooperative countries) and (Visa penalties: review and revocation) (visa penalties);”
This amendment provides for NC9 and NC10 to come into force two months after Royal Assent to the Bill.
Amendment 81, in clause 70, page 59, line 8, leave out paragraph (k) .—(Craig Whittaker.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 75.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move amendment 179, in clause 70, page 59, line 9, at end insert—
‘(5) Sections [Time limit on immigration detention], [Initial detention: criteria and duration] and [Bail hearings] come into force six months after the day on which this Act is passed.“
This amendment would bring NC38, NC39 and NC40 into force six months after the day on which the Bill is passed.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 38—Time limit on immigration detention—
“(1) This section applies to any person (“P”) who is liable to detention under a relevant detention power.
(2) P may not be detained under a relevant detention power for a period of more than 28 days from the relevant time.
(3) If P remains detained under a relevant detention power at the expiry of the period of 28 days then—
(a) P shall be released forthwith; and
(b) P may not be detained under a relevant detention power thereafter, unless the Secretary of State or an immigration officer, as the case may be, is satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances since P’s release and that the criteria in section [Initial detention: criteria and duration](1) are met.
(4) In this section, “relevant detention power” means a power to detain under—
(a) paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal);
(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (detention pending deportation);
(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal); or
(d) section 36(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007 (detention pending deportation).
(5) In this section, “relevant time” means the time at which P is first detained under a relevant detention power.
(6) This section does not apply to a person in respect of whom the Secretary of State has certified that the decision to detain is or was taken in the interests of national security.”
This new clause would prevent people who are liable to detention under a relevant power from being detained for longer than 28 days.
New clause 39—Initial detention: criteria and duration—
“(1) A person (“P”) to whom section [Time limit on immigration detention] applies may not be detained under a relevant detention power other than for the purposes of examination, unless the Secretary of State or an immigration officer, as the case may be, is satisfied that—
(a) P can be shortly removed from the United Kingdom;
(b) detention is strictly necessary to effect P’s deportation or removal from the United Kingdom; and
(c) the detention of P is in all the circumstances proportionate.
(2) P may not be detained under a relevant detention power for a period of more than 96 hours from the relevant time, unless—
(a) P has been refused bail at an initial bail hearing in accordance with subsection (5)(b) of section [Bail hearings]; or
(b) the Secretary of State has arranged a reference to the Tribunal for consideration of whether to grant immigration bail to P in accordance with subsection (2)(c) of section [Bail hearings] and that hearing has not yet taken place.
(3) Nothing in subsections (1) or (2) authorises the Secretary of State to detain P under a relevant detention power if such detention would, apart from this section, be unlawful.
(4) In this section, “Tribunal” means the First-Tier Tribunal.
(5) In this section, “relevant detention power” and “relevant time” have the meanings given in section [Time limit on immigration detention].”
This new clause sets out the circumstances in which a person to whom NC38 applies may be held in initial detention, and the maximum duration of such detention.
New clause 40—Bail hearings—
“(1) This section applies to any person (“P”) to whom section [Time limit on immigration detention] applies and who is detained under a relevant detention power.
(2) Before the expiry of a period of 96 hours from the relevant time, the Secretary of State must—
(a) release P;
(b) grant immigration bail to P under paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016; or
(c) arrange a reference to the Tribunal for consideration of whether to grant immigration bail to P.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), when the Secretary of State arranges a reference to the Tribunal under subsection (2)(c), the Tribunal must hold an oral hearing (“an initial bail hearing”) which must commence within 24 hours of the time at which the reference is made.
(4) If the period of 24 hours in subsection (3) ends on a Saturday, Sunday or Bank holiday, the Tribunal must hold an initial bail hearing on the next working day.
(5) At the initial bail hearing, the Tribunal must—
(a) grant immigration bail to P under paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016; or
(b) refuse to grant immigration bail to P.
(6) Subject to subsection (7), the Tribunal must grant immigration bail to P at a bail hearing unless it is satisfied that the Secretary of State has established that the criteria in subsection 1 of section [Initial detention: criteria and duration] are met and that, in addition—
(a) directions have been given for P’s removal from the United Kingdom and such removal is to take place within 14 days;
(b) a travel document is available for the purposes of P’s removal or deportation; and
(c) there are no outstanding legal barriers to removal.
(7) Subsection (6) does not apply if the Tribunal is satisfied that the Secretary of State has established that the criteria in subsection 1 of section [Initial detention: criteria and duration] above are met and that there are very exceptional circumstances which justify maintaining detention.
(8) In subsection (6), “a bail hearing” includes—
(a) an initial bail hearing under subsection (2); and
(b) the hearing of an application for immigration bail under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016.
(9) In this section, “Tribunal” means the First-Tier Tribunal.
(10) The Secretary of State shall provide to P or to P’s legal representative, not more than 24 hours after the relevant time, copies of all documents in the Secretary of State’s possession which are relevant to the decision to detain.
(11) At the initial bail hearing, the Tribunal shall not consider any documents relied upon by the Secretary of State which were not provided to P or to P’s legal representative in accordance with subsection (10), unless—
(a) P consents to the documents being considered; or
(b) in the opinion of the Tribunal there is a good reason why the documents were not provided to P or to P’s legal representative in accordance with subsection (10).
(12) The Immigration Act 2016 is amended as follows—
(a) After paragraph 12(4) of schedule 10 insert—
“(4A) Sub-paragraph (2) above does not apply if the refusal of bail by the First tier Tribunal took place at an initial bail hearing within the meaning of section [Bail hearings] of the Sovereign Borders Act 2021.”.”
In respect of people to whom NC38 applies, this new clause would require the Secretary of State to either release them, grant immigration bail or arrange a reference to the Tribunal within 96 hours.
Stuart C. McDonald
This group of amendments and new clauses is not new. It was proposed in similar words in the most recent immigration Bill by, I think, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), but I may be wrong. No Bill passes through this Parliament on immigration and nationality law that does not include amendments and debate about immigration detention. Perhaps, after the last couple of years, Members are more than ever acutely aware that the deprivation of people’s freedoms is keenly felt and should not occur without evidence as to its necessity.
We are talking here about the deprivation of liberty not because people have committed a crime but, essentially, for the convenience of the Home Office. The new clauses contain measures to end what is indefinite detention in the UK, whatever the Home Office says to the contrary, and to implement a workable system that ensures detention is used only as a last resort to effect lawful removals from the UK. That is what the situation should be. The existing power to detain without prior judicial authority would be retained but there would be important safeguards: a 28-day time limit, judicial oversight by way of bail hearings after 96 hours with clear criteria for continued detention and re-detention only when there is a material change in status or circumstances.
Immigration detention has declined over the last several years, which is very welcome. Nevertheless, there is no release date for immigration detainees, which is incredibly severe, particularly in terms of mental ill health. Although numbers have been falling, the length of time that people are detained has not fallen. The fact of falling numbers does not reduce the need for a time limit. We are talking about several thousand individuals leaving detention every year who have been detained for longer than 28 days and hundreds who have been detained for more than six months. In a minority of cases, detention lasts for years rather than months.
Why 28 days? It is not a number that has been pulled from thin air. It is already in Home Office guidance, which requires caseworkers to consider whether removal is imminent and goes on to define imminence in the following terms:
“Removal could be said to be imminent where a travel document exists, removal directions are set there are no outstanding legal barriers and removal is likely to take place in the next four weeks.”
This is a recommendation that has been made by many organisations with expertise in the area, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Home Affairs Committee, the Bar Council and the all-party parliamentary groups on refugees and on migration.
Paul Blomfield
As vice-chair of the inquiry to which the hon. Gentleman referred, may I ask whether he will add the House of Commons to the list of those bodies that have endorsed this? When our recommendation was considered on a votable motion in a Backbench Business debate, it was approved by the House.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and the other hon. Members involved for their work on that report, which was incredibly thorough. We then had a Backbench Business debate and the Government did not oppose it, because there was clearly a majority in the House of Commons at that time for such a time limit.
Finally, I want to say why 28 days should be the limit. There is a body of evidence that the effect of indefinite detention on mental health in general is very negative, but that after a month the deterioration is particularly significant. We recognise that there will be a minority of cases where people will try to play the system and use the time limit to frustrate lawful removal, but the amendment allows for re-detention if there is a material change in status or circumstances. Other sanctions are also open to the Government in such circumstances.
If none of that appeals to the Government, I will briefly mention the argument that consistently over half those detained are then released into the community, so it is a completely inefficient system that costs an absolute fortune. There are alternatives that are not only better for the individuals concerned, but easier on the taxpayer. I hope the Government will give serious thought to the amendments. The issue has been championed by Members of all parties for a considerable period. It is now time to see a step change in the Government’s approach to the use of immigration detention.
Craig Whittaker
I want to be clear from the outset that this Government’s position is that a time limit on detention simply will not work and will not be effective in ensuring that those with no right to be here in the UK leave.
Paul Blomfield
One of the issues highlighted by the report referred to by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, which had genuine cross-party engagement, was that the UK is an outlier in having no limits on detention. Every other country in Europe has a limit. Why does the Minister think it will not work here?
Craig Whittaker
Our immigration system must encourage compliance with immigration rules and protect the public. Those who have no right to be in the UK should leave voluntarily, but where the opportunities to do so are not taken, we have to operate a system to enable us to enforce removal and deport foreign national offenders who would otherwise remain in the UK.
I also want to be clear that we do not and cannot detain people indefinitely. It is not lawfully possible to do so.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Home Office repeatedly asserts that it is not indefinite detention, but can the Minister tell me what is the definite time limit on a person’s detention?
Craig Whittaker
I think what the hon. Member has asked me to do is put a time limit on this, and I have already said clearly that just does not work. We have a duty to those in the immigration system, but we have a duty to protect the public too. The introduction of a 28-day detention time limit would severely limit our ability to remove those who refuse to leave voluntarily, and would encourage and reward abuse, to answer the question raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central, in some cases from individuals who present a genuine threat to the public, which is not the effect I consider the hon. Members intend with new clause 38.
Anne McLaughlin
Does the Minister not think that if someone represents a threat to the public, they would be in jail? If they are not in jail, there is no evidence that they represent a threat to the public.
Craig Whittaker
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, but we are talking about those who are a threat to the public. We have to have a duty of care. In fact, the first role of the Government is to protect their own citizens.
New clause 38 would allow those who wish to frustrate the removal process to run down the clock, in answer to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, until the time limit is reached and release is guaranteed. It would encourage late and opportunistic claims to be made simply to push them over the 28-day limit.
New clauses 38 to 40 are at total odds with the main objectives of the Bill, which will streamline the asylum process, ensuring that outstanding claims and appeals are dealt with much more effectively, with access to legal advice, while enabling us to remove more easily those with no lawful right to remain in the UK. In summary, it is the firm view of this Government that the introduction of a time limit would significantly impair the UK’s ability to proportionately and efficiently remove individuals who have no right to be here and who, in some cases, represent a significant danger to the public. I therefore respectfully ask the hon. Member to withdraw the amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald
I do not know where to start with that response, although it is very similar to those we have had in previous debates. The bogey card is always that foreign national offenders are a serious risk, yet the Government have the power to deport folk straight from prison. That is the power they should use in those situations.
What we are talking about, very often, is people who have committed no crime, or represent absolutely no risk to the public. They are detained for extraordinary periods of time, and face extraordinary hardship. Anyone reading the report by Stephen Shaw, commissioned by the former Home Secretary and former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), will see what it does to people. There is also the APPG report, which has already been referred to.
The idea that these amendments somehow undermine the Government’s ability to enforce immigration rules is completely at odds with the evidence from around Europe. Other countries have at least as much success—and often far greater success—in enforcing immigration rules and getting people to leave the country if they have no leave, without having to resort to endless and routine immigration detention. For all those reasons, I very much regret what we have heard from the Minister. However, I will not put the amendment to a vote today; we shall keep that for another time. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Ordered, That further consideration be now adjourned. —(Paul Holmes.)
Nationality and Borders Bill (Fifteenth sitting)
Thursday 4th November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 4 November 2021 - (4 Nov 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 9 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 2 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 6 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. We enter the final lap. I have the usual announcements: electronic devices off, please, and no food or drink. Mr Speaker requests that Members wear face coverings as a courtesy to others; they are for the protection of others, not for the protection of yourself. I am not a terribly good example, but I cannot breathe with a mask on. Hon. Members are also asked to take covid lateral flow tests twice a week if coming on to the estate. I do not know whether hon. Members have done that; it might be a good thing to do before we depart for a week. Finally, Hansard would appreciate speaking notes.
New Clause 6
Expedited appeals: joining of related appeals
“(1) For the purposes of this section, an ‘expedited section 82 appeal’ is an expedited appeal within the meaning of section 82A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (expedited appeals for claims brought on or after PRN cut-off date).
(2) For the purposes of this section, a ‘related appeal’ is an appeal under any of the following—
(a) section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (appeals in respect of protection and human rights claims), other than one which is an expedited section 82 appeal;
(b) section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 (appeal against deprivation of citizenship);
(c) the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/61) (appeal rights in respect of EU citizens’ rights immigration decisions etc);
(d) regulation 36 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (S.I. 2016/1052) (appeals against EEA decisions) as it continues to have effect following its revocation.
(3) If a person brings an expedited section 82 appeal at a time when a related appeal brought by that person is pending, the related appeal is, from that time, to be continued as an appeal to the Upper Tribunal and accordingly is to be transferred to the Upper Tribunal.
(4) If an expedited section 82 appeal brought by a person is pending, any right that the person would otherwise have to bring a related appeal to the First-tier Tribunal is instead a right to bring it to the Upper Tribunal.
(5) A related appeal within subsection (3) or brought to the Upper Tribunal as mentioned in (4) is referred to in this section as an ‘expedited related appeal’.
(6) Tribunal Procedure Rules must make provision with a view to securing that the Upper Tribunal consolidates an expedited related appeal and the expedited section 82 appeal concerned or hears them together (and see section 82A(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002).
(7) Tribunal Procedure Rules must secure that the Upper Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice in the case of a particular expedited related appeal to do so, order that the appeal is to be continued as an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal and accordingly is to be transferred to that Tribunal.
(8) For the purposes of this section, an appeal is ‘pending’—
(a) in the case of an appeal under section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (including an expedited section 82 appeal), if it is pending within the meaning of section 104 of that Act;
(b) in the case of an appeal under section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981, during the period—
(i) beginning when it is instituted, and
(ii) ending when it is finally determined or withdrawn;
(c) in the case of an appeal under the Immigration Citizens’ Rights Appeals (EU Exit) Regulations 2020, if it is pending within the meaning of regulation 13 of those Regulations;
(d) in the case of an appeal under the regulation 36 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016, if it is pending within the meaning of Part 6 of those Regulations (see regulation 35).
(9) In section 13(8) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (decisions excluded from right to appeal to the Court of Appeal), after paragraph (bza) (inserted by section 21) insert—
‘(bzb) any decision of the Upper Tribunal on an expedited related appeal within the meaning given by section (Expedited appeals: joining of related appeals) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2021 (expedited appeals against refusal of protection claim or human rights claim: joining of related appeals),’.”—(Tom Pursglove.)
This new clause (to be inserted after clause 21) provides that where a person brings an appeal under section 82 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 that is subject to the expedited procedure under the new section 82A of that Act, certain other appeals brought by that person are also to be subject to the expedited procedure.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would be inserted after clause 21. It forms part of a package of measures that will enable the swift removal of those who have no right to be in the UK. It complements clause 21 by ensuring that individuals cannot utilise the appeals system as a tool to delay their removal from the UK.
Frequently, those facing removal or deportation from the UK utilise delay tactics, such as late claims and repeated appeals, to thwart removal action. That leads to unnecessary costs to the taxpayer and an increased burden on the court and tribunals system. Clause 21 addresses that issue by creating a new expedited appeal for late human rights or protection claims brought by recipients of a priority removal notice, as provided by clause 18. Expedited appeals will be determined quickly, and the decisions of the upper tribunal will be final. Therefore, clause 21 removes the incentive for bringing claims late and protects the appeal system from abuse.
However, there may be additional appeal rights generated by other claims that individuals may seek to exercise in parallel with an expedited appeal. Such additional appeals would usually be heard in the first tier tribunal. Consequently, an expedited appeal may conclude while an individual has an outstanding appeal in the first tier tribunal, which would prevent their removal from the UK.
New clause 6 enables other appeals in the first tier tribunal brought by a person with an expedited appeal to be heard and determined by the upper tribunal alongside the expedited appeal. That will ensure that, following the conclusion of the expedited process, final determination will have been made on the appellant’s right to remain in the UK and, where the upper tribunal decides that they have no right to remain, removal action can take place.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I welcome the Minister back to his place. I do not follow the logic of the new clause at all. If somebody is trying to play the system—and I do not like talking in those terms—surely all they need to do is not make a late claim in terms of the PRN notice; then, their existing appeal would proceed normally, with onward rights of appeal and so on. This proposal just does not make sense, even if we accept the Government’s logic, which I do not.
Tom Pursglove
The point is exactly as I have set out: in the immigration system, we see repeated appeals deliberately designed to frustrate the system, and the new clause is an appropriate way, with appropriate safeguards, to ensure that the tribunal process can handle those appeals appropriately. It makes sense for appeals to be considered together so that attempts to frustrate the removal process cannot happen and cases are determined as quickly as possible. As I say, there are appropriate judicial safeguards in place in the tribunal process to ensure that appeals are heard appropriately and are directed through the appropriate tribunal. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Stuart C. McDonald
Briefly, there are two reasons why I do not think this new clause makes any sense at all. First, there is the point that I just alluded to. The danger is that if someone who has a PRN served on them is contemplating disclosing further information or making a claim and the deadline passes, and they are acting in the way that the Minister wants to get at here and trying to “play the system”, they will simply not make that disclosure. Their existing claims will proceed to appeal through the normal channels, to a first tier tribunal with onward appeal rights. So the proposals do not make sense, even by the Government’s own logic. Can the Minister address that?
Secondly, we object to the new clause from a point of principle. The rare occasions when I would accept that an expedited appeals process can be justified are where the justifications relate solely to manifestly unfounded or repeat claims, but that is not what this is about; this is about expediting appeals and rights to appeal, but not because of the substance of the appeal—it has absolutely nothing to do with the merits of the claim or the related appeal at all. So the proposals make no sense from the point of view of principle, as well as being rather illogical.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
Again, briefly, I agree with everything the Scottish National party spokesperson, the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East, has just said. We do not know at what stage the other appeal will be; it may not be ready to be heard. One problem we have in this country is the delay in the appeals processes because of severe underfunding in our court and tribunal systems, so it seems that the new clause will not work.
The new clause will also cause more problems than it solves. I am not sure that there is a huge problem with multiple outstanding appeals in any event, but the new clause could actually make things worse. If the intention in the Bill is to provide fairness, the new clause will not achieve that, because speeding up an appeal could cause unfairness. So for the reasons outlined by the SNP spokesperson we will not support the new clause.
Tom Pursglove
The bottom line is that we simply disagree on this matter. Clause 21 ensures that appeals relating to late human rights or protection claims are dealt with expeditiously, with decisions by the upper tribunal being final. This provides appellants with a swift determination of their claim. It also disincentives late claims and seeks to prevent sequential or multiple appeals from being utilised as a tactic to thwart removal.
However, the Government recognise that in certain circumstances an individual may exercise other appeal rights, in parallel with their expedited appeal. This could give rise to a situation whereby a person has an appeal in a first tier tribunal and an expedited appeal in the upper tribunal. Consequently, the expedited appeal may conclude while an individual has an outstanding appeal in a first tier tribunal. If the appellant was unsuccessful in their expedited appeal, the ongoing appeal in the first tier tribunal would prevent their removal from the UK. This outcome is undesirable and undermines the Government’s intention to disincentivise late claims by ensuring that appeals relating to such claims are determined quickly and conclusively.
The new clause ensures that where a person has an expedited appeal, any related appeal will also be subject to the same expedited process. Therefore, following the conclusion of the expedited process, the appellant’s right to remain in the UK will be determined with finality and, where an individual has no right to remain in the UK, removal action can take place. That is the logical and sensible approach that we propose to take.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 6 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
The Chair
Let me explain the process from now on for about the next 10 minutes. We now come to a sequence of Government new clauses, all of which have been debated already with other clauses or amendments. I shall say to the Minister, “Will the Minister move formally?” The Minister, being obedient, will say, “Moved formally.” The Clerk will then read the title of the clause and I will put the questions that it be read a second time and that it be added to the Bill. I gently suggest to the Opposition that there is not much point in calling a Division on both those questions—you can, but it will take a lot longer. Let us see how we get on.
New Clause 7
Accelerated detained appeals
“(1) In this section ‘accelerated detained appeal’ means a relevant appeal (see subsection (6)) brought—
(a) by a person who—
(i) was detained under a relevant detention provision (see subsection (7)) at the time at which they were given notice of the decision which is the subject of the appeal, and
(ii) remains in detention under a relevant detention provision, and
(b) against a decision that—
(i) is of a description prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State, and
(ii) when made, was certified by the Secretary of State under this section.
(2) The Secretary of State may only certify a decision under this section if the Secretary of State considers that any relevant appeal brought in relation to the decision would likely be disposed of expeditiously.
(3) Tribunal Procedure Rules must secure that the following time limits apply in relation to an accelerated detained appeal—
(a) any notice of appeal must be given to the First-tier Tribunal not later than 5 working days after the date on which the appellant was given notice of the decision against which the appeal is brought;
(b) the First-tier Tribunal must make a decision on the appeal, and give notice of that decision to the parties, not later than 25 working days after the date on which the appellant gave notice of appeal to the tribunal;
(c) any application (whether to the First-tier Tribunal or the Upper Tribunal) for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal must be determined by the tribunal concerned not later than 20 working days after the date on which the applicant was given notice of the First-tier Tribunal’s decision.
(4) A relevant appeal ceases to be an accelerated detained appeal on the appellant being released from detention under any relevant detention provision.
(5) Tribunal Procedure Rules must secure that the First-tier Tribunal or (as the case may be) the Upper Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice in a particular case to do so, order that a relevant appeal is to cease to be an accelerated detained appeal.
(6) For the purposes of this section, a ‘relevant appeal’ is an appeal to the First-tier Tribunal under any of the following—
(a) section 82(1) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (appeals in respect of protection and human rights claims);
(b) section 40A of the British Nationality Act 1981 (appeal against deprivation of citizenship);
(c) the Immigration (Citizens’ Rights Appeals) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020 (S.I. 2020/61) (appeal rights in respect of EU citizens’ rights immigration decisions etc);
(d) regulation 36 of the Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 (S.I. 2016/1052) (appeals against EEA decisions) as it continues to have effect following its revocation.
(7) For the purposes of this section, a ‘relevant detention provision’ is any of the following—
(a) paragraph 16(1), (1A) or (2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal);
(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (detention pending deportation);
(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal);
(d) section 36(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007 (detention pending deportation).
(8) In this section ‘working day’ means any day except—
(a) a Saturday or Sunday, Christmas Day, Good Friday or 26 to 31 December, and
(b) any day that is a bank holiday under section 1 of the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971 in the part of the United Kingdom where the appellant concerned is detained.
(9) Regulations under this section are subject to negative resolution procedure.”—(Tom Pursglove.)
This new clause expands the categories of immigration appeals that can be subject to the accelerated detained appeals process that was introduced by clause 24.
Brought up, and read the First and Second time.
Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill.
Bambos Charalambous
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 1 would lift the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme’s limit of 5,000 people per year. The Labour party wants to see the removal of the 5,000 person limit and the opening of safe routes for refugees fleeing the Taliban. In the summer, the humanitarian crisis in Afghanistan captured the world’s attention, as images of thousands of Afghans, desperate but also determined to escape the Taliban’s grip on the country, dominated the media. As the UK has been one of the countries most directly involved in Afghanistan for the last two decades, the British public’s reaction to the refugees’ plight was one of compassion and benevolence. Hundreds offered hospitality, and many more donated support to arriving newcomers.
The Government reacted instantly to the public’s demand for welcome and refuge by announcing the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, offering refuge in the UK to 5,000 Afghans, up to a total of 20,000 in the long term. The Prime Minister also promised to house a town’s worth of refugees, while the Home Secretary rushed to Heathrow airport—along with news camera crews—to receive some of those airlifted out of Kabul, as the Government launched Operation Warm Welcome.
The Government believe that Britain’s bespoke scheme for Afghan refugees is one of the most generous in the country’s history, and the Home Secretary has argued that it is not possible to take in any more refugees. In truth, the Government’s response to the Afghan catastrophe is hardly generous. The idea of a fixed quota for refugees in such emergencies is meaningless. The figure of 5,000 meets the Government’s political needs rather than the needs of those on the ground in Afghanistan. I note that in the new plan for immigration, the Government seem very happy to welcome up to 5 million Hongkongers via the British national overseas scheme, which I will address later.
Although we welcome the commitment to provide 5,000 places to Afghan refugees through the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, the scheme appears to be a carbon copy of the Syrian vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. The difference is that while the Syrian scheme placed people who were already in refugee camps in Turkey and Jordan—a position of relative safety that made it easier to process and admit them—in this case, many have fled Afghanistan to neighbouring countries in fear for their lives, or are in hiding in Afghanistan, where they live in fear.
Just yesterday, a constituent of mine, whose sister had run a school teaching girls and had campaigned for free elections and women’s rights in Afghanistan, told me that her sister’s friend had been found and murdered, and that her sister was in hiding with her husband, petrified about what could happen to her. Despite being told by the Foreign Office to go to Kabul airport, some Chevening scholars and people who had helped the British military were prevented from getting on any flights out of the country. The problem is that some of those people who are trapped in Afghanistan are at high risk and may not survive until the end of the year, let alone the four years the scheme is meant to run. The scheme is not even open yet; two months down the line from the fiasco of the chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, we are no closer to finding out any details of the scheme.
From what I understand, the Government control who does and does not have access to the scheme, so they will choose who makes it on to the scheme. They also control the numbers, but an arbitrary annual cap of 5,000 people is meaningless and could cost lives if stuck to rigidly. In the Government’s response to the new plan for immigration consultation, the section entitled, “Protecting those fleeing persecution, oppression, and tyranny”, states:
“The Government will pilot an Emergency Resettlement Mechanism, starting in the autumn, to enable refugees in urgent need to be resettled more quickly so that life-saving protection is provided in weeks rather than months. Beyond this, the Government will provide more flexibility to help people in truly exceptional and compelling circumstances by using the Home Secretary’s discretion to provide rapid assistance.”
The Government have failed to live up to those words because life-saving protection was not provided in weeks, but months, and there is no sign of rapid assistance.
If the arbitrary annual limit of 5,000 people is reached, Afghans who helped the UK military and who have been able to escape Afghanistan could arrive seeking protection in the UK only to be treated like criminals for how they have arrived. It is worth noting that the Government’s advice to Afghans was to leave Afghanistan when they ran out of time for flights to the UK in August. Under the Bill, they would be penalised if they came to the UK via irregular routes. That would plainly be wrong and inhumane, and the Government could avoid that by having no cap on the resettlement scheme.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Halifax for tabling new clause 1 and providing the Committee with this opportunity to consider placing the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme on a statutory footing and lifting the 5,000 person limit for the first year.
The UK has a proud history of supporting those in need of protection, and I understand the concerns that Members of the House have about the plight of people from Afghanistan. During Operation Pitting, the Government and military worked around the clock to airlift about 15,000 people out of Afghanistan—the biggest airlift from a single country for a generation. The Government have relocated thousands of people who loyally served our military in Afghanistan, and we continue to help more.
In addition, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme is one of the most ambitious resettlement schemes in our country’s history. It will give up to 20,000 people at risk a new life in the UK. Our current schemes are non-legislative, operating outside the immigration rules and on a discretionary basis. Operating in this way has seen us resettle over 25,000 vulnerable people since 2015. Placing the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme on a statutory footing would make it less flexible and less able to respond to changing circumstances internationally.
A huge programme of work, called Operation Warm Welcome, is under way across the whole of Government to ensure that Afghans evacuated to the UK receive the vital support they need. This work, overseen by the Minister for Afghan Resettlement, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), spans different Government Departments, charities, non-governmental organisations, local authorities and communities. The aim is to ensure that Afghans can be properly supported as they rebuild their lives in the UK, while also ensuring that local services are not put under undue strain. The support being provided is similar to that of the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme in response to the conflict in Syria, to ensure that people get the vital healthcare, education, support into employment and accommodation they need to fully integrate into society.
There are many who need our protection, and the UK plays a leading role as one of the world’s largest refugee resettlement states. However, regrettably the UK is not able to provide protection to everyone, and it is essential that any decisions regarding the number of people we resettle take into consideration our capacity to support people to rebuild their lives in the UK. We are clear that the number of people we can resettle depends on a variety of factors, including local authorities’ capacity.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I just want to pick up on the Minister’ point, which he has made time and again, about the UK leading on resettlement. Does he accept the figures that show that since the start of 2020, the UK has resettled 1,991 refugees, according to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees? That is less than France, less than half the number for Germany, and about a quarter of the number for Sweden. In what way is that a leading role?
Tom Pursglove
I think it is fair to say that this country historically has had a leading role in resettling refugees, and the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we have debated this many times during the course of this Committee’s proceedings, and I have referred to the figure of 25,000 people on several occasions. I am confident that that proud tradition will continue. I am not privy to the figures that he has just cited, but I make the point that we have also been in a pandemic, which clearly has had knock-on effects across life and society in our country and in the international environment.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
It sounded as though the hon. Member for Sheffield Central was asking for unfettered, uncontrolled, open-border access to this country. We have already had 20,000 illegal economic migrants crossing the English channel. I was down in Dover yesterday with Baroness Hoey, the former Labour Member of Parliament, and saw with utter shock the situation regarding the illegal attempts at crossing. Does the Minister agree that the hon. Gentleman’s words show that the Labour party is out of touch with what people want?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, and no doubt we will have a conversation about his visit to Dover.
Bambos Charalambous
As I mentioned in my speech, the Government chose who came into the UK through the voluntary resettlement scheme and they will do so under this scheme as well. Remarks about giving unfettered or unlimited access to everyone are therefore ludicrous, because the Government will be in control of who can enter the UK from Afghanistan through this scheme. To make such aspersions is clearly wrong and misleading.
Tom Pursglove
The shadow Minister interrupted me while I was responding to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North, and, of course, I was happy to take his intervention. The scheme we intend to bring forward is structured and it should not be seen in isolation in relation to Afghanistan. It is important to consider it in the context of the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, which has been invaluable and plays an important role in our efforts to provide sanctuary to those fleeing Afghanistan. That is very important to consider.
To continue with my point about the participation of civil society in community sponsorship, we have been working around the clock to stand up support with local authorities and to secure accommodation for the scheme. There is a huge effort under way to get families who have already been evacuated to the UK into permanent homes so that they can resettle and rebuild their lives. Clearly, we do not want families to remain in bridging accommodation for long periods, so it is sensible to have a limit on the number of places we offer on the scheme.
The new clause seeks to bring the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme into force within 30 days from the date of Royal Assent. We are working at pace to open the scheme, and the new clause would likely result in significant delays in resettling individuals under the scheme.
During the passage of the Bill, we have had many debates relating to Afghanistan. I said previously that I would ensure that the Minister for Afghan Resettlement was made aware of the Committee’s comments, and I will endeavour to do that again. It is important that all views are heard as we work at pace to shape this scheme and to make sure that we get it right, so that we are able to provide sanctuary to those to whom Members across the Committee and across the House want to provide it.
Previous schemes have not been delivered through legislation. I would argue that it is best to be responsive and flexible, and that not putting the scheme on a statutory basis has that effect. The shadow Minister used the word “rigid”. I would argue that not going down the statutory route ensures we can be flexible as to the evolving situation, and provide proper care and support to people who come here.
We want coming to the UK to be a positive and life-changing experience, and we want to provide sanctuary and care for those individuals. I am confident that that is precisely what we will do in delivering this scheme and that our country will be able to be incredibly proud of it. We owe it to those individuals to provide them with sanctuary, and that is precisely what we will do. With that, I ask the hon. Members to withdraw the new clause.
Bambos Charalambous
I am not convinced by the Minister’s arguments, which clearly amount to a new cap on immigration. I will repeat the number for the benefit of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North: there are 5 million people potentially eligible to come to the country via the British national overseas visa scheme; we are just asking that more than 5,000 people are able to come from Afghanistan. If that limit is rigidly applied, people’s lives could be in danger.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Bambos Charalambous
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Opposition urge the Government to adopt a mandatory dispersal and asylum accommodation scheme that will require all local authorities to contribute towards supporting asylum seekers and the Government to fully fund any additional expenditure for those authorities. Having listened to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North speak about his local authority taking its fair share of asylum seekers in dispersal asylum accommodation, I can honestly say that, on this and this alone, I agree with him, and I know he will have no difficulty in supporting our new clause.
Local authorities currently volunteer to participate in dispersal arrangements. The Home Secretary has reserve powers to ensure that local authorities co-operate in the provision of accommodation for asylum seekers through sections 100 and 101 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The current dispersal system is unfair and inefficient, with the majority of asylum seekers housed in disadvantaged local authority areas while dozens of councils support none. This has led to some councils that have been incredibly generous and kind in taking asylum seekers, such as that in the great city of Stoke-on-Trent, feeling undermined by councils that have not and threatening to leave the Government’s voluntary scheme.
In the Committee’s evidence session on 21 September, I asked the leaders of Kent County Council and Westminster City Council, Councillor Gough and Councillor Robathan, whether they thought that all councils should have to take their fair share of asylum seekers. Both agreed that they should as they spoke about the pressures on services for their local councils. In August, the Local Government Chronicle ran a story about council leaders demanding a fairer distribution of refugees, in which Coventry City Council leader George Duggins said:
“All local authorities need to take their fair share of the dispersal programme—no opting out, no excuses”.
It also included Walsall Council leader Mike Bird saying that the dispersal of asylum seekers was
“an issue for the whole of the country, not just the urban areas”,
and Stoke-on-Trent City Council leader Abi Brown, whom I am sure the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North will be familiar with, saying that it was “really sad” that many councils had still not pledged to take any Afghan refugees, adding:
“How do we counter this if there isn’t some national scheme?”
Jonathan Gullis
The hon. Gentleman rightly quotes the leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council. My hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent South (Jack Brereton) and for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Jo Gideon) and I agree that other parts of our United Kingdom should step up to the plate and do much more. I reiterate and put on the record that I support Stoke-on-Trent City Council, which is currently looking to withdraw from the voluntary dispersal scheme because it is unhappy with how it works at present. Therefore, while I have a lot of empathy with what the hon. Gentleman’s new clause seeks to do, I will—reluctantly, in some ways—not vote for it. However, I would absolutely like to work with the hon. Gentleman and Opposition and Government Members to make sure that the scheme becomes much fairer and works for other parts of our United Kingdom.
Bambos Charalambous
I look forward to having that conversation with the hon. Gentleman after the debate, because we need a fairer system; too much of the burden is clearly being put on some local authorities and not enough on others.
Local authorities are vital partners in providing suitable accommodation and support for people seeking asylum. The system works best when central Government, the devolved Governments and local government work together, alongside the voluntary sector and community groups. This requires local authorities to be fully on board with plans to accommodate people in their area. However, figures have shown that more than half of those seeking asylum or who have been brought to Britain for resettlement are accommodated by just 6% of local councils, all of which represent areas with below average household incomes.
Stuart C. McDonald
I have said a lot about asylum accommodation in previous years and months. I agree that there are huge problems with the asylum accommodation system, such as over-concentration, too often poor-quality accommodation, a lack of funding for the local authorities that actually step up to the plate and volunteer to undertake the task, and a lack of control and power for those local authorities. Too often they play second fiddle to the companies and organisations contracted to the Government.
I support broadening dispersal, but I am not on board at this stage with mandating it. Repeatedly, local authorities, whether in the west midlands, Glasgow or elsewhere, and other organisations such as the Home Affairs Committee, on which I sit—we have had a couple of reports on this issue—have listed all the things that the Home Office could engage with and undertake to improve the system. I know from speaking to authorities that if the Home Office did those things and increased the powers and financing of local authorities, more would come on board. If the Home Office did that, I do not think that mandation would be required.
If the Home Office fixes its end of the bargain and local authorities are still not getting on board, at that stage I would have no choice but to support mandation, but I do not think that we are at that stage yet. I, too, will quote Abi Brown, who was very measured in her comments when local authorities from the west midlands were writing to the Home Office. She said:
“This is about trying to open up a discussion about how the asylum dispersal system works. So far it’s been very frustrating trying to get the Home Office to engage with us on this issue. We want them to talk to us about how the system can be improved, and we’ve made a number of suggestions in the letter.”
She went on to say:
“This isn’t about party politics, it’s about parity.”
I absolutely agree with that. There is a growing consensus that the Home Office has to up its game on how the dispersal system works. That is what we have to look at, rather than mandating local authorities.
Tom Pursglove
I agree with some of the intention behind new clause 2. It is right that all parts of the UK make a reasonable contribution to ensuring that adequate accommodation is available for asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute, but it is important to recognise that not every area of the UK has appropriate services or affordable accommodation to appropriately support them. Additionally, some local authorities have very few asylum seekers accommodated by the Home Office in their areas but support large numbers of other migrants. For example, the Home Office does not accommodate many adult asylum seekers and their children in Kent or Croydon, but both local authorities support large numbers of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
It is also important to note that not all asylum seekers are accommodated by the Home Office. The proportion varies over time, but historically around 50% find accommodation with friends or family. That group often live in areas where there are few supported asylum seekers, but they still require access to the same health and education services. It is not therefore sensible to have a rigid set of rules that require destitute asylum seekers to be accommodated in areas in direct proportion to the population of those places. The other factors that I have described must be taken into consideration.
Since the introduction of part 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, successive Governments have employed a policy of seeking the agreement of local authorities prior to placing asylum seekers within an area. However, the legislation does not provide local authorities with a veto on the placement of asylum seekers in their areas. If a local authority objects to proposals by our providers to use accommodation not previously used to house asylum seekers, the Home Office can consider and adjudicate on the matter.
A lot of work has none the less been done on increasing local authority participation in asylum dispersal since 2015. Prior to 2015, there were around only 100 local authorities participating. There are now around 140. We have established the local government chief executive group to bring together senior representatives from local authorities, with the aim of expanding the dispersal system and improving the process for the people who use it. We are planning a wider review of the dispersal process and will be consulting local authorities and others.
The local government chief executive group is working collaboratively to evidence any additional costs to local authorities by the dispersal proposal and to identify the appropriate funding mechanism. In light of what I have said, I hope that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate will withdraw the motion.
Bambos Charalambous
I am sorry, but I suggest that we vote on the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Bambos Charalambous
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We believe that new clause 3 is necessary because of an issue relating to comprehensive sickness insurance, which has been affecting EU citizens and babies born in the UK to EU parents. The issue is preventing naturalisation or automatic access to the right to be registered as British born. We believe that that is unfair and incorrect. Historically, access to the NHS for European economic area and Swiss citizens was free at the point of use, on the same terms as residents who are British citizens, without the need for any further insurance.
The Immigration (European Economic Area) Regulations 2016 included a requirement for comprehensive sickness insurance, but this requirement was not routinely communicated to EEA and Swiss citizens, and was only required at the point of applying to the Home Office. This has led to a situation where individuals have been refused permanent residence documents, naturalisation applications and citizenship at birth, and have lost family reunion rights under the separation agreements following a discretionary grant of naturalisation. Not only was the requirement for comprehensive sickness insurance not made clear prior to applying to the Home Office, but CSI might not have been relevant to EEA or Swiss citizens, such as during periods of study or self-sufficiency.
I will set the issue in a wider context. The UK has set up the EU settlement scheme, which allows EU citizens to acquire settled status, but many want to become British. They want the right to vote and the security of the nationality of their adopted home, the United Kingdom. However, the requirement to have an obscure health insurance policy is putting applications at risk of refusal and is discouraging many from applying. The British Nationality Act 1981 requires applicants to have not been in breach of immigration laws for any period relied on in the application. While a lot of EU citizens need only to have been living in the UK, students and those who are self-sufficient must also be in possession of comprehensive sickness insurance. However, the possession of CSI has never been a requirement for EU citizens to live in the UK or use the NHS, so most people do not and never have had it.
More concerning is the fact that the Home Office never communicated clearly to EU students and self-sufficient people that they would need to have CSI to become British. The Home Office, which is in charge of decisions relating to applications for citizenship, has maintained the policy despite questions from various organisations, including the3million. In May 2020, updated guidance to caseworkers confirmed the policy, changing the application process to ask for CSI and directing caseworkers to check for it. The guidance introduced a vague power of discretion, but no details were provided as to how that discretion should be applied.
In the Opposition’s view, it is clearly unfair that this anomaly relating to CSI has led to historical and ongoing injustices. It is not fair that what appears to be an additional random requirement for one group of citizens—not communicated prior to application—has, in effect, defined people’s ability to naturalise or claim citizenship.
We therefore believe that the new clause is needed to make the law fair. The historical requirement demanding that individuals hold CSI should also be satisfied by them having had free access to the NHS at the point of use without further insurance. The addition of historical access to the NHS as a satisfying condition would be much fairer. I will give some examples to further illustrate the need for this.
Roberto is Portuguese and arrived in the UK in 2006. He did an undergraduate degree in the UK, where he met his wife. During their university years, they studied full time and did not have CSI as they were never made aware of that requirement for full-time EU students in the UK. They had a son in the UK in 2011 and applied for his British passport, believing that he would automatically be born British.
However, when Roberto and his wife contacted the Home Office for information about the passport application, they were told that as they had not had CSI in the five years preceding the birth, he was not considered to be British. This new clause would address this problem, as the parents’ CSI requirement would have been met by their having had access to the NHS. Consequently, the fact that the child should have been born British can now be addressed by registering for British citizenship at no charge.
I would like the Committee to consider another example illustrating the need for this new clause. Lara is a Brazilian-Italian citizen who has been living in the UK since 2014. Between 2014 and 2017, Lara was in work, but she started a full-time degree at the University of Cambridge in September 2017. In July 2019, Lara was granted settled status under the EU settlement scheme and was looking forward to applying for naturalisation as a British citizen in 2020 after holding settled status for a year. Lara has since started working again, and has been made aware that she should have held CSI while she was at university—a requirement she was never made aware of by either her university or her GP.
If Lara applies for naturalisation, she may fail the lawful residence requirements due to the absence of CSI and may have her application refused. Since late 2020, caseworkers have had the discretion to grant citizenship when there are compelling grounds, although those are not clearly defined in any Home Office guidance. Therefore, like many other EU citizens, Lara is afraid of taking the risk of paying the £1,330 naturalisation fee and not obtaining a positive outcome.
Our new clause would mean that the period of residence that led to the grant of settled status would be considered to be lawful residence, and that the good character requirement could not be failed for a lack of CSI. That would give EU citizens like Lara the confidence to apply for naturalisation, knowing that they would meet all the criteria.
It is important to note that if Lara applies for citizenship and is granted it through caseworker discretion, the CSI issue is likely to still affect her in the future. If she then wished to be joined by a family member in the UK, the complex appendix EU immigration rules, which define the EU settlement scheme, mean that she would fall outside the definition of “qualifying British citizen” due to her historical lack of CSI, and therefore lose the scheme’s right to family reunion. If Lara does not become a British citizen, she would have that right through having settled status.
The new clause would mean that for future decisions taken under the immigration rules, the CSI requirement would be met by access to the NHS, meaning that EU citizens like Lara would not unexpectedly lose the rights they had before naturalising. We believe that this new clause is needed to address this unfair anomaly around CSI.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Members for tabling the new clause, which relates to the requirement, in certain circumstances, for EEA nationals to have had comprehensive sickness insurance to have been residing lawfully in the UK. Regulations set out the requirements that EEA nationals needed to follow if they wished to reside here lawfully on the basis of free movement. In the case of students or the self-sufficient, but not those who were working here, the possession of CSI has always been a requirement.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is useful that guidance exists, but does the Minister appreciate that if somebody is considering spending more than £1,000 to make an application and there is no clarity—nothing stronger—they almost certainly will not take the risk? Is it not possible to put something firmer into the guidance for caseworkers to say that, in the overwhelming majority of cases, the lack of CSI should be ignored?
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this matter falls within the portfolio of the Minister for Future Borders and Immigration, so if the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall take away that suggestion and ask the Minister to consider it. If the hon. Gentleman wants to follow up in writing with the Minister, I am sure my hon. Friend would consider that and come back to him. I will certainly make sure that he is aware of the suggestion the hon. Gentleman raises.
The new clause would amend the naturalisation requirements for EEA nationals who did not have CSI and so had not been in the UK lawfully before they acquired settled status. We cannot accept that, as all applicants are required to meet the same requirements for naturalisation in terms of lawful residence and it would not be right to treat certain nationalities differently.
The third part of the new clause would amend the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 such that a person is treated as having had CSI if they had access to the NHS in practice or held a CSI policy. However, there is no mention of CSI in the rest of that Act, nor is there any mention of CSI in residence scheme immigration rules. The EU settlement scheme does not test for CSI and there is no need to have held it in the past, or to hold it now, in order for EEA nationals to obtain settled or pre-settled status. As such, that part of the new clause would have no practical effect. I therefore ask the hon. Members to withdraw their new clause.
Bambos Charalambous
I will press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 15—Acquisition by registration: Descendants of those born on British Indian Ocean Territory—
“(1) The British Nationality Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 17H (as inserted by section 7), insert—
‘17I Acquisition by registration: Descendants of those born on British Indian Ocean Territory
(1) A person is entitled to be registered as a British Overseas Territories citizen on an application made under this section if they are a direct descendant of a person (“P”) who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of P’s birth in the British Indian Ocean Territory or, prior to 8 November 1965, in those islands designated as the British Indian Ocean Territory on that date.
(2) A person who is being registered as a British Overseas Territories citizen under this section is also entitled to be registered as a British citizen.
(3) No charge or fee shall be imposed for registration under this section.’”
This new clause would allow anyone who is descended from a person born before 1983 on the British Indian Ocean Territory to register as a British Overseas Territories citizen. They may also register as a British citizen at the same time. Both applications would be free of charge.
Stuart C. McDonald
I thank the Chagossians who spoke to the shadow Minister and myself, and Fragomen solicitors for facilitating that discussion and drafting the new clauses. As Members, and particularly Conservative Members, will know, the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), in whose constituency we find the UK’s largest Chagossian diaspora, has championed Chagossians for many years. On Second Reading I asked the Government to consider introducing a clause to rectify some of the injustices that Chagossians have faced for more than half a century. I understand that they will bring in an amendment on Report to do that, but today we seek to probe their initial thinking.
We could speak all day about how outrageously the Chagossians were treated by the UK and the US. They were removed from their islands simply to make way for an airbase, dumped in Mauritius and elsewhere and basically forgotten about. There are myriad injustices that are still to be put right. The new clauses do not fix everything, but they would fix significant injustices in relation to nationality—exactly what part 1 of this Bill was supposed to do—and family. Some Chagossians would benefit from provisions in part 1 of this Bill, which is welcome, but the Bill needs to go much further if they are to have access to the citizenship that is rightly theirs and that has been denied them only by the outrageous events of the late 1960s and the early 1970s.
As we touched on during debates on part 1, citizenship by descent in British and British overseas territories’ nationality law usually stretches to only one generation. If someone moves abroad, the children they have there will be British by descent, but if those children remain abroad and later have kids they would not be able to pass on that British citizenship. That reflects the idea that the family have made a voluntary decision to loosen their links to the UK and to build a new life elsewhere. Therefore, citizenship of the country where they now live is probably more appropriate.
Exceptions are made—for example, if the only reason the person was abroad was Crown service or if the parent who could not pass on citizenship has actually lived in the UK for three years previously or goes on to do so. All of that illustrates the point that reflecting the idea of a voluntary link to the UK justifies continued transmission of UK citizenship.
None of that can apply to the Chagossians; the situation there is obviously manifestly different. The only reason why Chagossians cannot pass on their British overseas territory citizenship is that they were forcibly removed from their islands. Nobody chose to make a new life in Mauritius or anywhere else—far from it. Nobody can say that they have voluntarily chosen to take on a new identity elsewhere. Any undermining or breaking of the link was completely forced on them in quite the most outrageous circumstances; that in itself should be enough to justify new clause 15.
The knock-on effect is that when the law was changed in 2002, while some Chagossians became British citizens as well as British overseas territory citizens, others missed out. They are now in the horrible situation where some have the right to rekindle their British identity and return here, but others do not. If I was a Chagossian whose parent was born just before being forcibly removed from the islands, and was therefore BOTC by birth, I am likely to be in a far better position than, for example, my cousin whose parents were born just days after being forced from the islands, and therefore cannot transmit their BOTC or British citizenship. When introducing the Bill, the Home Secretary said that it would mean children unfairly denied British overseas territory citizenship will finally be able to acquire citizenship, as well as British citizenship. What happened to the Chagossians, and what they still face today, is an absolute scandal. The least that we can do is ensure that all of them can access the nationality that the UK and US action deprived them of.
New clause 4 would fix another unfairness. I absolutely detest the restrictive rules that the Home Office has put in place on family visas, which say that someone must be earning certain sums of money before they can bring their non-national spouse or children here. Putting that to one side for the moment, even accepting the Government’s own logic, these provisions should not apply to the spouses and family members of Chagossians. Essentially, the Government logic is that if people choose to build a family life elsewhere and then come back to the UK, they should have certain financial means to support themselves and knowledge of the UK. However, again, Chagossians did not choose to make their family life outside British overseas territories—that was forced on them. It would now be totally unfair to restrict the right to come to the UK by imposing those rules on the families as if this was a choice they made.
It was a step in the right direction to provide British citizenship to some in 2002, but it is cruel to deny effective access to these routes by denying family members the right to come here. It is particularly cruel, given that the reason many will not be able to meet the financial threshold is the horrendous way they have been treated for decades and the extraordinary deprivation they have had to endure. I hope the Home Office will look to fix two of the many injustices that have been visited on the Chagossians.
Bambos Charalambous
I will speak to new clause 15, which is grouped with new clause 4. I fully endorse what the spokesperson for the SNP said.
New clause 15 seeks to rectify a long-standing issue in British nationality law that affects a relatively small number of people—the Chagossian people, descendants of the Chagos islanders, who were forcibly removed from the British Indian Ocean Territory in the 1960s. Between 1968 and 1974, the UK forcibly removed thousands of Chagossians from their homelands on the Chagos islands. The removal was done to make way for a US military base on Diego Garcia. The Chagossians were a settled population on the islands. Their origins trace back to 1793. They were removed and deported to Mauritius and the Seychelles, more than 1,600 km away from the Chagos islands, and have faced extreme poverty and discrimination in those places.
Because of the removal, many descendants of the Chagos islanders, despite being the grandchildren of people who were British subjects in the British Indian Ocean Territory, have been denied rights to British citizenship. The British Overseas Territories Act 2002 granted British citizenship to resettled Chagossians born between 1969 and 1982—the children of those born on the British Indian Ocean Territory. However, many Chagossians have still been denied citizenship, including second-generation Chagossians born outside those dates.
The grandchildren of those born on the British Indian Ocean Territory, third-generation Chagossians, do not have rights to British citizenship, as citizenship has not automatically passed to them, even if in some cases they migrated to the UK with their British parents at a very young age. That group therefore often become an undocumented presence in the UK once they reach the age of 18, and are denied access to jobs, housing and healthcare, despite having lived in the UK since a very young age.
The Chagossian community is divided between Mauritius, the Seychelles and the UK. Broken and divided families are therefore a direct consequence of this injustice in British nationality law. For 60 years, the Chagossian people have faced dispersal, poverty and separation. That has severely limited their life chances and damaged the health and wellbeing of generations of people.
The Bill in its current state does not cover the British citizenship and immigration issues that the Chagossian community faces. That is why the Opposition are introducing this new clause and why we wish to raise the issue today. It is worth exploring this unfairness in more detail, and the reasons why legislation has failed to rectify it to date.
Under British nationality law, citizenship is normally passed only to one generation born abroad. However, the situation of the Chagossians is fundamentally different from that of other inhabited British overseas territories, and applying that restriction to the Chagossians is unacceptable. As we know, their parents and grandparents were forcibly removed from their homeland and deported to Mauritius and the Seychelles. Since then, the Chagossian people have been born outside the Chagos archipelago and receive citizenship from Mauritius or the Seychelles, with no recognition of their long-standing ties to British nationality.
It is not possible for the descendants of the Chagos islanders to be born on the islands of the British Indian Ocean Territory due to the Order in Council since 2004, which bans any Chagossian from living on their native land. That is deeply unfair. They have not severed links with their British citizenship voluntarily; they have been excluded by the UK Government. At this point I would like to share the personal experiences of those affected by that injustice. Like many in Committee, I have been contacted by members of the community, and I pay tribute to their campaigning efforts in incredibly distressing and difficult circumstances, including groups such as Chagossian Voices. Pascal Francois is one of those affected. He resides in Mauritius and is Chagossian. He says:
“For years we have suffered from the separation of our families, through no fault of our own. We are as British as you and the next person. We wish to be known as British, we belong to the UK & her territories. The Chagossian people in exile no longer want to live in the shadows of others. We want to belong and be British by descent.”
The battle for Chagossians’ rights has been raging for decades, and this group of people have been badly let down by the UK. Most Chagossian families, already financially impacted by their enforced exile, are paying—and have paid for many years—huge and increasing visa, immigration and citizenship fees, health surcharges and legal expenses for spouses and children with pending or rejected applications. This process has significantly damaged their health, wellbeing and livelihoods. It has caused immense stress. There is understandable frustration at the lack of support from the Home Office.
Tom Pursglove
I appreciate the positive intent behind new clause 4, which seeks to create a means whereby, in the future, British citizens who were born on, or descended from a person born on, the British Indian Ocean Territory will be able to bring their foreign national spouse or partner to the UK, without their being subject to the current financial and English language requirements for family migration.
I remind hon. Members that the minimum income requirement is based on in-depth analysis and advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee. The purpose of the requirement, implemented in July 2012 along with other reforms of the family immigration rules, is to ensure family migrants are supported at a reasonable level so they do not become a burden on the taxpayer and can participate sufficiently in everyday life to facilitate their integration into British society. Family life must not be established here at the taxpayer’s expense and family migrants must be able to integrate if they are to play a full part in British life.
The minimum income requirement was set following advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee, at £18,600 for sponsoring a partner, rising to £22,400 for also sponsoring a non-qualifying child and an additional £2,400 for each further such child. There is no flexibility in the level of the minimum income requirement, which must be met in all cases subject to the requirement; it is right and fair it should be consistently applied in all cases. Expecting family migrants and their sponsors to be financially independent is reasonable, both to them and the taxpayer.
In February 2017, the Supreme Court upheld the lawfulness of the minimum income requirement under the family immigration rules. The Court found the minimum income requirement is not a breach of the right to respect for a private and family life under article 8 of the European convention on human rights and is not discriminatory. The Supreme Court endorsed our approach in setting an income requirement for family migration that prevents burdens on the taxpayer and ensures migrant families can integrate into our communities. The Supreme Court agreed that it strikes a fair balance between the interests of those wishing to sponsor a partner to settle in the UK and of the community in general.
Being able to speak English is also fundamental to successful integration into British society.
Stuart C. McDonald
I would just gently say that the response is slightly tone deaf. First, the Migration Advisory Committee has asked the Government to revisit the financial thresholds the Minister mentions. Secondly, we are talking about Chagossians who were forcibly removed from their islands. Consistency is fine, but these are truly exceptional circumstances. Surely most taxpayers would perfectly understand that different rules have to apply in these outrageous circumstances.
Tom Pursglove
In fairness, the hon. Gentleman has intervened early in my remarks on the new clauses. Let me continue, but I hear the point he raises, and I of course take it on board, in the way I take all comments from hon. Members on the Committee on board.
We expect those coming to the UK on a family visa with only basic English to become more fluent over time, as a means of encouraging better integration into our society, to make it easier for families to access vital public services and to enable parents to support their children’s education.
New clause 4 would undermine the sound basis on which family migration to this country has been placed in recent years. It would circumvent the need for family migration to be on a basis whereby families are financially independent and able to contribute to the UK. It would also remove the English language requirement, which is fundamental to a migrant’s successful integration into British society. There is no justifiable reason to give preferential treatment to family members based solely on their sponsor’s nationality. Without a clear justification for doing so, that would also likely constitute unlawful discrimination.
The immigration rules on family migration, which new clause 4 would undermine, are designed to prevent burdens on the taxpayer, promote integration and tackle abuse, and thereby ensure that family migration to the UK is on a properly sustainable basis that is fair to migrants and the wider community. The rules are helping to ensure public confidence in the immigration system and, well intended as the new clause may be, it has the potential to reverse that.
In the same way, the introduction of a dual family migration system as required by the new clause would not be seen in a uniformly positive way by British citizens and persons settled here. It would lead to an undesirable two-tier system of family migration in which a group of family members whose sponsor is a British citizen with a connection to the British Indian Ocean Territory would be given preferential treatment over other sponsors. Furthermore, the Government have the power under the Immigration Act 1971 to set out the requirements for entry into and stay in the UK in immigration rules, which are laid before Parliament. The rules allow flexibility to amend policy as appropriate, and the Government continue to review them regularly to ensure that they are fair and effective. Work is ongoing on simplification of the rules following the Law Commission’s recommendations. The new clause would have the effect of undermining that process and prescribing the rules in primary legislation for one particular cohort.
I turn to new clause 15. We are already making changes through the Bill to address historic unfairness so that all those born on the British Indian Ocean Territory and their children are either automatically British citizens or have the right to acquire British nationality. The new clause, tabled by the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Halifax, seeks to go much further and would address what is seen as the consequences of historic unfairness. Although I am sympathetic with the aim, I am concerned that that is not the correct approach. The new clause would offer British citizenship in perpetuity to those born outside the UK and overseas territories regardless of their connection to the UK as long as they are descendants of someone born on the islands making up the British Indian Ocean Territory.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am not entirely surprised that the Minister’s first point is about the lack of any limit. Would the new clause be more amenable to him if there was a limit on the degree of relationship there had to be with a Chagossian?
Tom Pursglove
If the hon. Gentleman lets me conclude my remarks, I hope that that will give him a little comfort on that point. The approach proposed by the new clause cannot be right and would undermine the long-standing principle of British nationality law that nationality or entitlements to nationality are not passed on to the second and subsequent generations born and settled outside the UK and territories.
I recognise, however, that the Chagossians present a unique case. My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, who has long campaigned on behalf of the Chagossian communities both in his constituency and throughout the UK as vice chair of the Chagos islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) all-party parliamentary group, has indicated his intention to table an amendment on this issue on Report. I would like to reflect further on the complex issues faced by Chagossian communities in the UK and those in Mauritius and the Seychelles that have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee—I am mindful of the cross-party view—before making any significant changes to nationality law.
Hon. Members from different parties have expressed views, and I have taken on board the points raised. I say to the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East that there is a willingness to look closely at the Chagossian issue. With that, I hope that hon. Members will be willing not to move their new clauses.
Stuart C. McDonald
As the Minister said, we will consider what has been said before we revisit this issue on Report. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 5
Former British-Hong Kong service personnel: right of abode
‘(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of section 2(1) insert—
“(c) that person is a former member of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps or the Hong Kong Royal Naval service, or
(d) that person is the spouse or dependent of a former member of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps or the Hong Kong Royal Naval service.’—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would mean that all former British-Hong Kong service personnel, plus their spouses and dependents, would have right of abode in the UK.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, that the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is on a cause championed by the hon. Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) for many years: the 300 or so Hong Kong servicemen who seek UK citizenship in recognition of their service in the UK-Hong Kong Army before the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997. With family included, we are talking of about 1,000 people.
Hongkongers served in our armed forces from 1857 right up to 1997 through world wars and numerous other conflicts. Hong Kong servicemen are recognised by the Ministry of Defence as veterans. In the early 1990s, the British nationality selection scheme allowed certain British nationals—rather than citizens—who were permanent residents of Hong Kong with a right of abode and who met a number of other eligibility criteria to apply for full UK citizenship. Of 654 British-Hong Kong servicemen who applied, only 159 were granted citizenship. Until now, the Home Office has resisted the campaign, but surely recent developments mean that it is now irresistible and that the Home Office must think again.
The Home Office previously refused to budge on the grounds that veterans are deemed to have Chinese citizenship and that some were locally recruited staff, who could not have reasonably expected the right to British citizenship. However, those recent developments, which we understand and know only too well, have seen the Home Office introduce the really welcome scheme for British nationals overseas. It could have refused to establish any BNO scheme for precisely the same reason they have refused the campaign of the hon. Member for Romford. However, it rightly put those arguments aside. It should also put them aside in relation to these veterans, 97 of whom qualify for the BNO scheme. Let us build on that excellent work through a new clause such as this, which would ensure that all British-Hong Kong service personnel, plus their spouses and dependents, would have the right of abode in the UK. In the circumstances, surely it is the right thing to do.
The Chair
Before we adjourn the Committee, may I thank hon. Members for the courtesy with which they have conducted proceedings? These are contentious issues, and the Committee’s conduct has been commendable. I am grateful. I also offer my thanks on the Committee’s behalf to the staff and Officers of the House.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Craig Whittaker.)
Nationality and Borders Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
Thursday 4th November 2021
(2 years, 5 months ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 4 November 2021 - (4 Nov 2021)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 6 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I thank the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East for tabling new clause 5, which provides the Committee with the opportunity to consider granting the right of abode in the United Kingdom to former British-Hong Kong service personnel, their spouses and dependants.
The Government remain extremely grateful to former British-Hong Kong service personnel. Under the British nationality selection scheme, a limited number of personnel who were settled in Hong Kong could apply to register as British citizens. All veterans would have been eligible to acquire British national overseas status between 1986 and 1997. Therefore, many should hold BNO status. Those who hold BNO status may be eligible for the BNO visa that was launched in January this year and which provides a route to settlement in the UK, meaning that many former British-Hong Kong service personnel, their spouses and dependants will already have, or be on the path to having, settlement and subsequently British citizenship, which would confer on them a right of abode in the UK.
We must consider the impact on public services both of increased usage generated by the right of access granted by expanded citizenship, and of the additional costs in granting such rights, such as casework resource and resettlement resulting in lost income that is not budgeted for and is therefore not affordable. Additionally, although I recognise the significant contribution made by this group, it may be difficult to justify why this specific cohort should be granted the right of abode when others from former colonial garrisons are not. For these reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I do think there are very specific reasons why this cohort should indeed be granted what this new clause is looking for, and I suspect we will be looking at this again on Report. In the meantime, however, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 13
Reporting to Parliament in relation to the prevention of death
“(1) The Secretary of State must within 12 months of the commencement of this section, and thereafter within each successive 12 months’ period, lay before Parliament a report concerning the deaths of people subject to asylum and immigration powers.
(2) A report required by this section must state the number of people subject to asylum and immigration powers who have died since—
(a) state the number of people subject to asylum and immigration powers who have died since—
(i) the commencement of this section (in the case of the first report laid under this section); or
(ii) the previous report laid under this section (in all other cases); and
(b) set out the support arrangements that the Secretary of State has implemented in that year to assist those directly affected by the deaths, and what changes in these arrangements are planned for the next year.
(3) Subject to subsection (5), the report required by this section must—
(a) in relation to each death to which subsection (2) refers, identify—
(i) whether the deceased was at the time of death detained under immigration powers,
(ii) whether the deceased had an asylum claim outstanding,
(iii) whether the deceased was in receipt of accommodation or support from the Secretary of State,
(iv) whether the deceased was a relevant child or young person,
(v) whether the deceased was under the control of any person acting under the authority of the Secretary of State,
(vi) the age, nationality and gender of the deceased,
(vii) any protected characteristic of the deceased,
(viii) the steps taken by the Secretary of State to support any family member of, or other person directly affected, by the death,
(ix) such further information as the Secretary of State shall consider relevant; and
(b) include a statement by the Secretary of State in relation to each such death concerning the impact, if any, of any relevant function, power, decision or discretion upon the circumstances causally connected to that death; and
(c) set out any changes to legislation, policy or practice that the Secretary of State proposes or has made to prevent the occurrence or continuation of circumstances creating a risk of death or to eliminate or reduce that risk in those circumstances; and
(d) describe the Secretary of State’s policy and practice in providing assistance to or receiving assistance from statutory bodies with responsibilities relating to the investigation or prevention of death.
(4) In making any statement to which subsection (3)(b) refers, the Secretary of State shall take into consideration both acts and omissions in relation to the exercise of any function, power or discretion and the making of any decision (including any omission to make a decision).
(5) Where the Secretary of State is unable to fulfil the requirements of subsection (3) in relation to any particular death by reason of there being insufficient time to compile and consider the relevant circumstances relating to the person who has died, the Secretary of State shall state this in the report and shall fulfil those requirements in the next report required by this section.
(6) In this section—
a person is “subject to asylum or immigration powers” if that person—
(a) is detained under immigration powers;
(b) has made an asylum claim that remains outstanding (including where it is being treated as inadmissible but the person remains in the UK);
(c) is in receipt of accommodation or support provided or arranged by the Secretary of State;
(d) is a relevant child or young person; or
(e) is under the control of any person acting under the authority of the Secretary of State in pursuance of asylum or immigration functions;
“relevant function, power, decision or discretion” refers to functions, powers, decisions or discretion in relation to asylum or immigration functions that are exercised or may be exercised by the Secretary of State, an immigration officer or a person to whom the Secretary of State has delegated that exercise;
“protected characteristic” has the same meaning as in the Equality Act 2010;
a “relevant child or young person” means a person who is subject to immigration control and—
(a) is in the care of a local authority; or
(b) is receiving support from a local authority as a result of having been in such care;
a person (P) is “under the control” of another person (A) where—
(a) P is being escorted by A within or from the UK,
(b) P in the custody of A,
(c) P is reporting (including remotely) to a designated place (including remotely) in compliance with a requirement imposed by A, or
(d) P is residing at a designated place in compliance with a requirement imposed by A;
“young person” means a person below the age of 25 years.” —(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would seek to ensure there was transparency and accountability about the deaths of people subject to certain asylum and immigration powers, and policies designed to prevent them.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Everyone in this Committee has expressed concern at the loss of life in the channel when people make dangerous journeys to seek asylum here. This new clause brings us to loss of life among people already in the immigration and asylum systems. It asks: what do we know about such deaths, what do we do in response to prevent other deaths from happening, and what do we do to ensure dignity in death? I am grateful to Amnesty International, Migrant Voice, Bail for Immigration Detainees, the Scottish Refugee Council and Liberty Investigates for all their work on this.
I particularly want to mention the Da’aro Youth Project, which was established in 2018 by members of the Eritrean community in London in response to the suicides of several unaccompanied teenage Eritreans who came to the UK to seek asylum, and supports the wellbeing of young people in the UK asylum system from countries in the horn of Africa. Its research found that at least 12 teenagers who arrived in the UK as unaccompanied children seeking asylum have died by suicide in the past five years, most of them Eritrean, including several in recent months. All had either been children in the care of local authorities or care leavers, while one was subject to an age dispute, one had been denied family reunion, and several had been waiting for significant periods for an asylum decision or had in fact been refused asylum.
More recently, Scottish Refugee Council freedom of information requests initially identified 51 deaths in asylum accommodation between April 2016 and June 2021. A slightly different set of FOIs from Liberty Investigates received a different number from the Home Office: 95 in the period to August 2021. Alarmingly, 69 of those deaths—about three quarters—were in the period from 2020, so there has been a significant increase. By August this year, nearly as many people had died in the asylum system as in the whole of last year.
The first issue is why it is only through the work of Da’aro Youth Project, the Scottish Refugee Council and Liberty Investigates that we know this. Surely the Home Office should be reporting regularly on the deaths of those in its system. Can lessons be learned from these deaths, what could be done to prevent further deaths, and do the deaths have implications for broader policy? For example, there has been a significant increase in deaths over the past couple of years, suggesting that moving to institutional accommodation is a dangerous policy, but are there other reasons? What about new policies, including those in this Bill? What impact might they have on deaths in the asylum and immigration system? We cannot do very much of that analysis because it does not seem that the Home Office gathers information never mind publishes it. Which other Government Department would get away with it if deaths of those in its care and caught up in its processes were not being thoroughly investigated and responded to? It should be absolutely no different here.
The second issue is: what happens in response to every individual death? I am not even sure whether there is in existence a proper Home Office policy on this. Is any effort made to find and contact family members, or even to return the body to the family? What is done to support friends and family here in the UK, particularly those who are in the asylum system or local authority care?
Since Windrush, we have been told repeatedly that the Home Office is undergoing a culture change to see “the face behind the case”. I suggest that a vital starting place could be taking much greater interest in those who have lost their life while within the Home Office’s own asylum and immigration systems and being transparent and accountable about what has happened. The new clause simply asks for what really should have been happening for years. It is a simple matter of human decency and proper accountability.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Member for tabling the new clause. I note his concerns around transparency and accountability in relation to deaths of people subject to immigration powers. I can assure him that transparency and accountability remain a key priority for the Department. We currently publish data every year on the number of deaths of people under our care in immigration detention. I recognise the importance of transparency in these circumstances to ensure that there is accountability and that we can develop effective policies and processes to prevent such instances from occurring in future. One death of a person in our care in one death too many. We must do everything in our power to ensure that these do not occur. Thankfully, deaths in detention are rare. There were no deaths in detention in 2020 and just one in 2019, where the individual died of natural causes.
We regularly review the statistics that we publish as a Department and, where it is clearly in the public interest to do so, it is our duty to consider the feasibility of publishing new statistics. We must weigh that up against other considerations. While we have a duty of care to all of those in our remit, there are many people in the asylum and immigration system who are either not required to, or choose not to, maintain regular contact with us. Some may even leave the UK without informing us while they have an open immigration claim. That means that there may be instances where we are not informed of the person’s death or we do not have all the relevant facts.
Additionally, it can take months and even years for inquests to reach conclusions. It is important that we know the facts before we publish the information. This highlights the kind of practical and deliverability challenges that we face and which affect the scope and accuracy of any information in this space. However, I acknowledge the importance of transparency. We regularly review the information that is published by the Department on the context of transparency, but also in line with the changes that the Bill will bring about. I note the interest of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East in this particular area and will ensure that it is considered in line with the wider and ongoing review of statistics published by the Department. I trust that that addresses his concerns and I encourage him to withdraw the new clause.
Stuart C. McDonald
I appreciate the Minister’s answer and the sentiments that he expresses. I am concerned that what he says does not always necessarily reflect exactly how things are operating on the ground. On the gathering and publishing of information, that is something that we will watch very closely. What he has not done is set out anything in relation to how the Home Office responds and whether there is a policy in relation to individual deaths—for example, those issues around returning the body, trying to approach family and friends, and the duty of care that we have to those individuals as well. That is something I will need to return to and raise with him again. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 14
Immigration health surcharge: exemption for international volunteers
‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 38, insert—
“38A Immigration health surcharge: exemption for international volunteers
(1) A charge under section 38 may not be imposed on persons who have leave to enter, or to remain in, the United Kingdom through a visa to work voluntarily for a period of no more than 12 months, or for such period as may be prescribed by regulations, for a registered UK charity advancing the charity’s primary purpose.
(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section must not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament”.’ . —(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would ensure that international volunteers, including those working in health and social care, will be exempt from paying the immigration health surcharge.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move that the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would introduce an immigration health surcharge exemption for international volunteers. On this occasion, I am particularly indebted to Camphill Scotland, which does fantastic work to support around 600 people with learning disabilities and other support needs, ranging from children to older people. It has built a formidable alliance of almost 50 organisations across the UK that support this new clause, including the National Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations, the Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action, the Wales Council for Voluntary Action and many, many more which, unfortunately, I do not have time to mention. All members of the Committee will have received briefings and representations directly on this issue, and I urge them to consider it carefully.
My party objects to the immigration health surcharge altogether, but that debate is for another day. What we do welcome, as do the organisations behind this new clause, is the Government’s decision to exempt health and social care workers from other countries from paying it. The new clause seeks to ensure that those who want to come to work as volunteers in the charitable sector, including in health and social care, are also exempt. We believe that charging this surcharge to volunteers working in health and social care in charitable settings is unfair, inequitable and counterproductive. Volunteers from the EU and beyond make a significant contribution to the work of charities across the UK; Camphill Scotland currently has about 215 international volunteers, helping it to support people with learning disabilities and other support needs.
These young people have chosen to stay in the UK to provide social care to UK citizens during a national health emergency, displaying considerable dedication to and compassion for the people they support. It would be an injustice if the immigration health surcharge exemption was not extended to international volunteers working in the charitable sector. It is all the more essential that this change is made post Brexit, with volunteers from the EU and Switzerland now being caught by visa fees and other expenses. If we cannot continue to attract volunteers, the people who will suffer will be those who benefit from their care, including those with learning disabilities and support needs in the care of Camphill Scotland. The logic of the Government’s immigration health surcharge is that everyone should contribute but, just like the health and social care workforce, the volunteers are already doing just that, so surely the same logic applies. Given that such volunteers cannot have a salary here and will receive a subsistence allowance at most, there is even more reason to exempt them altogether. They are already facing considerable costs to take up these posts. It cannot be right that we also charge them a surcharge to support the very system that they are currently voluntarily supporting. I therefore ask the Minister to consider the representations made by the almost 50 organisations that have contacted him, to consider meeting them and to look carefully at these proposals.
Tom Pursglove
The Government recognise the important contribution that international volunteers make to our communities, and are committed to attracting people from overseas who wish to gain experience of our voluntary sector. The temporary work-charity worker visa is available to those who wish to undertake unpaid voluntary fieldwork for up to 12 months, where the work contributes directly to the achievement or advancement of the sponsor’s charitable purpose. The route offers volunteers the chance to experience life in the UK while making a valuable contribution to the aims of their chosen charity. At the same time, the involvement and contribution of these individuals has benefits for the UK charity sector and the wider community, and the UK Government welcome this involvement.
This is not an economic route and it should not be used to fill gaps in the labour market. Volunteers using the charity worker visa must not receive any payment beyond being reimbursed for expenses incurred during their duties. It is therefore not unreasonable to expect costs to be considered and planned for before they apply for a visa. As this is a temporary work category, the cost of a visa is already significantly less than any other work and study routes, at a rate of £244, and sponsors pay a lower licence fee, which reflects their own charity status. The immigration health charge, which applies to this route, ensures that temporary migrants who come to the UK for more than six months make a direct contribution to the comprehensive range of NHS services available to them during their stay. Income from the charge is shared between the health administrations in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, using the formula devised by Lord Barnett. The charge is an essential part of income for the NHS and has raised almost £2 billion in much-needed income since it was introduced in 2015.
Those who make an application to come to the UK for six months or less do not pay the charge, and we know that a sizeable number of volunteers come for less than the 12 months the route allows. If they opt to stay longer than six months, however, it is right that they pay the charge, as is consistent with others who base themselves in the UK for extended periods. I understand that there are concerns about the financial impact of the charge on volunteer workers, alongside visa fees and other payments that a person may make when they choose to come to the UK. However, the Government are clear that the charge is great value, considering the wide range of NHS services, free at the point of use, for charge payers. From the moment they arrive in the UK, charge payers can use the NHS in broadly the same manner as a permanent resident, without having made any prior tax or national insurance contributions. They may access health services as often as they need, including treatment for pre-existing health conditions, and do not need to worry about unexpected health charges or obtaining appropriate health insurance.
Stuart C. McDonald
The Minister knows that I do not support the idea of an additional surcharge but, even if we accept his logic, the Government have exempted health and social care workers from the surcharge because they contribute to the healthcare system. Should that same logic not apply even more so to volunteers who are working in the health and social care system?
Tom Pursglove
In relation to the approach taken for health and social workers, the view widely felt across the House, which was subsequently reflected in policy, was that, given the enormous contribution made by those working directly in this sector during the pandemic, it was appropriate to try and put in place a form of recognition of that work, as well as other measures we have talked about, for example the pay rises that have quite rightly been afforded to NHS workers. It was seen as one means of recognising the enormous contribution that some of those who had come from overseas to work in our health and social care settings had made and rewarding them for that. There were particular circumstances that meant that it was felt that that was appropriate.
Charge payers pay only those charges a UK resident would pay, such as prescription charges in England. They may, however, be charged for assisted conception services in England, should they wish to use them. We welcome talented individuals to the UK and are immensely grateful to them for the important contributions they make, but if a person chooses to come to the UK as a worker, student, family member or volunteer, it is fair and reasonable to expect them to contribute to the high-quality NHS services available to them.
It is vital, particularly given the challenges posed by the pandemic, for the NHS to continue to be properly funded. The immigration health charge directly benefits the NHS and plays an important role in supporting its long-term sustainability. The Government are confident that the charity worker visa provides an attractive offer to voluntary workers. Individuals on some other routes can also volunteer their time to help others, and, depending on the route, they either pay the immigration health charge or may be charged by the NHS for their healthcare.
The youth mobility scheme, for example, is subject to the charge. Those on this route are free to take up work in any sector, paid or unpaid. The standard visitor visa allows people to volunteer for up to 30 days with a registered charity. The visit rules allow visitors to stay for a maximum of six months, which means that they are not subject to the immigration health charge but may instead be charged for NHS care, in line with the rules set by the relevant, devolved health administration.
The Government believe that it is right for the health charge to apply to the charity worker visa. Many nations expect newly arrived individuals to contribute, in some form, to the cost of healthcare. It is right we do the same. For the reasons I have set out, I ask the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East to withdraw the new clause, but I take on board the passion with which he made his case in relation to this issue and the various representations he referred to that have been made to me as Minister with responsibility for this Bill. I will certainly ensure that they are shared with the Minister with responsibility for this area of policy in the Department as part of their consideration of these matters.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his response and those assurances. He is quite right about the reasons for the recognition that was given to health and social care staff. We are just calling for the same recognition for volunteers as well. I would be interested to know more. I get the impression that this would be a tiny hit for the Treasury, but it could have real benefit for charities. Before we think about that and make the case again before we reach Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 17
Duty regarding rights to British citizenship or British overseas territories citizenship
“(1) It is the duty of the Secretary of State to encourage, promote and facilitate awareness and exercise of rights to British citizenship or British overseas territories citizenship among persons possessing these rights.
(2) In fulfilment of that duty, the Secretary of State—
(a) must take all reasonable steps to ensure that all persons with rights to British citizenship or British overseas territories citizenship are able to exercise those rights;
(b) must make arrangements, including with local authorities, to ensure that all children in a local authority area are aware of their rights to British citizenship or British overseas territories citizenship and of the means by which to exercise those rights;
(c) must, when considering any application for confirmation or registration of British citizenship or British overseas territories citizenship, have regard to information held by or available to the Secretary of State that would demonstrate the applicant to be a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen or entitled to that citizenship; and
(d) shall have, and where reasonably necessary to ensure that all persons are able to exercise those rights shall exercise, the power to waive any requirement to attend a ceremony or in connection with biometric information.
(3) For the purposes of this section—
“rights to British citizenship” means rights of acquisition of British citizenship by birth, adoption, commencement or registration under the British Nationality Act 1981;
“rights to British overseas territories citizenship” means rights of acquisition of British overseas territories citizenship by birth, adoption, commencement or registration under the British Nationality Act 1981; and
“to exercise those rights” means to be registered as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen on the making of an application under the British Nationality Act 1981 or to obtain documentation from the Secretary of State confirming British citizenship or British overseas territories citizenship (including by receipt of a passport) on the making of an application to the Secretary of State.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new Clause would require the Government to encourage, promote and facilitate awareness and exercise of rights to British citizenship or British overseas territories citizenship.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time. The new clause would place on the Government an obligation and a duty to undertake promotion of British citizenship rights and British overseas territories citizenship rights.
If there is one thing that members of the Committee can all agree on, it is that nationality law is complicated, and British nationality law is particularly complicated. As I have said, nationality law is also absolutely fundamental to people’s identity, and their ability to fulfil their potential and to exercise so many other rights. That is why it is enshrined in the UN convention itself. It is much superior to any form of immigration leave, which is no form of substitute for holding nationality. The very need for the Bill indicates, however, that lots of people miss out on their entitlements. That is terrible for them as individuals, and it is terrible for the country as a whole—bad for social cohesion—if people are missing out on rights of citizenship that they could have and that are set out in law.
An example is looked-after children. During the registration process for the EU settlement scheme, it was clear that a number of local authorities might have been signing children up for EU settled status when in actual fact they were probably entitled to register as British citizens. The new clause therefore simply calls for the Government to take a more proactive approach and to work with organisations such as local authorities and others to ensure that as many people as possible are aware of and know about their right to register or to access citizenship in other ways, so empowering them to do so.
One welcome thing about the EU settlement scheme was that the Home Office caseworkers did not say, “This or that is missing, so I am going to refuse the application.” There was a concerted attempt to work with people to ensure that all the necessary evidence was found. A lot of the time, the Government took it on themselves—by liaising between Departments—to track down the necessary evidence to allow that person to achieve the status to which they were entitled. We call for the same approach on the more fundamental right to nationality.
That is the reasoning behind the new clause. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Members for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East and for Glasgow North East for their new clause. I understand their thinking behind it: people who are entitled to citizenship should be able to find the information that they need and that the process should be simple and straightforward. That is a sentiment I would echo.
The measures the new clause proposes represent best practice, much of which already exists in the nationality and passport processes. For example, both UK Visas and Immigration and Her Majesty’s Passport Office publish information and guidance on gov.uk, and use information that is already available on their systems when processing applications. As part of considering Windrush applications in particular, UKVI caseworkers have demonstrated a proactive approach, helping people to locate the information needed and consulting internal sources.
The existing legislation already contains discretion to excuse or exempt a person from attending a citizenship ceremony or to enrol their biometrics. The Home Secretary can disapply the requirement to attend a ceremony in the special circumstances of a case and, if it would be too difficult for an applicant to enrol their biometrics in the form of a facial image and fingerprints, an authorised person such as an official acting on behalf of the Secretary of State can defer or waive the requirement to enrol some or all of the biometrics. I am happy to listen to the thoughts of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East about the areas where we could do more.
I do not think that we can accept the new clause, however. It would impose a statutory requirement that I am not sure is measurable. For example, while we could take steps to ensure that local authorities have information about citizenship and are encouraged to pass on that information to children in their area, I do not see that we could fulfil a statutory requirement to ensure an awareness for every child—that would be outside our control.
Similarly, the new clause is not specific about the steps that the Home Secretary would be expected to take—the lengths she would be expected to go to, for example, to obtain “available” information when considering an application, without being in breach of such a statutory duty. I take on board the sentiment of what the hon. Gentleman is trying to achieve, but I ask him to withdraw his new clause.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for his constructive approach to the issue. Perhaps we may continue the conversation in the weeks and months ahead. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 23
Safe and legal routes
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter, publish a report on—
(a) all current safe and legal asylum routes to the United Kingdom,
(b) the eligibility criteria for legal entry into the United Kingdom, and
(c) details of the application process.
(2) The Secretary of State must publish a report on its resettlement target of refugees per year, and report on this every year.”— (Paul Blomfield.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a summary of safe and legal routes to refuge in the UK each year, alongside their eligibility criteria and application process. It would also commit the UK and Secretary of State to publishing its resettlement targets, and reporting on this annually.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause raises an issue central to the Bill and tests the Government’s commitment. Ministers here and elsewhere have consistently argued that their objective for this legislation is to break the business model for the people smugglers, to stop dangerous journeys across the channel and instead to offer those fleeing war and persecution safe and legal routes to refuge in the UK. As the Opposition side have said many times, we endorse those objectives. What we have been doing over the past few weeks is looking at how the Bill achieves them.
We know that the Government’s own assessment of their proposals suggests that they will probably fail; the impact assessment they conducted went so far as to point out that they would probably be counterproductive. Obviously, the Government have brushed that evidence aside, but there is a real concern that there is a fundamental deceit at the core of the Bill, which is that the Government are not serious about offering the safe and legal alternatives.
The new clause is not particularly radical or ambitious; it simply requires the Home Secretary to publish a report on all current safe and legal routes, who is eligible and how people can apply. It would provide transparency and help the Home Office, because it would be able to point to a credible alternative to the dangerous journeys that we all want to discourage. Currently, however, that is not the case: the schemes that the UK has open—the UKRS and the Afghan citizen resettlement scheme—have little detail in the public domain and little guidance on the eligibility criteria or the process for application. I remind the Committee of the point I made earlier: in the first half of this year, only 310 people were resettled under the UK resettlement scheme. The recently published details of the Afghan scheme frankly offer little hope for those to whom the Prime Minister made grand promises about “every effort” and “open arms” back in August.
I remind the Minister that, while the Government promote the generosity of the UK and, as we have touched on previously, we should welcome every effort that has been made to support those fleeing war and persecution, in 2019, Germany resettled more than three times as many refugees as the UK; 1.5% of Germany’s population are refugees, in comparison with 0.65% in France, 0.45% in the Netherlands and 0.19% in the UK, according to the World Bank. We are not middle ranking, as I think the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East said at one stage; we have traditionally been middle ranking, but under this Government we have been falling behind.
By accepting the new clause and publishing information about resettlement routes, the Home Office can at least be honest about the resettlement it is prepared to offer, and to whom. We as a Committee have read the evidence shared from Safe Passage International, which included some examples of people such as Jabir and Ahmed. Jabir is an unaccompanied child in northern France who is desperate to rejoin his family in the UK. He is willing to risk the channel to be reunited with his loved ones. His family have already lost a young family member to the treacherous crossing, so they are desperate to find a way for Jabir to be reunited with them, but it does not exist. While he would have had a clear case under Dublin III, there is no clear route for him now.
Meanwhile, 15-year-old Ahmed is stranded alone in France after fleeing Afghanistan. He desperately wants to be reunited with his brother, who was granted asylum in the UK and is now a young business owner. Under the UK’s current rules, the brothers would find it extremely difficult to reunite. If Ahmed’s parents were in the UK, the process would be straightforward, but tragically his brother is his only remaining family member. Ahmed is in an extremely vulnerable situation; he suffers from trauma and struggles enormously with the loss of his family. Being reunited with his brother is his only option to feel safe and to build a better future. I hope that in responding to these comments, the Minister will outline specifically what options for safe passage are, or are planned to be, available for those two boys.
Paul Blomfield
The hon. Member endorses my comments, I am pleased to hear.
If the Government are serious about their words, they need to be honest about where our ambition lies in this area and how we will provide sanctuary for those who need it. As I say, that leadership and transparency on resettlement targets would not only allow safe and legal routes to ensure that those in great need can come to the UK for protection; it would also, taken alongside the discussion we had earlier about more equitable arrangements for distribution, inform local councils, our healthcare system, schools and social services how they can plan effectively to receive and welcome and integrate into our country those seeking refuge. I hope that the Government will accept the new clause.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Member for Sheffield Central for tabling new clause 23, which would require the Government to publish an annual summary of safe and legal routes to refuge in the UK, including eligibility criteria and application process, and to report on their resettlement targets for each year. The UK has a long history of supporting refugees in need of protection and we are a global leader in resettlement.
Paul Blomfield
I am curious to know how the Minister sustains that line about the UK’s being a global leader when all the statistics published by the Home Office and others demonstrate that we are not—we are a laggard.
Tom Pursglove
I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman and I simply do not concur on this point. The simple truth is that this country is generous in the opportunities that it provides for people seeking sanctuary, and that will continue to be the case. We have had many debates on that point in this Committee, and I personally believe that that is beyond any doubt whatever.
Our resettlement schemes have provided safe and legal routes for tens of thousands of people to start new lives in the UK. Overall, since 2015, we have resettled more than 25,000 refugees direct from regions of conflict and instability, more than any EU member state. We can be proud as a country of our ambitious commitments and achievements.
On 25 February 2021, we completed our commitment to resettle 20,000 refugees under the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. That achievement was made possible because of the outstanding commitment of local authorities, the devolved Administrations, non-governmental organisations, our international partners, community and faith groups, and individual members of the public.
The UK continues to welcome refugees through the global UK resettlement scheme, as well as through the community sponsorship and mandate resettlement schemes. That commitment, alongside a fair and firm asylum system, will ensure that we continue to offer safe and legal routes to the UK for vulnerable refugees in need of protection.
Through the new plan for immigration, we have been clear that this Government will continue to provide safe refuge to those in need, ensuring that our resettlement schemes are accessible, fair and responsive to international crises. This has been evident with the Home Office being at the heart of the UK’s response to the Afghanistan crisis, including supporting, under intense pressure, the biggest humanitarian airlift in the history of this country.
On 18 August, the Prime Minister announced a new and bespoke resettlement scheme to relocate 5,000 people at risk in its first year, rising to up to 20,000 over the long term—one of the most generous schemes in our history. Ultimately, the number of refugees that we resettle every year depends on a variety of factors, including local authorities’ capacity for supporting refugees, the extent to which the community sponsorship approach continues to thrive, and funding. We work closely with our partners to assess the capacity for resettlement and will continue to welcome those in need of protection in the years to come. Committing to an annual public target would remove the flexibility that this approach provides.
Additionally, we have announced plans for a pilot to support access to work visas for highly-skilled displaced people that will run in addition to existing safe and legal routes. Furthermore, the Government also provide a safe and legal route to bring families together through the family reunion policy, which allows a partner and children aged under 18 of those granted protection in the UK to join them here, if they formed part of the family unit before the sponsor fled their country, and can demonstrate a genuine and subsisting relationship.
Mr Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that in many cases under the Dublin regulation, children were placed with quite distant relatives here in the UK who they had never met, when their families and parents were in the country from whence they had fled because it was they who had paid the people traffickers to get the children to the UK?
Tom Pursglove
As I have said, it is very important that those established relationships exist. As we have debated on many occasions in the course of this Committee, we do not want anybody to place themselves in the hands of evil people smugglers and criminal gangs. We should all be very concerned about that particular issue, as I know colleagues on the Government Benches are.
Paul Blomfield
It is welcome for the Minister to reference the importance of family reunion visas, as they are clearly a vital safe route. He will be aware that more than 90% of visas are given to women and children. Will he, then, explain why in clause 10 the Government are taking away reunion rights from the majority of refugees?
Tom Pursglove
On the issue of safe routes for children, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in Europe with family members in the UK are able to apply to join eligible sponsors, such as those with refugee leave or British settled status. The immigration rules make provision for children to be reunited with their parents. Paragraphs 319 and 297 of the immigration rules are extremely flexible and allow for children to apply to join adult family members if requirements are met, and if there are serious or compelling reasons that make the exclusion of a child undesirable and suitable arrangements are needed for a child’s care. Again, these matters are considered on a case-by-case basis, taking proper account of all the circumstances at play.
Let me finish the point that I was making before I took the interventions. Under the family reunion policy, we have granted reunion to over 37,000 partners and children of those granted protection in the UK since 2015; that is more than 5,000 a year. Our policy makes it clear that there is discretion to grant visas outside the immigration rules that caters for extended family members in exceptional and compassionate circumstances—for example, young adult sons or daughters who are dependent on family here and who are living in dangerous situations. Refugees can also sponsor adult dependent relatives living overseas to join them, when, due to age, illness or disability, that person requires long-term personal care that can only be provided by relatives in the UK.
Stuart C. McDonald
I suggest the Minister goes away and does some investigations into just how frequently these types of application are granted. My recollection is that some of the thresholds are so high—exceptional and compassionate circumstances, and so on—that in reality, it is almost impossible for some of these applications to be successful. I do not think it is an answer at all to what the hon. Member for Sheffield Central is advocating.
Tom Pursglove
I hear the hon Member’s point, which again I will take away and reflect on with colleagues in the Department.
In the light of the Government’s track record and commitment to safe and legal routes, I hope that the hon. Member for Sheffield Central agrees that the new clause is unnecessary. In particular, I highlight that information on our safe and legal routes is readily available on gov.uk including, where relevant, details about eligibility and the referral or application process.
The Home Office is committed to publishing data on arrivals in an orderly and transparent way as part of the regular quarterly immigration statistics, in line with the code of practice for official statistics. We already publish statistics on the numbers arriving through safe and legal routes. A statutory requirement to publish targets would therefore be unnecessary and unhelpfully limit the flexibility of future Governments in responding to emerging situations.
For all those reasons, I invite the hon. Member not to move the new clause. Given what has been said on family reunion, it might be helpful if I write to the Committee with more information to address some of those points, having reflected on Hansard.
Paul Blomfield
I would certainly welcome a letter on family reunion. However, I must disappoint the Minister, because he has failed to convince me about the balance in the Bill, which is central, on the Government’s commitment to develop safe and legal routes as an alternative to dangerous channel crossings. I must therefore press the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Neil Coyle (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would extend the current 28-day “move on” period for newly recognised refugees to 56 days. According to the British Red Cross, the London School of Economics and others, that could benefit the public purse by more than £7 million annually and address the profound human costs of poverty and homelessness. I thank the British Red Cross for its help with the new clause and its broader research and work in the area. I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as I receive support from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project in this policy area.
Currently, someone who has claimed asylum and been given refugee status will see their asylum support and section 4 support stop 28 days after that decision, which is out of sync with Government welfare and housing policy and insufficient time to move on with affairs. At that point, refugees stop getting their cash allowance and have to move house. While they get permission to work, they need both a bank account and a national insurance number for that. There are potential pitfalls to opening a bank account. Zikee, an ambassador for the Voices Network said:
“The biggest problem I faced when I received my refugee status was that I was asked to move out of my Home Office accommodation within 28 days…this affected me so much as I did not have my…biometric resident card due to a Home Office error. I had to wait weeks for this…and this meant I couldn’t open a bank account.”
It can be problematic to open a bank account within 28 days and, as the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman), confirmed in June, it can take weeks to access a national insurance number. The average wait for a new national insurance number is 10 to 12 weeks, not the 28 days found in measures for refugees. The current 28-day “move on” period is incompatible with the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, which gives local authorities a 56-day period to work with households at risk of homelessness and to provide alternative accommodation.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark for tabling his new clause. In simple terms, the longer successful asylum-seekers remain in asylum accommodation, the fewer the beds available for those newly entering the asylum support system, including those temporarily accommodated in hotels at great expense to the taxpayer. We are aware of reports that some refugees do not access universal credit or other benefits, or adequate housing, within 28 days. The reasons for that are complex, but the available evidence to date does not show that the problem can be solved by increasing the 28-day “move on” period.
I also reassure the hon. Member that we have implemented several initiatives with the aim of securing better outcomes for refugees in the 28 day “move on” period. These include ensuring that the 28-day period does not start until refugees have been issued with a biometric residence permit—the document that they need to prove that they can take employment and apply for universal credit—and that the national insurance number is printed on the permit, which speeds up the process of deciding a universal credit application.
We also fund Migrant Help, a voluntary sector organisation, to contact the refugees at the start of the 28-day period and offer practical “move on” assistance, including advice on how to claim universal credit; advice on the importance of an early asylum claim and the other types of support that might be available; booking an early appointment at their nearest Department for Work and Pensions jobcentre, if needed; and advice on how to contact their local authority for assistance in finding alternative housing.
We evaluated the success of the scheme that books an early appointment with the local jobcentre for those who want one. That showed that all applicants for universal credit in the survey received their first payment on time—that is, 35 days from the date of their application—and that those who asked for an earlier advance payment received one.
Asylum accommodation providers are also under a contractual duty to notify the local authority of the potential need to provide housing where a person in their accommodation is granted refugee status. Refugees can also apply for integration loans, which can be used, for example, to pay a rent deposit or for essential domestic items, work equipment or training.
The UK has a proud history of providing protection to those who need it, and I reassure the hon. Member that the Government are committed to ensuring that all refugees can take positive steps towards integration and realising their potential. Although we keep the “move on” period under review, we must also consider the strong countervailing factors that make increasing that period difficult. I therefore invite him not to press his new clause.
Neil Coyle
I am almost sorry, but the Minister’s answer ignores the reality and the situation in which people find themselves. He does not have an answer about the anomaly in housing or social security policy, and he has not even tried to explain why the Government are ignoring the potential savings to the public purse. I will press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 26— Right of appeal against France asylum visa refusal—
‘(1) If an application by a person (“P”) for entry clearance under clause [Asylum visa for persons in France] is refused by the appropriate decision-maker, P may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the refusal.
(2) The following provisions of, or made under, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 have effect in relation to an appeal under these Regulations to the First-tier Tribunal as if it were an appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State under section 82(1) of that Act (right of appeal to the Tribunal)—
(a) section 84 (grounds of appeal), as though the sole permitted ground of appeal was that the appropriate decision-maker was wrong to conclude that P was not a relevant person;
(b) section 85(1) to (4) (matters to be considered);
(c) section 86 (determination of appeal);
(d) section 105 and any regulations made under that section; and
(e) section 106 and any rules made pursuant to that section.
(3) In an appeal under this section, the First-tier Tribunal—
(a) shall allow the appeal if it is satisfied that P is a relevant person; and
(b) shall otherwise dismiss the appeal.
(4) In an appeal under this section, in deciding whether there are good reasons why P‘s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom, the First-tier Tribunal shall apply section [Asylum visa for persons in France] (3) as though for the words “appropriate decision-maker” there were substituted the words “First-tier Tribunal”.’
This new clause would allow a person whose application for entry clearance under clause [Asylum visa for persons in France] has been rejected to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.
Neil Coyle
New clause 25 proposes a humanitarian visa route, and new clause 26 grants a right of appeal—something that made Tory MPs very excitable yesterday. I do not intend to push the new clauses to a vote; they are aimed at opening dialogue, and they link back to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central.
If the Government are serious about finding solutions to people smuggling and trafficking, they should consider providing practical routes for people seeking sanctuary, in the way that they do for Syria and Afghanistan, and undertake to review humanitarian routes and how they could work. I thank Bella Sankey of Detention Action for her work on these clauses. There are some fantastic people working on these issues.
The purpose of the new clauses is to offer the Government a constructive solution for safe routes. They would have the benefit of cutting smuggling and potentially saving money in the long term. If they are serious about safe and regular routes, the humanitarian visa option would create them. The new clauses also make use of the border anomaly in Calais.
The Government should commit to exploring safe routes if they are serious about preventing dangerous options. The example from Detention Action is of Dylan Footohi, an Iranian refugee who says,
“I came to the UK seeking asylum. I came irregularly simply because there was no legal way for me to do so. My journey to the UK took two years; two years of exploitation and abuse and life-threatening experiences.”
He felt that that way was the only option. If there had been an alternative, he would have taken it. These new clauses offer that alternative.
The new clauses provide for certain persons in France to be granted entry clearance to allow them to claim asylum in the UK. The new clauses set out who qualifies: they have to be in France; they cannot be an EU national or a national of Liechtenstein, Iceland, Norway or Switzerland; they have to intend to make a protection claim in the UK; their protection claim, if made in the UK, must have a realistic prospect of success; and there must be good reasons why their protection claim should be considered in the UK.
The first three criteria are self-explanatory. The fourth criterion—the realistic prospect of success—is a well-established test in UK immigration law. It is used in paragraph 353 of the immigration rules, which deals with a person who has been refused asylum and has later made further submissions on asylum grounds and says that they have a fresh right of appeal against the refusal of their further submissions. Home Office officials, courts and tribunals are well used to applying that test. The leading case on the realistic prospect of success is WM (DRC) [2006] EWCA Civ 1495.
To give an example of how the criterion could work in practice, applicant X applies for a France asylum visa. She is from country A and claims that she is wanted by the authorities of country A for a political offence. The applicable country guidance accepts that if a person is detained for political offence in country A, they are likely to be subjected to serious ill-treatment, so if applicant X’s claim is found to be credible she would be entitled to asylum. The appropriate decision maker believes that applicant X is credible. Applicant X’s claim is likely to have realistic prospect of success, so the criterion is likely to be satisfied. I will keep examples brief in the interest of time.
The fifth criterion is about good reasons and is intentionally open-ended. It allows the appropriate decision maker to make a fact-sensitive evaluation of the merits of the case. In considering whether there are good reasons, the decision maker will take into account the relative strength of their family or other ties to the UK and France; their mental and physical health and any particular vulnerabilities; and any other matter the decision maker thinks is relevant.
To give a brief example, applicant X applies for a France asylum visa. She is street homeless in France due to a shortage of available accommodation. She has PTSD and depression as a result of being tortured and has not been able to seek treatment due to her insecure living situation. She has no family and friends in France but has a brother in the UK with whom she has a close relationship and who could support her if she were here. She speaks good English but does not speak French. There are likely to be good reasons for her claim to be dealt with in the UK, so the criterion is likely to be satisfied. That is an illustrative example, but decision makers would make up their minds on the facts of each individual case, having regard to all relevant factors.
The procedure for making the application would be to the appropriate decision maker—an entry clearance officer authorised by the Secretary of State—and they would be required to waive biometric and other procedural requirements if satisfied that the applicant could not be reasonably expected to comply. There would be no fee for the application.
The successful applicant would be given leave to enter for a period of not less than six months, prescribed by the Secretary of State, who would also prescribe the conditions of such leave. On arrival, they would be deemed to have made a protection claim in the UK and go through the normal asylum process. They would have access to legal aid and there would be a right of appeal in the first-tier tribunal against the refusal of a France asylum visa application. That would be a full merits appeal and would not be limited to a review of the original decision-maker’s decision. The tribunal will decide for itself whether the criteria are met.
That appeal process utilises the existing machinery of immigration appeals under the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. There would be onward rights of appeal to the upper tribunal and Court of Appeal under sections 11 and 13 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, as with other types of immigration appeal.
I ask that the Government consider those practical solutions that could take the power away from people smugglers and traffickers, who the Minister routinely calls evil, with which I agree, while honouring our commitment to the refugee convention. I commend the new clauses to the Committee.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for tabling the new clauses; it is fair to say that during the course of the Committee we have had many debates around many aspects of what they refer to. The Government’s position is clear: we are trying to stop dangerous journeys wholesale—in relation not just to the channel, but to the Mediterranean. We believe in upholding the long-standing principle that people should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach. Of course, people should also avail themselves of our safe and legal routes. With that, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.
Neil Coyle
I do not think that even the Home Office impact assessment of the Bill accepts what the Minister has just said, because it says that Bill compels some people to take dangerous routes. As I said at the start, however, this is just a probing set of new clauses. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 27
Asylum dispersal strategy
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 2 months of this Act gaining Royal Assent, publish a strategy on the accommodation of asylum seekers under a relevant provision.
(2) The strategy must cover, but need not be limited to, the following—
(a) ensuring an equitable distribution of accommodation across the regions of England, Scotland and Wales;
(b) the suitability of financial provision provided to local authorities relating to costs supporting accommodated asylum seekers;
(c) the suitability of financial provision provided to local authorities relating to costs incurred supporting individuals after they receive a decision on their asylum application;
(d) the provision of legal advice to accommodated asylum seekers; and
(e) the provision of support from non-governmental bodies.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “relevant provision” means—
(a) section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
(b) Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
(c) Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016.’—(Neil Coyle.)
This new clause would require the Home Secretary to publish a strategy within two months of the bill gaining Royal Assent on the accommodation of people seeking asylum who are accommodated by the Home Office.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Neil Coyle
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I thank the British Red Cross for its help with the new clause, which is very simple and is line with what the Government have said they are committed to elsewhere. It would simply entail publishing a strategy to cover Home Office accommodation, and it aims to ensure an equitable distribution of people across England, Scotland and Wales, that financial support is provided to local authorities in areas where people are seeking asylum in Home Office accommodation, and other elements.
Although the Committee has heard that the Government’s intention is to move towards the use of reception centres, it is fundamentally unclear where accommodation is aimed to be and what the Government consider accommodation to be. I intend to table an amendment on the specific issue of what is and is not an accommodation centre on Report, especially with some of the sites being used as contingency accommodation, including a hostel in my constituency that Public Health England suggested should not be used for accommodation for the Everyone In scheme. The Home Office chose to override that advice and use it for refugee and asylum seeker accommodation. The Government now seem to think that dispersal is broken, and they want to open a parallel system of accommodation, but they want to use what they refer to as “reception centres”. I hope the Minister can provide some clarity on that and on whether the Government feel that they need to use the 2002 Act. Perhaps the Minister can clear up this messy situation.
Napier barracks has become synonymous with this issue. Its use has just been extended for five years, with the Home Office using a special development order to do so. In his letter to the Committee on 21 October, the Minister said Napier is not classified as an accommodation centre. I think that is a mistake, and I hope the Minister can explain why the Home Office is using a special development order, when the High Court has ruled that the standards and operational systems at Napier barracks are unlawful.
As things stand, we do not know what is and is not accommodation according to the Home Office. We have reports and court rulings on unlawful and unfit accommodation. We do not know where reception centres will be or the types of accommodation that the Government intend to provide while seeking to move away from dispersal in communities where service providers have argued that it is better for integration. That is why a strategy is required, and I hope the Government accept that they need to move towards a more co-ordinated approach.
On dispersal, the British Red Cross has said there is currently nothing in legislation that says people supported under sections 95, 98 and 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 have to be accommodated in any particular way. Dispersal is not underpinned in the current legislation, so a strategy would help clarify the situation for the Home Office and the rest of us.
Like hotels, Napier and Penally barracks were seen as contingency accommodation—temporary measures because of a lack of suitable dispersal. The Government need to get the dispersal system in place. We do not know what the Government reception centres would look like or where they would be located, nor have the Government said whether people would be accommodated for the entirety of their asylum process. It is proposed that the centres would “provide basic accommodation” and
“allow for decisions and any appeals following substantive rejection of an asylum claim to be processed”,
but we are conscious of the delays in the asylum system, and it is possible that people could be living in the centres for several months, potentially in remote locations. I hope that the Minister will outline whether children are intended to be placed in those centres.
Tom Pursglove
I refer the hon. Gentleman to my comments on earlier clauses, when I confirmed that children would not be placed in those accommodation centres.
Neil Coyle
That is helpful, but it has been brought to my attention this week that a 16-year-old is in a Home Office accommodation hotel in my constituency. I do not know whether that is an age-disputed case for the Home Office, but there is clearly a mismatch between the Government’s intent and what is actually happening.
Rewan has been living with his two sons, aged 11 and 18, in a hotel room for 10 months. His sons cannot study, and although he is desperate to get work, their living circumstances do not allow for that. Umar was told in October 2020 when he moved into a hostel with his wife and four children—aged 7, 9, 13, and 14—that they would be there for a matter of weeks. They are still there. That is what is happening on the ground and why a strategy on dispersal is required. Dispersal is better in the local community: through work with the local community, and by using dispersal accommodation, people are better able to make connections and start feeling part of a city. As Asylum Matters states:
“Providing support for people seeking asylum, including finding suitable accommodation, should be carried out in partnership with local government and local community groups.”
That is not what we are seeing.
For the almost 700 recent arrivals in Southwark, there was absolutely no in-advance co-ordination with the council; the Home Office alerted the council only after opening accommodation. Bearing in mind that accommodation would have been commissioned and procured in advance, there was ample opportunity for discussions to ensure that support was in place, but the Home Office failed to engage. In fact, when I asked the Home Office what resources the council would receive to support the hundreds of new people, it wrote back saying, “We have given some money to the clinical commissioning group.” That is not part of the council.
I had a really useful discussion with the Local Government Association, which said that it would welcome a dispersal strategy and that it wants people to be able to work. There are workplaces that are desperate to take people on, but they cannot get them in. A proper dispersal strategy should look at employment levels in certain areas. Moving people into areas with high levels of employment, rather than into the cheapest accommodation across the country, would actually benefit the workforce and the economy. That strategy would be adopted by any sensible Government, so I do not hold high hopes.
I will give some background stats: in December 2020, around one in five people in Home Office accommodation were living in a hostel, B&B or hotel—triple the December 2019 figures. In Southwark, there were 1,022 people in dispersal accommodation in June, but, as I have just said, hundreds have arrived since then. The Red Cross suggested:
“The Home Office should, as a matter of urgency, address the supply of suitable asylum accommodation, and work with local authorities, devolved governments”,
and it pointed out an increase in the demand for asylum accommodation and a rise in the number of people living in inappropriate places. The increase in decision-making delays since 2018—prior to the pandemic—has resulted in people staying in asylum accommodation for far longer, which is something the Minister has just said he is determined to tackle, so a strategy should be welcome. The situation is unsustainable and only a strategy to build out of it will address the problem.
In April, we had a Backbench Business debate on accommodation, focusing on the National Audit Office and Public Accounts Committee reports into asylum accommodation. The NAO reported last July that the system the Government have adopted caused costs to escalate by 28%, and saw a 96% increase in short-term and more expensive accommodation. In November 2020, the Public Accounts Committee warned of a system in crisis, and it recommended:
“The Home Office should, within three months, set out a clear plan for how it will quickly and safely reduce the use of hotels and ensure that asylum seekers’ accommodation meets their individual needs.”
It would be great to hear from the Minister on how that clear plan is being developed. The new clause would help to address the problem that the Government have created.
The time involved comes with escalating costs to the Home Office and the taxpayer. Will the Minister update us on average times and what he is doing to tackle them? I have two examples from Bermondsey and Old Southwark. I have raised the cases of an Eritrean woman and a Mongolian man who have both been seeking asylum since 2017. Not only do they not have decisions four years later, but the Home Office cannot even give a timeframe for when their cases will be concluded. Perhaps the Minister can tell us today when and how the Home Office will cut the horrific backlog that his Government have created.
At the end of September 2020, there were 3,621 Sudanese, Syrian and Eritrean nationals who had been waiting longer than six months for a decision on their application. The grant rate across those countries was 94% in the most recent stats. That is an incredibly expensive waste. A strategy, as outlined in the new clause, would help address the underlying costs and focus Ministers’ and civil servants’ minds on cutting delays and lowering the cost to the public purse.
Earlier this year the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) asked the Home Office what the Government were doing to engage with local authorities to understand why offers for dispersal were not matching demand, and to ensure that there was true collaboration. He received a letter in response from the Home Office that stated:
“We remain fully committed to working towards the agreed change plan once we have been able to move people out of hotels and into more appropriate Dispersal Accommodation.”
I hope the new clause helps the Minister with that aim. I commend it to the Committee.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I want to pick up on a few of the points that he raised. In relation to Napier, as I have said previously, we have seen several improvements recently: offering all residents covid vaccinations and personal cleaning kits, the introduction of NGOs on the site to provide assistance and advice, free travel to medical appointments and dentistry services or for meetings, sports and recreation. Those significant improvements have been made since the court judgment was handed down.
Hotels are provided as a contingency because of the lack of availability of other accommodation, but it is important to make the point that those are not accommodation centres. On the unaccompanied asylum-seeking children situation, it is difficult to comment on individual cases and a hotel in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency—I do not have the specifics to hand—but I can say that, broadly, the UASC, but not other children, would be accommodated in a hotel. That is my understanding of the situation.
On a broader point, we had a significant debate on new clause 2 and dispersal accommodation, where I set out the steps that the Government are taking to try to address that. That is being considered, and I refer Members to what I said before.
Neil Coyle
The Minister says that things have improved since the court judgment and that, for example, NGOs now have more routine access. The hostel accommodation in Bermondsey and Old Southwark was open for three months before the first visit of Migrant Help on site. I am just not convinced that the Minister has given an accurate portrayal of the current picture and the real situation in a real building affecting hundreds of people in my own constituency.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making excellent points. The Minister says there have been changes at Napier barracks since the High Court judgment, but those changes happened because of the High Court judgment, and they perhaps would not have happened had the Government not been taken to court over the use of Napier barracks and the conditions there. That is why we do not trust the Government to make the right judgment calls on the quality of accommodation, and why my hon. Friend’s new clause is important.
Neil Coyle
I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government routinely dodge using the term “accommodation centre” because they do not want to set up an advisory group. If they went through the formal process of designating something as an accommodation centre, an advisory group would help to resolve some of the problems that we have seen at Napier and in the hostel accommodation in my constituency, where they had an almost inevitable covid outbreak.
The Minister has not committed to a strategy. We are seeing a longer process, with routine delays for applications and appeals. We are seeing damage to people’s lives. We are seeing damage to the economy because people cannot get a job and make more of a contribution as quickly as would be possible if there were a strategy and a plan. We are leaving the taxpayer with a massive bill for the Government’s failure. Therefore, we will press new clause 27 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 44—Independent Child Trafficking Guardians: inspection—
‘(1) The Education and Inspections Act 2006 is amended as follows.
(2) After Clause 145 insert—
“145A Inspection of independent guardians’ performance
(1) The Chief Inspector must inspect the performance of independent guardians.
(2) On completing an inspection under this section, the Chief Inspector must make a written report on it.
(3) The Chief Inspector must send copies of the report to—
(a) the Secretary of State, and
(b) Independent Guardians.
(4) The Chief Inspector must arrange for the report to be published in such manner as he considers appropriate.
(5) In this section, “independent guardians” means those appointed under section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.”’
This new clause sets out the duty for OFSTED to inspect the performance of independent guardians.
Holly Lynch
Before I start, I draw hon. Members’ attention to the Red Box article written by the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton, and published in The Times today. Entitled “Rushed borders bill will fail victims of modern slavery”, it is damning. Against that backdrop, I will have another go at mitigating the worst elements of part 4 with new clause 43. I start by paying tribute to ECPAT UK and the Children’s Society, which have shared their insight and invaluable expertise in helping us to shape these new clauses.
New clause 43 would amend section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, to ensure that an independent guardian was provided for all child victims of trafficking and separated children. For clarity, I point out that when I refer to “separated children”, I am referring to migrant children who are unaccompanied. The independent guardian would be a central part of a child’s life, acting as a connection to all the support services that they required, having the ability to instruct solicitors on their behalf and representing their best interests throughout. These guardians would be experts on trafficking and modern slavery, whose purpose was to safeguard and improve the wellbeing of trafficked children, as well as ensuring that statutory services could function more effectively, securing a route both to recovery and to prosecution of those ultimately responsible for their abuse. As specified in the functions laid out in the new clause, an independent guardian would ensure that the child was informed of any relevant legal proceedings, clearly communicate the views of the child and promote the future welfare of the child based on what was in the child’s best interest.
I have cited the numbers previously, but I will remind the Committee. In 2020, 47% of referrals to the national referral mechanism were children, and of the referrals for UK-based exploitation only, 57% were children. It was the case that 51% of the referrals of children were for child criminal exploitation. According to the National Crime Agency, the increase in referrals to the NRM of British children has been driven largely by so-called county lines criminality.
A great deal of the provision in new clause 43 should already be happening and be provided for between international laws, including the UN convention on the rights of the child, the EU trafficking directive of 2011 and the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, as well as domestic provisions. However, the measure has been only partially adopted across the UK. The Children’s Society has supported calls for it to be enshrined in statute, stating that a guardian’s role should be independent from the state, have legal authority and have adequate legal powers to represent the child’s best interests, as well as being respected by an existing regulatory body.
As the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner highlighted in her annual report for 2020-21, despite clear evidence of good practice she remains extremely disappointed that six years on from the Modern Slavery Act 2015 the independent child trafficking guardian service is not yet a national provision.
There has been very much a staggered approach to roll-out, with the service still not in operation across around a third of all local authorities, several years after it was adopted in three early adopter areas in Greater Manchester, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. That shows a real lack of urgency on the Government’s part and we echo the statement by the anti-slavery commissioner that
“access to this specialist support for children should not be a postcode lottery”.
In the year ending June 2021, the UK received 2,756 applications for asylum from unaccompanied children. The majority of unaccompanied children are cared for on a voluntary agreement under section 20 of the Children’s Act 1989, rather than under a section 31 care order, whereby the local authority has full parental responsibility for the child.
Although I pay tribute to the dedicated social workers up and down the country, in reality many social workers will not have received training on the asylum and immigration system, and may lack the skills to aid children with their immigration applications. Therefore, the new clause will provide much needed consistency and security for children who have had some of the worst possible starts in life, supporting them towards recovery and through their relationship with the relevant agencies, in the hope that we can secure child victims a degree of restorative justice, which would be a service for both migrants to the UK and UK nationals.
The report conducted by the Home Office evaluating independent child trafficking guardians supported the argument that they provide a sense of stability and continuity:
“Investing time in trafficked children’s lives by a single trusted, well-informed, reliable adult became a distinct early feature of the ways child trafficking guardians stood out from other professions.”
This is demonstrated by one young person who responded to the evaluation. Speaking about their guardian, they said:
“She is so amazing... I don’t know if they’re all like that, but for me it was different, because I told her things that I haven’t told my social worker and that was beneficial. I think that’s because of her personality...she seems really open, I can talk to her about anything.”
Police offers working to combat exploitation and help young people told me recently that they were becoming aware that the drive to keep young people out of police cells for all the right reasons had led to instances where children were arrested in possession of, say, drugs and cash. Rightly, the police would have taken those items from the children before they were released, pending further inquiries, but before proper consideration of their circumstances could be made.
Officers identified that children and young people were having to go back to serious criminals to inform them that they no longer had their drugs or cash, without any of the risks to them having been identified and without safeguarding support having been wrapped around them. Thankfully, those officers were working through the best practice alternatives, but those are the types of scenarios where guardians would be able to play an invaluable role.
It is notable that the devolved nations have been far more proactive in this area, with Scotland having made greater progress and Northern Ireland introducing a comprehensive independent guardians model, which provides an individualised service for all separated children. If we are to consider the UK a world-leader in combating modern slavery, I ask the Minister to put into primary legislation what should already be happening, as a means of addressing the gaps in provision, which will help us to do what is right for these children as well as assisting the authorities in identifying and apprehending perpetrators of some of the most heinous crimes.
New clause 44 would ensure that the provision of independent child trafficking advocates is subject to an inspectorate regime. As colleagues may be aware, the measure is currently not subject to an inspection framework, which is applied to other services for children under the Education and Inspections Act 2006. We believe than an inspection framework is necessary to ensure that Ofsted can inspect the quality and effectiveness of the service.
In conclusion, I find it hard to believe that any colleagues do not support the aims and objectives of the new clause, which builds upon the commitments in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. As the campaign group Every Child Protected Against Trafficking UK has highlighted, those who are eligible under new clause 43 may have had to flee their country due to conflict and may have faced exploited en route to the UK. Others may be British children in the care system, who have been let down by the adults around them. There is a breadth of vulnerability here and we believe that the new clauses better acknowledge and cater to all child victims’ physical and psychological needs. I hope that the Minister shares the ambition behind the new clauses and understands the need for all trafficked and separated children to be recognised and supported within primary legislation.
Tom Pursglove
I thank hon. Members for tabling their new clauses. They have raised important issues about the support available for child victims who have faced the most heinous crimes. Independent child trafficking guardians are an independent source of advice and support for potentially trafficked children, irrespective of nationality, and somebody who can advocate on a child’s behalf. Provision for the independent child trafficking guardian already exists in section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, as does the requirement to make regulations.
The Government have developed detailed policy for the provision of this service, which is set out in the interim independent child trafficking guardians guidance, published under section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. This guidance is kept under review through consultation with stakeholders. The correct place for the detail regarding the function of the service is in guidance, rather than, as new clause 43 suggests, the legislation itself. That enables the Government to respond flexibly to best practice and victims’ needs. The guidance is clear that acting in the child’s best interests must always be a primary consideration for the service.
New clause 43 would also ensure that an independent child trafficking guardian can continue to provide support to a child until the age of 25, to the extent that their welfare and best interests require such an appointment. Following a recommendation from the independent review of the Modern Slavery Act, the Government are currently trialling the provision of support, when appropriate, to individuals beyond the age of 18 in London, West Yorkshire and Warwickshire. An independent evaluation will look at the added value of implementing that change and consider appropriate next steps. The new clause would expand the scope of the independent child trafficking guardian service to all separated children when there are already existing provisions for separated children to receive support and assistance through other means.
I assure the Committee that the Government take their responsibility for the welfare of unaccompanied children extremely seriously. We have comprehensive statutory and policy safeguards in place for caring for and safeguarding unaccompanied asylum-seeking children in the UK, including those who are victims of trafficking. When an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child becomes looked after by a local authority, they are entitled to the same level of support and care from their local authority as all looked-after children. Under these arrangements, a looked-after child must be provided with access to education, healthcare, legal support and accommodation. They will be allocated a social worker who will assess their individual needs and draw up a care plan that sets out how the local authority intends to respond to the full range of those needs. Our record demonstrates the Government’s determination to ensure that unaccompanied children and child victims of modern slavery are appropriately safeguarded and have the support they need.
Tom Pursglove
I am conscious that we need to make progress, but I will take a quick intervention.
Holly Lynch
I am grateful. I do not dispute that the provision already exists in legislation for independent child trafficking guardians; my dispute is that, as we have heard, they are not available in reality for a third of the country. If the Minister is saying that we do not need a requirement in legislation to do this, how does he plan to ensure that those guardians are available right across the country?
Tom Pursglove
If I may, I will write to the Committee. I have undertaken to write to the Committee with more information in relation to another matter we discussed earlier, and I am very happy to provide more information to the Committee in answer to that question.
Turning to new clause 44, I appreciate that appropriate methods of assessing the effectiveness of independent child trafficking guardians are required. The current independent child trafficking guardian service model is informed by the findings of the evaluation of early adopter sites, published in July 2019, and the evaluation of the regional practice co-ordinator role, published in October 2020. The provision of independent child trafficking guardians in section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 provides the Secretary of State with a duty to make such arrangements considered reasonable to ensure that specialist independent child trafficking advocates are
“available to represent and support children who there are reasonable grounds to believe may be victims of human trafficking.”
Section 48(6) places a duty on the Secretary of State to make regulations about independent child trafficking advocates, which must include the circumstances and conditions under which a person may act as an independent child trafficking advocate, arrangements for the approval of the appointment of such advocates, the timing of appointment and the advocates’ functions. As mentioned earlier, the roll-out of the independent child trafficking guardian service is being informed by the findings of the evaluation of early adopter sites. As such, regulations will be brought forward in due course.
Independent child trafficking guardians are now operating in two thirds of all local authorities in England and Wales, as the hon. Lady said. It is important that the provision is able to support those vulnerable children appropriately, and it is precisely for this reason that a staggered approach has been adopted, with built-in evaluations along the way. We will continue to monitor closely the independent child trafficking guardian service to ensure practitioners are acting in the child’s best interests and that resource is being allocated appropriately. We will adjust guidance as needed to ensure that these vulnerable victims are protected and supported to recover from their exploitation. For the reasons I have outlined, I invite the hon. Lady not to press her new clauses.
Holly Lynch
I live in hope that anyone who can run a marathon for Justice and Care would understand the value of the independent child trafficking guardians and the victim navigators, and with that in mind, I very much look forward to the Minister’s further commitments in writing. If we are not satisfied, we will come back to this issue on Report, but I trust that he will do everything he can on those two fronts. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 46
Permission to work for people seeking asylum
“(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 3(2) (general provisions for regulation and control) insert—
‘(2A) In making rules under subsection (2), the Secretary of State must make provision for persons seeking asylum, within the meaning of the rules, and their adult dependants to have the right to apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment, including self-employment and voluntary work.
(2B) Permission to work for persons seeking asylum and their adult dependants must be granted if—
(a) a decision has not been taken on the person’s asylum application within six months of the date of that application, or
(b) a person makes a further application which raises asylum grounds and a decision on that new application, or a decision on whether to treat such further asylum grounds as a new application, has not been taken within six months of the date on which the further application was made.
(2C) Permission for a person seeking asylum and their adult dependants to take up employment shall be on terms no less favourable than the terms granted to a person recognised as a refugee.’”—(Bambos Charalambous.)
This new clause amends the Immigration Act 1971 to allow people seeking asylum to be granted permission to work after 6 months.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will try to be brief in the interests of time. I thank the Lift the Ban campaign for its sterling work on why this new clause is so necessary and why it would be so beneficial. Current immigration rules dictate that asylum seekers can apply for permission to work only if they have been waiting for a decision for over 12 months and only for jobs that are on the Government’s highly restrictive shortage occupation list, which includes professions such as classical ballet dancer and geophysicist. That has not always been the case. Until 2002, people were able to apply for permission to work if they had been waiting for a decision for more than six months. Only in 2010 was the right to work restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list.
Today, 76% of people waiting for a decision on their asylum claim have been waiting for more than six months, according to the Government’s latest immigration statistics. During the long waits for claims to be processed, people seeking asylum are unable safely to protect themselves and provide for their families. They are forced to depend on the pitifully low asylum support payments of £5.66 a day, and people must often choose between essential items of food, medicine and cleaning products while being prohibited from using their skills and experience.
Work provides a route out of poverty, and there would be a big economic benefit from lifting the ban. The Lift the Ban coalition has calculated that, if 50% of those currently waiting more than six months for a decision on their claim found work, the net economic benefit from increased tax and national insurance contributions and from lower asylum support payments would be £178 million per year. Lifting the ban also has widespread business backing. In 2019, the Lift the Ban coalition polled 1,000 businesses for their views on whether people seeking asylum should have the right to work, and 67% of the businesses polled agreed.
In addition, lifting the ban would bring the UK into line with policy in all other comparable countries. Lifting the ban also makes sense in the covid-19 pandemic or post-pandemic context in which we find ourselves. The skills and desire to work possessed by many stuck in the asylum system could have been invaluable during the recent covid-19 crisis. Very importantly, lifting the ban would support integration. It stands to reason that early access to employment increases the chances of smooth economic and social integration by allowing people to improve their English, acquire new skills, and make new friends and social contacts in the wider community. Crucially, it enables them to be self-sufficient. The policy is also popular with the public. According to Lift the Ban coalition’s research conducted in 2018, 71% of the public support lifting the ban.
Holly Lynch
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I intended to speak in full in favour of new clause 46, but I will just make an intervention. On that 71% figure, he will be aware that Lift the Ban conducted research in every constituency across the country. Bearing in mind that 73% of the people of Eastleigh, 72% of the people of Calder Valley and 66% of the people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North support ending the ban on the right to work, does my hon. Friend share my hope that the hon. Members for those areas will reflect on the public’s support for new clause 46?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I hope beyond hope that hon. Members will support our new clause.
In December 2018, the then Home Secretary stated that a Home Office review of the policy would be taking place. Subsequent contributions in 2019 from the Prime Minister and Home Office Ministers confirmed that the review would continue under the new Government, but to date no detail has been provided regarding the content or methodology of that review. The Government have appeared divided in their own ranks on the issue. In recent months, senior Cabinet Ministers have expressed disquiet about the Government’s position. Surely, it is therefore time that the Government listen to voices from across the political spectrum on this issue and do the right thing by adopting our clause on lifting the ban on work for people seeking asylum.
Tom Pursglove
I should start by noting that, as hon. Members know, the Government’s current policy does allow asylum seekers to work in the UK if their claim has been outstanding for 12 months, where the delay was caused through no fault of their own. Those permitted to work are restricted to jobs on the shortage occupation list, which is based on expert advice from the independent Migration Advisory Committee.
I should like to set out the rationale for that policy position. The policy is designed to protect the resident labour market by prioritising access to employment for British citizens and others who are lawfully resident, including those granted refugee status, who are given full access to the labour market. That is in line with wider changes we have made through the points-based immigration system. We consider it crucial to distinguish between those who need protection and those seeking to come here to work, who can apply for a work visa under the immigration rules. Our wider immigration policy would be undermined if individuals could bypass the work visa rules by lodging unfounded asylum claims in the UK.
Tom Pursglove
I have been very generous throughout the duration of the Committee, but I am afraid I need to make some progress at this point.
It is also the case that unrestricted access to employment opportunities may act as an incentive for more migrants to choose to come here illegally, rather than claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. While pull factors are complex, we cannot ignore that access to the UK labour market is among the reasons that an unprecedented number of people are taking extremely dangerous journeys by small boat to the UK. I trust that hon. Members would agree with me that the UK cannot have a policy that raises those risks, and that we must do everything in our power to put a stop to those journeys.
Relaxing our asylum seeker right-to-work policy is not the right approach in this respect. Indeed, in an article earlier this month, the French newspaper Le Figaro noted the perspective in France that the “economic attractiveness” of the UK is a reason migrants attempt to cross the channel in small boats. In addition, removing restrictions on work for asylum seekers could increase the number of unfounded claims for asylum, reducing our capacity to take decisions quickly and support genuine refugees.
I would like to take this opportunity to make it clear that I do acknowledge the concerns of hon. Members. The Government are committed to ensuring that asylum claims are considered without unnecessary delay to ensure that individuals who need protection are granted asylum as soon as possible and can start to integrate and rebuild their lives. It is important to note that those granted asylum are given immediate and unrestricted access to the labour market.
I absolutely agree with hon. Members that asylum seekers should be allowed to volunteer. That is why we strongly encourage all asylum seekers to consider volunteering, so long as it does not amount to unpaid work. Volunteering provides a valuable contribution to their local community and may help them to integrate into society if they ultimately qualify for protection.
We have been clear that asylum seekers who wish to come to the UK must do so through safe and legal routes. Where reasons for coming to the UK include family or economic considerations, applications should be made via the relevant route: either the new points-based immigration system or the refugee family reunion rules. We absolutely must discourage those risking their lives and coming here illegally.
The Nationality and Borders Bill will deliver the most comprehensive reform in decades to fix the broken asylum and illegal migration system, and our asylum seeker right-to-work policy must uphold that wider approach. There is, of course, a review of the 2018 report currently under way and I reassure hon. Members that the findings of the updated recent report will be built into this. For all those reasons, I invite the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate and for Halifax to withdraw the new clause.
Bambos Charalambous
I am not convinced by the Minister’s response, so I will be pushing this to a vote. Hopefully, we will be joined by other Members across the Committee.
Question put,
That the clause be read a Second time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I appreciate that the issue of safe routes has been explored fairly extensively already today, but I just want to make a couple more points. I think pretty much everyone on the Committee has agreed that we want to stop people from making dangerous journeys. Members would agree that part of that work involves tackling gangs through police work and so on. Fundamentally, where we have different points of view is over the role that disincentives have.
The Bill is all about disincentivising people from making journeys by putting them in the criminal justice system—breaching their human rights, breaching the refugee convention and using all manner of methods that would be regarded as completely and utterly inappropriate. Indeed, in the last debate we heard about the right to work, which exemplified that approach. The answer from the Minister, with all due respect, was totally devoid of any sort of evidence and reasoning. It is hugely frustrating. The so-called review is still ongoing three years on.
The final way to tackle these journeys is through safe alternatives. Again, I think that across the Committee there is a degree of agreement that safe routes do have a role to play. It is important that we have safe legal routes. In a sense, there is an element of justice about it, which is that we have to play our part in supporting those who suffer persecution; we cannot just leave it all to neighbouring countries, notwithstanding the fact that 80% or 90% of refugees are often in neighbouring countries—developing countries and so on.
I still do not get whether the Government totally appreciate the important role that such safe routes have in reducing unsafe journeys. To me, it is obviously significant. That is why EU countries, previously including the UK, have in place the Dublin rules. Those are far from perfect, but they recognise that if a person seeking asylum has family members or links in another member state, that is an appropriate place for the asylum case to be heard. Almost certainly, if there is no official route for an individual to use to come to the UK, whatever their ties are, an unofficial journey on an unofficial route will follow. That is why we find that many people in France who do consider, and do make, these dangerous journeys actually have relatives here in the UK. The immigration rules as they stand—I raised this in my intervention on the Minister earlier—are not fit for purpose. They include hugely demanding tests. Grants outside the rules are few and far between. I welcome the fact that the Government have indicated that they will take a look at that.
The end of the Dublin rules has almost certainly—definitely, in my view—exacerbated what is going on across the channel. Of course, the fact that there are no safe legal routes across the channel does not mean that there are not people attempting these dangerous journeys: other reasons and other ties exist that motivate people to do that. There is no doubt that providing some form of visa for those who require it would result in some reduction in those dangerous crossings.
As the situation stands, the Government are trying to secure agreements with other countries, but so far as we can see those are entirely one-sided and one-way agreements seeking only to secure the right to remove people from here. To secure deals, to encourage countries to get on board and to ensure a reduction in unsafe journeys, we also need to negotiate safe routes to here. That is why the Dubs scheme was so successful and important. It is important that we put in place something similar for the future, which is what the new clause is all about.
Tom Pursglove
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is imperative that we think carefully about the issue. Expanding our family reunion policy as proposed by the new clause would significantly increase the number of people who would qualify to come here and to seek protection. Indeed, the new clause is global in scope, meaning that any asylum seeker in the world with extended family in the UK could qualify to claim asylum. That could easily run to the hundreds of thousands.
To give just one example of how that could have challenging consequences, foreign nationals already illegally present in the UK could potentially be incentivised to claim asylum to circumvent immigration rules in order to bring their family over. We need to ensure that our limited resources are focused on helping refugees who are in the UK to reunite and integrate with immediate pre-flight family. We have a proud record of helping those facing persecution, oppression and tyranny, and we stand by our moral and legal obligations to help innocent civilians fleeing cruelty from around the world, but we cannot help all the people displaced worldwide and who want to come to the UK.
Allowing extended family members to come to the UK for the purpose of claiming protection under new clause 47 might simply create further incentives for more adults and children to be encouraged—even forced—to leave their family and risk hazardous journeys to the UK in order to later sponsor qualifying extended family. That plays into the hands of criminal gangs who exploit vulnerable people and goes against the main intention of the Bill. We must do everything in our power to stop that dangerous trend. The new clause would also result in chain migration, where granting entry to each family member has the potential to bring in even greater numbers of their family members to claim protection under the rules. That is simply not sustainable.
We recognise, however, that families can become fragmented because of the nature of conflict and persecution, as well as the speed and manner in which those seeking protection are often forced to flee their own country. That is why the Government strongly support the principle of family unity. We already have a comprehensive framework for families to be reunited here safely. I will add, because this will be of interest to both Government and Opposition Members, that we are committed to reviewing the family refugee reunion rules, as we set out in the new plan for immigration. At all times, as the Committee would expect, we will be fully compliant with our international obligations.
Given that and the issues raised in Committee, everything will be taken into account when looking at the policy.
Stuart C. McDonald
First, that was not a fair interpretation of the new clause: it was certainly not advocating for an unlimited number of people to have access to that route. Nevertheless, it is surprising that we are expected to be encouraged about family reunion at a time when this very Bill is proposing to strip the overwhelming majority of asylum seekers and refugees of those family reunion rights. At the end of the day, the issue is one we will have to revisit on Report. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 48
Six month time limit for determining asylum applications
“(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations providing for—
(a) a six month time limit for determining applications for asylum; and
(b) an officer of Director level or above to be required to write to the Home Secretary a letter of explanation on a quarterly basis in the event of any failure to meet the six month time limit.
(2) The Secretary of State must report to Parliament any failure to meet the six month time limit.”—(Bambos Charalambous.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Bambos Charalambous
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause could be a silver bullet to solve a lot of the ills in the immigration and asylum system. We believe that, were it to be adopted, it would have many beneficial social and financial effects. It would obviate the need for some of the other clauses we have proposed, such as lifting the ban on working. The new clause would undo a host of negative consequences that arise because of the current endemic delays in the asylum system, which are creating huge social and financial costs.
During the course of this Committee, we have heard testimony from people trapped inside the system for years. We have heard about the toll on mental health and the re-traumatising of people who have fled abuse and torture. We have heard about the way in which being trapped in limbo prevents integration and how being banned from working enforces poverty. None of these negative effects would exist if our six-month time limit for processing cases were adopted. Furthermore, costs to the taxpayer, such as those currently spent on long-term accommodation and subsistence benefits, would all be hugely reduced.
Let us not be under any illusion: the current asylum system is broken. According to the House of Commons Library, as of June 2021 the total “work in progress” asylum case load consisted of 125,000 cases—57,000 of those were awaiting an initial decision at the end of 2020.
Jonathan Gullis
I was in Dover yesterday, where I spoke to people from Border Force about the situation. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with them, and with me, that one big issue putting pressure on the system is that tens of thousands of illegal economic migrants are crossing the English channel right now? That is leading to our having to speed up and process people as quickly as possible, while not having the facilities available in detention centres. We are therefore having to use hotels, which is taking up a huge amount of taxpayers’ money. That is where the real strain is. This Bill, which Border Force backs, will go a long way towards helping, as we are going to a six-month process with a one-time appeal, rather than multiple appeals, which are currently being exploited by certain lawyers.
Bambos Charalambous
There is so much to respond to in that. I question the hon. Gentleman’s facts first of all, but clearly we are talking about the situation as it is now, which has been built up over the past decade, and not as he would like it to be. In any event, I disagree about what this Bill does. It does not solve the problem; it keeps people here for longer.
As I was saying, what is masked by these numbers are the hundreds of people who have waited nearly 10 years or more for a decision on their asylum claims, left in limbo while they wait for an answer. In August, a freedom of information request from The Independent newspaper revealed that there were more than 1,200 asylum seekers in the system who had been waiting more than five years for a decision, with 399 people who had been waiting more than a decade. Separate figures obtained by the Refugee Council through an FOI request earlier this year revealed that the number of applicants waiting for more than a year for an initial decision, not including appeals, increased almost tenfold between 2010 and 2020, from 3,588 to 33,016. More than 250 people had been waiting for five years or more for an initial decision on their case, with dozens of children among them. As of December 2020, 36,725 asylum seekers had been waiting more than a year for a decision.
Those kinds of figures just smack of a broken system. Having tens of thousands of people waiting for more than a year for an initial decision is just totally unacceptable. I am sure that most MPs can think of asylum cases they have been dealing with that have stretched on and on, sometimes for years. I can cite the case of a constituent—I shall call them F—who came to the UK from Afghanistan as a child and applied for asylum in August 2013. It took seven and a half years, and my involvement as his MP, for the matter to be resolved in February this year. It really should not take an MP’s involvement to reach such a conclusion.
The human cost to people’s mental health and the cost to the taxpayer of these endemic delays in the system is high. We know that people in the asylum system become increasingly mentally unwell as the years of uncertainty, trauma and demonisation erode their mental and physical health. The Refugee Council reported earlier this year that this has led to an increase in the numbers of individuals self-harming and reporting suicidal thoughts. The Children’s Society report “Distress Signals” also outlined serious concerns about the damage done to children’s mental health in those conditions— this is damage done at a formative age that will last a lifetime.
Beyond the human cost of these delays is the financial cost. The backlog adds considerably to the overall cost of the asylum process. The Refugee Council has calculated that for every month of delay the additional cost to the Home Office per person is at least £730.41, equating to £8,765 per year. The delays make absolutely no financial sense. Not only that, but on the Home Office’s own figures more people are being employed but they are processing fewer cases. Paying more for less productivity is not acceptable. If this was a business, it would go bust.
A commitment to a six-month target as set out in the new clause would therefore save a huge amount of money to the Treasury and taxpayers, improve the mental health of those caught in the system, and help with integration.
Tom Pursglove
I have been clear throughout Committee proceedings that the Government are committed to overhauling the current asylum system, which is obviously broken and in critical need of reform. The number of non-straightforward cases awaiting a decision has grown rapidly, meaning that in October 2018 it became clear to us that the service standard of six months from the date of claim no longer best served those who used our services. For those reasons, former Ministers agreed that we should move away from the service standard.
Although I cannot accept the new clause, as we consider it too restrictive, Members will have detected from what I have said throughout the proceedings that we want to see the faster processing of cases. I entirely recognise the shadow Minister’s point on the financial costs of delay, and the impact on individuals of delay. That is why I and my ministerial colleagues want cases to be dealt with more speedily. That is, of course, the right objective to be working towards. We are working to reintroduce a service standard that will align with changes brought about by the new plan for immigration. I encourage the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.
Bambos Charalambous
I will push the clause to a vote; we are not convinced by the Minister’s response.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Bambos Charalambous
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Through new clause 49, we hope to shed light on some of the murkiness that has existed in the Home Office in relation to agreements reached with agencies and other Governments to prevent unlawful border crossings and dangerous journeys. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to disclose the contents of any agreements with any international Governments or agencies reached in order to prevent unlawful border crossings, and for this information to be laid before Parliament within three months of any such agreement being entered into. This would mean that, for example, information pertaining to the UK-French agreement to tackle dangerous crossings in the English channel in July could be properly understood and scrutinised, including the use of £54 million of taxpayers’ money.
Information about that agreement and its impact has been limited, and although information has been limited, the confusion has been clear for all to see. There have been conflicting briefings between the British and French authorities regarding the use of £54 million of British taxpayers’ money. There have been reports, for example, that the UK is threatening to withhold the money. The Home Secretary appeared before the Lords Justice and Home Affairs Committee last week and this question was asked. The Home Secretary stated that the agreement is “based on results”, and includes preventing people getting to beaches, intelligence sharing, policing operations around the Belgian-French border, and technology.
For more than two years, the Home Secretary has repeatedly committed to stopping channel crossings in small boats by making the route unviable, yet unprecedented numbers of people have made the journey in this period, including a staggering 20,000 this year alone. Clearly, if we are working with the French authorities to disrupt people smuggling gangs and prevent dangerous crossings, it does not seem to be working very well, and parliamentary scrutiny of how taxpayers’ money is being spent is important if we are to learn more about the Home Secretary’s plans and why they have once again failed to deliver. For example, has anything been paid to France? Is the agreement for payment by results? If so, what are the metrics? How can we scrutinise whether this is value for money, or whether that money could be better spent elsewhere? It seems astonishing that the Home Secretary can just be given £54 million of public money to spend, but we do not know what on. There must be some accountability for that to Parliament.
Jonathan Gullis
I reiterate that, having gone down to Dover to meet the Kent intake unit in Dover docks, having met in the joint control room with deputy director Dave Butler of the clandestine threat command, and having been to Tug Haven and western Jetfoil on a cross-party parliamentary visit, it was fantastic to learn and understand. I share concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate about the use of this money by the French, and I have been quite open in my view that the French are simply not doing enough, but it was great to hear from Dave and others in the control room that what the French are doing inland is quite substantive. Dave was very happy to share the details.
I can only implore the hon. Gentleman, rather than pressing this new clause, to go on down and visit, and have a chat with Dave and the gang down there to hear what is going on in France. They were trying to say to us that the French are operating inland and trying to stop people from coming over to France and travelling through. The local Parisian community, for example, were getting very angry about being a path route towards Calais. That was a fascinating conversation.
That is why the new clause is unnecessary; we saw, after the threat of no payment was made, that suddenly we could not stop being inundated with video footage and photography of what was being done. I thought it was absolutely brilliant. The one thing the French are not doing is their job at sea. They need to step up and support the British Border Force and other British services in stopping boats once they have already launched into the English channel—not just by tracking them, as they currently do, but by tugging them back to France. They are simply not doing their job.
While I absolutely share the hon. Gentleman’s concerns about money, ultimately I believe the Home Secretary has a firm grip of this, and as we are seeing, the results are starting to pay dividends. However, I agree that more can be done, and the Bill goes a long way to achieving that.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his proposed new clause. He will appreciate that there is always a balance to be struck in these matters, and I should add that we have published joint statements that set out the nature of our work with France following arrangements made in July 2021 and November 2020. The content of the Sandhurst treaty, which underpins our illegal migration relationship with France, is also published.
Those arrangements are underpinned by additional administrative and operational documentation. However, it is not possible to publish that material where it includes sensitive details relating to the UK and our international partners. To disclose that information would hinder our operational response and our ability to target criminals driving illegal migration and ultimately protect the public. We must do nothing that aids their evil work—we simply must not entertain that, and that is something I am exceptionally mindful of in responding to the proposed new clause.
Paul Blomfield
If the Minister is concerned to see that we do nothing to aid the evil work of people smugglers, what consideration has he given to the impact assessment by his own Department, which said:
“There is a risk that increased security and deterrence could encourage these cohorts to attempt riskier means of entering the UK.”?
According to his own Department, these proposals are counterproductive.
Tom Pursglove
What is being sought is further detail on the relationship that we have with France in particular to tackle these dangerous channel crossings. As I say, we must put nothing in the public domain that risks undermining that constructive collaboration through the arrangement that we have with the French, which is vital to stopping these dangerous crossings and protecting lives at sea. To do so would also result in a betrayal of trust with our international partners, who own some of this information, and could prevent us from reaching future agreements with international partners, impacting our ability to prevent illegal migration and small boat crossings. That is why the Government feel unable to support the new clause and I encourage the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate to withdraw it.
Bambos Charalambous
There is not enough scrutiny, so we wish to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Bambos Charalambous
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would shorten the route to settlement from 10 years to five years for children and young people who have grown up in the UK and know no other home. This issue has a big impact on a relatively small number of people. These are bright young people who want to contribute to society but face a long, uncertain and financially demanding journey before their futures in the country they call home are secure.
I pay tribute to the brilliant charity We Belong, which is led by young people who themselves have been impacted by the unforgiving immigration rules. The Greater London Authority estimates that more than 330,000 children and young people who came to the UK as children have precarious immigration status. The young people who face this predicament are mainly Commonwealth citizens who are bright and want to contribute, but they have to wait 10 years before they reach settlement, at a cost of £12,771, through applications for leave to remain every 30 months.
Costs for leave to remain applications have risen astronomically in recent years, increasing by 331% since 2014. Often, more than one family member will be going through the process at the same time, so there are multiple fees to pay. That means that in many families, for at least a decade, earnings that could otherwise go towards securing a decent home or be invested in a child’s education instead have to be funnelled out of the family and paid to the Home Office. Before we even start to consider legal fees, we are asking families and young people to save more than £1,200 per year per person just to remain in the UK, when 30% of people in the UK have less than £1,000 in total savings and the average low-income family has just £95 in savings.
Each time they have to apply for leave, we raise the bar for these young people, asking far more of them than we ever would of those fortunate enough to be born with a British passport. Each time, they meet these almost impossible hurdles, often working several jobs to keep themselves and their families on this long and narrow 10-year path to security. These are clearly exceptional individuals, but it is not fair that we keep asking this of them.
For Arkam, who came to the UK aged 10, the 10-year route has meant being stuck in unsuitable accommodation. His family has lived in a one-bedroom house for 10 years because, he says
“the rent is so low and it has to be low because the Home Office fees are so high and our quality of life was non-existent.”
For Andrew, it has been the trigger for a string of evictions. His family were left without enough money to pay their rent and lost their home several times.
My own constituent, Tashi, arrived in the UK when she was seven and has since lawfully resided in the UK for almost two decades. When Tashi was just 10 years old, she was held unlawfully in immigration detention, and that experience has traumatised her ever since. Each limited leave renewal ignites the uncertainty and precarious nature of her status. If she makes a mistake on an application form, she could be back in detention and face deportation, even though she knows no other home. Living with limited leave to remain means decades of living with unrelenting uncertainty.
The more times that young people go through the LLR application process, the more they have to lose. If applicants are unable to afford the fee or fail to renew on time, they will have to begin the 10-year process from the very beginning.
That happened to Natasha, who came to the UK from Nigeria at the age of seven. Natasha was granted limited leave to remain when she was 18. When it came to renewing her visa, her family could not afford to renew due to the high fees and Natasha fell out of legal status. Unable to work, Natasha became homeless. Living in the shadows of society, it was only when she was 26 that she was able to raise enough money from family and friends to apply for LLR again and restart the 10-year route. She must renew this status every 30 months over a 10-year period. She will be 36 before she can apply for settlement and 37 years old when she can finally apply for citizenship.
How is this fair? For all this Government’s rhetoric about the importance of social integration, they continue to preside over an immigration system that isolates and stigmatises young migrants who have no other home but the UK. As highlighted by We Belong, many young people will undoubtedly be driven into poverty or lose their lawful status as a result of these high costs.
Speaking in July 2019, during his campaign to become leader of the Conservative Party, the Prime Minister said:
“I want everybody who comes here and makes their lives here to be, and to feel, British—that’s the most important thing”.
Across this Committee, I think we all agree with that sentiment. We should be proud of our country and encourage our residents to seek British citizenship, so why are we putting every hurdle in the way of ambitious young people who are already integrated into the fabric of our society? We Belong’s experience with young people on the 10-year route reveals how the demands of this process can reverse years, even decades, of integration.
The unforgiving 10-year route sows division and fear among young people, damages mental health, limits life chances and condemns even the hardest-working families to at least a decade of intense financial strain. The instability and onerous demands created by the limited leave to remain route serve nobody, and certainly not employers, educators or communities.
The financial and other constraints imposed by the 10-year process mean that many young migrants reaching early adulthood are denied the opportunity to realise their ambitions, causing prolonged financial and emotional stress. Ten years of multiple applications and multiple fees only increase the likelihood that young people will inadvertently fall out of status and have their lives ruined as a result. A five-year LLR path to settlement would be fairer and give them parity with other migrant groups, which is what this new clause aims to do.
We welcome the Home Office’s recent published guidance to case officers, which opens up a narrow discretionary five-year route for some young people. It shows that the Home Office acknowledges that there is a problem here. However the guidance is limited to those between 18 and 25, among other limitations. Many of the people in the case studies I mentioned, and many others who came to the UK as young children, are now over the age limit and will not be able to benefit from this scheme. Can the Minister tell me when the Home Office plans to rectify this anomaly?
Tom Pursglove
I hope I might be able to satisfy the Committee by saying that both this proposed new clause and the related proposed new clause 45 are commendable, but we are already doing what they seek. We will consolidate our actions in the immigration rules as part of the simplification of the rules in the next 12 months. Home Office officials have discussed the proposed changes with the We Belong group of young migrants, who have indicated that they are supportive of the way the changes will be implemented. With that, I hope the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw this proposed new clause.
Bambos Charalambous
I very much welcome the Minister’s comments, and I look forward to having more information. Based on what he has told me, I am willing to withdraw the new clause, and I look forward to progress being made in this area. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 51
Safety plan for child victims of human trafficking
“(1) The Children Act 1989 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 22, after subsection (3C) insert—
“(3D) In respect of a suspected child victim of trafficking who is looked after by the local authority, the duty of a local authority under subsection (3)(a) to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child shall include in particular a duty to consider and take all reasonable steps to ensure that arrangements of accommodation and support to meet the child’s needs and takes account of and addresses the child’s safety with a view to preventing the risk of re-trafficking.”
(3) In section 22, after subsection (4)(d) insert—
“(e) independent guardians (within the meaning of Section 48 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015) as a relevant person who the local authority shall, so far as is reasonably practicable, consult with before making any decision with respect of a child who they are looking after and who is entitled to an independent guardian.”
(4) In section 22C, after subsection (7)(c) insert—
“(d) where accommodation is arranged for a suspected or identified child victim of trafficking, due regard shall be paid to the potential risks of harm and re-trafficking and the child’s safety shall be a primary consideration.””—(Holly Lynch.)
This new clause seeks to provide child victims with a safety plan to prevent retrafficking.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Holly Lynch
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In the same spirit as new clauses 43 and 44, new clause 51 sets out the duty for local authorities to make arrangements for child victims of modern slavery, with a view to prevent their retrafficking, by amending section 22 of the Children Act 1989. As things stand, an unaccompanied child will become looked after by the local authority if they have been accommodated by the local authority for 24 hours under section 20 of the Children Act 1989. This will mean that they will be entitled to the same local authority provision as any other looked-after child. The Care Leavers (England) Regulations 2010 set out duties regarding care leavers and require that those duties are fulfilled with regards to the child’s circumstances and needs as an unaccompanied or trafficked child. The regulations apply to all children, regardless of their immigration status, nationality or documentation.
As we have heard previously, child victims of modern slavery are at increased risk of going missing and being retrafficked. In 2017, as many as one in four identified trafficked children were reported as having gone missing. The average missing incidents for each trafficked child have increased from an average of 2.4 times to 7.4 times between 2014-15 and 2017. The new clause therefore seeks to bring clarity to the duty on local authorities to protect victims, particularly those at risk of retrafficking. Subsection (2) highlights that there is a need to ensure that accommodation is a serious consideration for child victims. We know that concerns have been raised about the lack of agreed safety standards for accommodating child victims of trafficking, which can include the use of residential homes, shared flats and houses, bed-and-breakfast emergency housing and foster care.
In 2017, the Home Office and the Department for Education commissioned a report that found that there was
“limited availability of specialist provision”
and
“a lack of resources and specialist knowledge within local authorities and partner services.”
The report identified the placement of non-EEA migrant children in “semi-independent accommodation”, such as
“supported accommodation and/or shared housing”,
as being a cause for concern. Since the report was published, the Government have outlawed the provision of accommodation without care and supervision for under-16s, but they have continued to allow such provision for 16 and 17-year-olds.
A recent serious case review has further highlighted the problems of local authorities arranging inappropriate placements for children, and the impact of failing to conduct full risk assessments for both the needs of the child and the accommodation itself. Sarah was a looked-after child in the care of Worcestershire social services, and she died in independent accommodation away from her home borough in June 2019, at the age of 17. From an early age, Sarah had suffered from epilepsy, which had been managed by medication. In 2017, Sarah became a looked-after child under a voluntary agreement between the local authority and her parents, which meant that both Sarah’s parents maintained parental responsibility. Sarah became looked after and was accommodated with foster carers, but when these placements broke down, she resided in residential accommodation and then had semi-independent living arrangements.
Over a period of time, there were numerous occasions where Sarah was reported as missing from the placements. There were concerns regarding Sarah’s vulnerability and the effect of her medical condition. There were also concerns regarding Sarah’s relationships with older men, particularly her relationship with one man. Sarah was considered to be at risk of being criminally and sexually exploited. Sarah tragically died, having suffered a seizure at the home address of the older male in question in 2019, aged just 17. It is an incredibly sad case study and serves as an example of what can happen if the needs of vulnerable victims are not thoroughly assessed.
Currently, there is statutory guidance that outlines a local authority’s duties, such as the Department for Education’s guidance for local authorities, which was updated in 2017, entitled “Care of unaccompanied migrant children and child victims of modern slavery.” It states that:
“Local authorities have a duty to protect and support these highly vulnerable children. Because of the circumstances they have faced, unaccompanied migrant children and child victims of modern slavery, including trafficking, often have complex needs in addition to those faced by looked after children more generally. The support required to address these needs must begin as soon as the child is referred to the local authority or is found in the local authority area. It will be most effective where this support is provided through a stable, continuous relationship with the child.”
We unequivocally support the sentiments and measures incorporated in the guidance, but it should be strengthened through the adoption of the new clause, which would create a duty for local authorities to consider the risk of retrafficking and safeguard against children going missing. I have already made the case for the need, highlighted in subsection (3), for local authorities to work closely and consult independent guardians before making decisions on behalf of the child.
There is a clear, urgent need for the new clause, given the vulnerability of such children. There is also a practical requirement, given that, for multiple local authorities, missing, trafficked or unaccompanied children account for a significant proportion of the children they look after—in the case of one local authority it was as high as 15%. The new clause seeks not only to raise awareness of the needs of child victims but to provide greater definition on the role of local authorities in meeting such needs.
As this is likely to be the last time that I will be on my feet in the Committee, with your permission, Ms McDonagh, may I put on record my sincere thanks to the Children’s Society, ECPAT UK, the British Red Cross, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, the Anti Trafficking and Labour Exploitation Unit, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton, and all the hard-working, dedicated frontline police officers disrupting modern slavery? I am eternally grateful for all their expertise. Finally, I thank Isabelle Bull from my team, who has worked like a trojan in preparation for the Bill, as well as the incredible Clerks of the House.
Tom Pursglove
I, too, am grateful to the hon. Lady for the constructive way in which she has gone about her work on the Committee. I know how passionate she is about these issues.
Support for potential victims, including children, is a fundamental pillar of our approach to assisting those impacted by the horrendous crime of trafficking and modern slavery and reducing the risk of such victims being retrafficked. As the Committee may be aware, independent child trafficking guardians are an independent source of advice and support for potentially trafficked children, irrespective of nationality, and they can advocate on a child’s behalf. So far, the Government have rolled out the service to two thirds of local authorities across England and Wales. We have developed detailed policy for the provision of the service, which is set out in the interim independent child trafficking guardians guidance published under section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. The guidance is kept under review through consultation with stakeholders.
Within the guidance, the Government are already clear that acting in the child’s best interests must always be a primary consideration for the independent child trafficking guardian service. We are also clear that independent child trafficking guardians must be invited and provided with the opportunity to take part in all agency meetings and discussions that relate to and impact on the children that they are supporting. That is the correct place for detail on the function of the independent child trafficking guardian service. By keeping that detail in guidance—rather than putting it in legislation, as the new clause would—the Government can respond flexibly to best practice and victims’ needs.
Local authorities are responsible for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of all children in their area, including child victims of modern slavery. The “Working Together to Safeguard Children” statutory guidance is clear that the individual needs of children, including the risk of re-trafficking, should be taken into account when determining their recovery needs. That is to ensure that safeguarding processes and multi-agency support can be put in place to protect and prevent harm to children at risk of a range of exploitation harms and abuse. The approach enables us to focus on a range of exploitation harms, whereas the new clause would stipulate that we focus specifically on the risk of retrafficking. Although I am sure that that was not the new clause’s intention, prioritising safeguarding against the risk of retrafficking could consequentially lead to the prioritisation of action against specifically the risk of retrafficking in place of other risks, which would inherently pose a risk to individuals whose risk of retrafficking may not be the primary consideration. With that, I encourage the hon. Lady not to press her new clause.
Holly Lynch
I think I followed what the Minister said and that he heard my concerns about some of the gaps in the provision. I will look to that statutory guidance for further detail. I will not press the new clause, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 52
Effect of British National (Overseas) visas
‘(1) Within six months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must commission and lay before Parliament an independent assessment of the effect of British National (Overseas) visas and the Government’s implementation.
(2) The Secretary of State must appoint an Independent Chair to conduct the assessment.
(3) The assessment must consider such matters as are deemed appropriate by the said Independent Chair.’—(Bambos Charalambous.)
This new clause would require the Government to publish an independent assessment of the effect of the British National (Overseas) visa scheme.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Bambos Charalambous
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We believe that the new clause is needed because there is clear evidence that the British national overseas scheme may not end up working as it was intended. That is particularly the case for young Hong Kong nationals. As everyone on the Committee knows, the BNO scheme has, in theory, been designed to offer a path to citizenship for Hongkongers. This was particularly designed in the wake of Beijing’s national security law being imposed last year, which has led to Hongkongers facing police brutality and severe repression. Although we in the Opposition therefore very much welcome attempts to support all those facing repression in Hong Kong, we believe that there is a need to examine how the BNO visa scheme is operating in practice and whether it is having the desired effect.
As the Home Affairs Committee pointed out in July, there are reasons for concern about individuals and groups who may be missing out on offers of support. There remain worrying gaps in the offer of support, and loopholes in the way that the BNO scheme may be implemented. That is particularly the case for younger pro-democracy activists in Hong Kong. It is evident that people under the age of 24 cannot benefit from the BNO visa scheme because of how it has been defined. That is because younger people do not hold BNO passports, which were issued in 1997. The BNO scheme requires that applicants hold a BNO passport. Those documents were issued to citizens following the handover of Hong Kong from the UK to China in 1997. Obviously, that means that a lot of people will be excluded from the scheme even if their parents or older siblings would qualify for it.
As a result of that, some people who have fled police brutality are now battling with the sclerotic and inefficient UK asylum system. That is simply because they are arbitrarily excluded from the Home Office settlement route due to their age. It has nothing to do with the validity of their claims, the severity of the oppression that they have experienced or the danger that they face in Hong Kong. All of those would have qualified them for a BNO visa had they been lucky enough to have been born a little earlier.
As we know, there are huge problems with the UK asylum system. We know that the average waiting time for an initial decision on an asylum case in the UK is between one and three years. Last week, some young Hongkongers told The Independent newspaper that they have been waiting for a year or more for a decision. Of course, the current inhumane rules of the Government’s hostile environment also mean that these same young people are banned from working, and often prevented from studying, while waiting for a decision. As Johnny Patterson, policy director of Hong Kong Watch, said, these Hongkongers in the asylum system are subjected to an “agonising wait”. Furthermore, the ban on them being able to work is undermining their chances of integrating in the UK.
The problem is only going to get worse unless it is tackled head on. Home Office figures show that there were 124 asylum claims from Hong Kong nationals in the year to June 2021, compared with 21 the year before and just nine in the 12 months to June 2019. It is even more concerning that 14 of those claims in the past year were unaccompanied minors, marking the first time on record that the UK has received asylum claims from children from Hong Kong.
We believe that the BNO visa scheme should be independently assessed to take account of the realities on the ground in Hong Kong. The truth is that it tends to be young people who were at the forefront of demonstrations to defend democracy and who are therefore likely to face the most repression. As well as that, people who are here under the BNO visa scheme have raised a number of concerns, such as their qualifications not being recognised, access to work, formal access to English language classes, and access to housing and banking services because they do not have a credit or renting history. There are also concerns about the lack of co-ordination between Government and local authority services. There are lots of reasons, therefore, why a review is needed.
It may well be the case that older parents wish to remain in Hong Kong while their children need to flee because they are in greater danger. Although the scheme allows applicants to bring relatives, including adult children, with them to the UK, the reality is that many young people will need to flee alone. They cannot rely on the parents coming to the UK who would have made their claim valid under the BNO scheme. We think it would be worth the Government exploring a revision of the scheme so that a child of a BNO Hong Kong citizen could make an application independently of their parents.
If such anomalies remain unaddressed, it will be deeply unfair on young Hongkongers. It is those young people who have often been on the frontline of the pro-democracy protests opposing the Chinese Government’s unlawful power grab. If they remain excluded from the BNO route for reasons entirely beyond their control, they will face an agonising wait in the UK asylum system, which we all know is beset with huge delays.
Given the UK’s deep connection to Hong Kong, should we not be offering a life raft to all Hongkongers who need one? The Opposition believe that the Government should accept independent scrutiny of the BNO scheme, with a view to exploring such steps as allowing children of BNO visa-eligible parents to make independent applications, provided there were evidence of their parents’ status, of course.
Tom Pursglove
The Hong Kong British national overseas route was launched on 31 January 2021, and the route has already been a success. As of 30 June, approximately 64,900 applications to the route have been made by BNO status holders and their family members who have chosen to make the UK their home. An impact assessment was published on 22 October 2020, setting out the projected impacts of the BNO route on the UK. As well as the direct impacts for the Government of operating the route, the impact assessment sets out the expected net benefit to the UK of between £2.4 billion and £2.9 billion over five years.
We believe that a review is not necessary. The policy is generous and barriers have been minimised. As the shadow Minister said, the Home Affairs Committee recently published a report on the route, and we have responded in full. I encourage him to withdraw the new clause.
Bambos Charalambous
I will not press new clause 52 to a vote, but I do hope that the Government will keep monitoring the system and provide the protection for young Hongkongers that I outlined. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 53
Electronic monitoring: conditions and use of data
“(1) Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 2, in sub-paragraph (3)(a), leave out ‘must’ and insert ‘may’.
(3) In paragraph 2, in sub-paragraph (3)(b), leave out ‘by virtue of sub-paragraph (5) or (7)’.
(4) In paragraph 2, after sub-paragraph (3) insert—
‘(3A) If immigration bail is granted to a person subject to an electronic monitoring condition, the electronic monitoring condition shall cease to apply on the day six months after the day on which immigration bail was granted to the person, unless sub-paragraph (3B) applies.
(3B) This sub-paragraph applies if the Secretary of State or the First-tier Tribunal (as the case may be), when granting immigration bail to the person, has directed that the electronic monitoring condition shall not cease to apply in accordance with sub-paragraph (3A).
(3C) But the Secretary of State or the First-tier Tribunal (as the case may be) shall not make a direction under sub-paragraph (3B) unless the Secretary of State or the First-tier Tribunal (as the case may be) is satisfied that there are very exceptional circumstances which make the continued application of the electronic monitoring condition necessary in the interests of—
(a) public protection; or
(b) national security.’
(5) In paragraph 2, after sub-paragraph (7) insert—
‘(7A) Sub-paragraph (3)(a) does not apply to a person who is granted immigration bail by the First-tier Tribunal if the Tribunal considers that to impose an electronic monitoring condition on the person would be—
(a) impractical, or
(b) contrary to the person’s Convention rights.
(7B) Where sub-paragraph (7) or (7A) applies, the First-tier Tribunal must not grant immigration bail to the person subject to an electronic monitoring condition.’
(6) In paragraph 4, after sub-paragraph (2) insert—
‘(2A) The Secretary of State must not process any data collected by a device within the meaning of sub-paragraph (2) which relates to the matters in sub-paragraph (1)(a) to (c) except for the purpose of, and to the minimum extent reasonably necessary for, determining whether P has breached a condition of his bail.
(2B) In sub-paragraph (2A), “processing” has the same meaning as in section 3(4) of the Data Protection Act 2018.’”.—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would place certain safeguards and restrictions on use of electronic monitoring.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 53 is really just to probe the Government on a new issue that has started to arise this year: the significant increase in the use of the GPS monitoring of certain people on bail for immigration purposes, largely foreign national offenders awaiting deportation. I am not for a moment suggesting that such monitoring does not have its role. It absolutely does; indeed, there would be occasions on which I would be upset with the Home Office if it did not use it. There is a genuine concern, however, about the lack of safeguards and limits on its use, and on how data from GPS tracking is being used. Indeed, even compared to the criminal justice system, it seems that the safeguards and limits are somewhat light touch. Cases have arisen where it seems that use was totally inappropriate.
New clause 53 suggests putting in place some appropriate safeguards and restrictions. It is designed to prompt the Minister, if not today then in due course, to answer certain questions. First and foremost, how will data be used in practice and in what circumstances will it be used in relation to somebody’s article 8 claim? That is an area of controversy, in that the use of tracking goes way beyond the original intention in previous relevant legislation, which was to prevent people from absconding.
Secondly, the criminal justice system imposes strict limits and safeguards on how long electronic monitoring is used for and in what circumstances, with limits on collection, processing, storage and use of data. Why, therefore, are those electronic monitoring safeguards absent in the immigration system?
Thirdly, why have the Government not made the data protection and equality impact assessment for such an intrusive scheme available to the public? Fourthly, what guarantee can the Government give that they will not expand their use of this technology and use it on people who have come to the United Kingdom to seek asylum? Can the Minister give us assurances on that today?
Finally, the Government’s own data suggests that absconding rates are exceptionally low. A recent FOI response found that of people granted bail between February 2020 and March 2021, there were 43 cases of absconding out of 7,000, so what evidence does the Home Office have that this intrusive measure is really necessary on anything other than a very limited scale?
Tom Pursglove
Our immigration system must encourage compliance with immigration rules and protect the public. Electronic monitoring of foreign national offenders using satellite tracking devices was a Government manifesto commitment, which the public voted for, and the measure which enacts it was passed into primary legislation under the Immigration Act 2016. It has already been subject to parliamentary scrutiny and debate during the passage of the 2016 Act.
Electronic monitoring is a condition of immigration bail. During the debate on the Immigration Act 2016, it was open to Parliament to set a limit on how long a person can be made subject to electronic monitoring, but it chose not to do so. However, I want to be clear that a person’s electronic monitoring conditions are already automatically reviewed on a quarterly basis as a minimum. Compliance with bail conditions, including electronic monitoring, will be a major factor in deciding whether it will remain a condition of that person’s bail. Any representations regarding the person’s electronic monitoring conditions or a breach of those conditions will also generate a review.
Prior to being placed on electronic monitoring when released, a person is given an opportunity to advise the Department as to why electronic monitoring may not be appropriate for them. That includes where there is strong evidence to suggest that an electronic monitoring condition would cause serious harm to the person’s health. A person can also make representations at any point while wearing a tag and those representations will be considered promptly.
Currently, there is a duty on the Secretary of State to consider electronic monitoring for those who are subject to a deportation order or deportation proceedings, known as “the duty”. The proposed clause makes the consideration of imposing an electronic monitoring condition discretionary. However, there is already a caveat within current legislation that electronic monitoring will not be applied to a person who is subject to the duty where its imposition would be impractical or contrary to the person’s convention rights. The proposal to remove the compulsory consideration of electronic monitoring for all those subject to the duty could lead to a scenario where serious offenders who should be electronically monitored are not considered for electronic monitoring and are granted bail without that condition.
I turn to the new clause’s reference to the use of data. Any data that is gathered from the devices will be processed automatically and will not be routinely monitored by the Department. We have undertaken a data protection impact assessment in relation to the introduction of GPS tagging, which sets out the specific permitted circumstances where data can be accessed, and any access outside those circumstances is considered a data breach. Those who are subject to electronic monitoring are made aware of the circumstances as to when their data can be accessed during the induction process.
Restricting the data in the way the new clause sets out will impact on the ability to use data to try to locate a person after it has been identified that they have breached their immigration bail conditions and are viewed as an absconder. The inability to share data with other law enforcement agencies where a lawful request had been made would be out of alignment with the agreement on sharing data for the purposes of preventing or solving crime. In the broadest terms, only knowing that a person had breached their bail conditions and not being able to use the data for any other purpose would greatly limit the efficacy of electronic monitoring.
I do not consider that the new clause would have the effect that hon. Members intend. Rather, it would impair our ability to monitor and deport those who had committed crimes and were not entitled to remain in the UK. Foreign criminals should be in no doubt of our determination to deport them. We make no apology for keeping the public safe and clamping down on those who have no right to be in the UK.
In summary, the restriction of the use of electronic monitoring as proposed in new clause 53 would significantly impair our ability efficiently to remove foreign national offenders who have no right to be here. I am conscious that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East raised a number of questions at the outset. I have covered quite a lot of ground, but if there are any matters that he feels I have not addressed and he would like to follow up, I of course invite him to please do so.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for that response. I will have a look through everything that has been said and consider whether any follow-up is necessary. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 54
Instructions to the Migration Advisory Committee
“Within two months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must instruct the Migration Advisory Committee to undertake the following work—
(a) a review of the minimum income requirements for leave to enter and remain as a family member of persons who are British citizens or settled in the United Kingdom;
(b) a report making detailed recommendations on the design of a work visa for remote areas.”—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to seek further advice in order to take forward certain recommendations made by the Migration Advisory Committee in recent reports.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Stuart C. McDonald
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is the final new clause. On that note, I should start by thanking all the organisations that have been incredibly helpful in providing briefings, draft amendments and so on; thanking the staff of the House for their incredible patience in dealing with millions of amendments and new clauses; and thanking you, Ms McDonagh, and Sir Roger for the way you have chaired the Committee.
This new clause asks the Government to commission from the Migration Advisory Committee two incredibly important pieces of work. One relates to family visas, and the other to a possible remote areas pilot scheme. The first issue, which we touched on earlier in relation to the Chagos islanders and the family visa rules, gives me the opportunity to reiterate our passionate view that currently the UK family visa rules are absolutely atrocious and indefensible. In the grand scheme of things, the UK is an absolute outlier in this regard and has been for about a decade. The rules are incredibly restrictive on families. When the then Children’s Commissioner for England did a report on the matter back in, I think, 2015, she wrote in considerable detail about the dreadful impact that this has on children in particular, but also on spouses—British citizens and British settled people—who end up separated from their other halves or from their kids, and all for absolutely unevidenced policy reasons on the part of the Government.
Research shows that in large parts of the country—Northern Ireland in particular, but elsewhere as well—close to and above 50% of the population would not be able to meet the requirements to allow their spouse to come and join them in this country. That is absolutely extraordinary. Even on the Government’s own terms—the Minister spoke earlier about the policy goal being to make sure that folk can stand on their own two feet without having to rely on public funds—all of this is contested.
There is academic research that suggests that, in fact, the way the rules operate means that some families have to place more reliance on public funds. For example, a person who is here with a child and is not able to bring their spouse in ends up having to work fewer hours or not at all, because of childcare. Some institutions have calculated that this actually costs the taxpayer money rather than saving the taxpayer money. In any event, it is totally unjustified and a deeply horrible intrusion into people’s family lives.
In its last annual report, the Migration Advisory Committee said:
“We also think now would be an opportune time to reconsider the minimum income requirements associated with this route. The MAC are concerned that previous analysis may have given too much weight to the fiscal contribution of such migrants and insufficient attention to the benefits that accrue, to both the family and society, from the route. In addition, it is a considerable time since the current income requirements were introduced, so more evidence should now be available to review the impact of these requirements.”
I absolutely endorse that. We must now revisit these anti-family rules. Even if the Minister is not prepared to look again at the financial thresholds, he should look at the rule that means that the Home Office almost never takes into account the earning capacity of the spouse applying for a visa to come in. It seems absolutely absurd that we could have somebody who could earn £20,000, £30,000 or £40,000, yet that is not taken into account in the application process. I just gently ask the Home Office to look again at this.
The second bit of work that this final new clause would ask of the MAC is to look in a little more detail at the possibilities of a remote areas pilot scheme. When the MAC prepared its report to the Government on salary thresholds for the new points-based system, it expressed a sympathetic view about the problems faced by more remote parts of the UK, and recommended that the Government consider a remote areas pilot scheme. In the Government’s response to the review, they noted that the pilot was an idea that they were intending to pursue. Indeed, the words of the current Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, who was then Home Secretary, were that this was “an idea worth pursuing”. The MAC is quite clear that it hopes that the Government will still carry through with the pilot, and that it should involve all devolved Administrations. Part of the scheme could involve a lower salary threshold for those areas.
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has gone about his work during the course of proceedings, and for pursuing a number of angles with great tenacity and vigour.
The Migration Advisory Committee is an independent, non-statutory, non-time limited, non-departmental public body that advises the Government on migration issues. The minimum income requirement was implemented in July 2012, following advice from the MAC and has not changed since its introduction. We will consider whether to commission the MAC to review the minimum income requirement within the next three months.
In addition, the MAC considered the issue of work visas for remote areas in is January 2020 report, “A Points-Based System and Salary Thresholds for Immigration”. The MAC recommended a pilot for remote visas, but the Government did not accept this. The UK has a single, flexible immigration system that works for the entirety of the UK. Applying different immigration rules to different parts of the UK would overly complicate the immigration system and would cause significant difficulties for employers who need the flexibility to deploy their staff across the UK. As the MAC itself has said, when considering sustaining remote communities we need to consider why people leave these areas. This is more important than bolstering local communities with migration. I therefore do not consider re-reviewing this issue to be a good use of the MAC’s time or public money.
It is not appropriate to put an amendment such as new clause 54 into primary legislation, as the commissioning of the MAC is done on a priority basis. The Secretary of State retains the power to change the topics, which the MAC reviews at short notice, if a more pressing matter becomes a priority. The Secretary of State should be able to respond flexibly to any new priorities. For those reasons, I encourage the hon. Member to withdraw his new clause.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for his answers. He is certainly candid, as he has been throughout Committee proceedings. I am bitterly disappointed about the answer in relation to the remote areas pilot scheme. Those areas are really suffering, not just in terms of labour shortages and the accompanying economic challenges, but even with depopulation.
I will hang on and finish on an optimistic note in that there is a possibility that the Government will commission a review of the salary threshold for family visas. I very much hope that that does happen and they look at how that route operates all together. I cling to that little bit of silver lining. With that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Schedule 1
Prisoners returning to the UK: Modifications of Criminal Justice Act 2003
‘This is the Schedule to be inserted after Schedule 19A to the Criminal Justice Act 2003—
“Schedule 19B
Prisoners returning to the UK: Modifications of Chapter 6 of Part 12
Modification of dates for referral to the Board
1 Paragraph 2 applies where section 244ZC(2), 244A(2) or 246A(4) (when read with section 260(4A)) would require the Secretary of State to refer a person’s case to the Board on a day falling before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the person is returned to custody.
2 The applicable provision is to be read as requiring the Secretary of State to refer the person’s case to the Board at any time up to the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the person is returned to custody.
3 For the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2, a person returns to custody when the person, having returned to the United Kingdom, is detained (whether or not in prison) in pursuance of their sentence.
Person removed after Board had directed release but before being released
4 Paragraphs 5 and 6 apply where, before a person’s removal from the United Kingdom—
(a) the Board had directed their release under section 244ZC, 244A or 246A, but
(b) they had not been released on licence.
5 The direction of the Board is to be treated as having no effect.
6 The person is to be treated as if—
(a) they had been recalled under section 254 on the day on which they returned to the United Kingdom, and
(b) they were not suitable for automatic release (see section 255A).
Person removed after referral to the Board but before disposal of the reference
7 Paragraph 8 applies where—
(a) before a person’s removal from prison their case had been referred to the Board under section 244ZB(3), 244ZC(2), 244A(2) or 246A(4), and
(b) the reference lapsed under section 260(4B) because the person was removed from the United Kingdom before the Board had disposed of the reference.
8 Section 244ZC(2), 244A(2) or 246A(4) (as applicable) is to be read as requiring the Secretary of State to refer the person’s case to the Board before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the day on which the person is returned to custody.
9 For the purposes of paragraph 8, a person returns to custody when the person, having returned to the United Kingdom, is detained (whether or not in prison) in pursuance of their sentence.
Person removed after having been recalled to prison
10 Paragraphs 11 and 12 apply where, at the time of a person’s removal from prison under section 260, the person was in prison following recall under section 254.
11 Any direction of the Board made in relation to the person under section 255C or 256A before their return to the United Kingdom is to be treated as having no effect.
12 The person is to be treated as if—
(a) they had been recalled under section 254 on the day on which they returned to the United Kingdom, and
(b) they were not suitable for automatic release (see section 255A).”’—(Tom Pursglove.)
This new schedule inserts a new Schedule 19B into the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to make modifications of that Act in relation to prisoners who have returned to the UK after their removal from prison. It is introduced by section 261 of that Act, which is amended by NC12.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Schedule 3
Working in United Kingdom waters: consequential and related amendments
‘Immigration Act 1971
1 The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.
2 In section 8 (exceptions for seamen etc), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) Subsection (1) does not apply in relation to a member of the crew of a ship who is an offshore worker within the meaning of section 11A.”
3 In section 11 (references to entry etc), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1ZA) See also section 11A (additional means by which persons arriving in United Kingdom waters for work can enter the UK).”
4 In section 28 (proceedings for offences)—
(a) before subsection (1) insert—
“(A1) Proceedings for an offence under this Part that is committed in the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom may be taken, and the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as having been committed, in any place in the United Kingdom.”;
(b) in subsection (2A), for “section 25 or 25A” substitute “this Part”.
5 In section 28L (interpretation of Part 3) —
(a) in subsection (1), at the beginning insert “Subject to subsection (1A)”;
(b) after subsection (1) insert—
“(1A) In this Part ‘premises’ also includes any artificial island, installation or structure (including one in the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom).”
6 In section 28M (enforcement powers in relation to ships: England and Wales), in subsection (2)(a)—
(a) for “section” substitute—
“(i) section 24B,”;
(b) for “, and” substitute “, or
(ii) section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, and”.
7 In section 28N (enforcement powers in relation to ships: Scotland), in subsection (2)(a)—
(a) for “section” substitute—
“(i) section 24B,”;
(b) for “, and” substitute “, or
(ii) section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, and”.
8 In section 28O (enforcement powers in relation to ships: Northern Ireland), in subsection (2)(a)—
(a) for “section” substitute—
“(i) section 24B,”;
(b) for “, and” substitute “, or
(ii) section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006, and”.
9 (1) Schedule 2 (administrative provision as to control on entry etc) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 2—
(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for the words from “who have” to “United Kingdom)” substitute “within sub-paragraph (1A)”;
(b) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) The persons are—
(a) any person who has arrived in the United Kingdom by ship or aircraft (including transit passengers, members of the crew and others not seeking to enter the United Kingdom);
(b) any person who has arrived in United Kingdom waters by ship or aircraft who the immigration officer has reason to believe is an offshore worker.
(1B) In sub-paragraph (1A), ‘offshore worker’ and ‘United Kingdom waters’ have the same meaning as in section 11A.”
(3) In paragraph 27—
(a) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) Sub-paragraph (1) also applies to the captain of a ship or aircraft arriving in United Kingdom waters if—
(a) there are offshore workers on board, or
(b) an immigration officer has informed the captain that they wish to examine any person on board in the exercise of the power under paragraph 2.
(1B) In sub-paragraph (1A), ‘offshore worker’ and ‘United Kingdom waters’ have the same meaning as in section 11A.”
(4) In paragraph 27B—
(a) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) This paragraph also applies to ships or aircraft—
(a) which have offshore workers on board, and
(b) which—
(i) have arrived, or are expected to arrive, in United Kingdom waters, or
(ii) have left, or are expected to leave, United Kingdom waters.”;
(b) after sub-paragraph (9A) insert—
“(9B) ‘Offshore worker’ and ‘United Kingdom waters’ have the same meaning in this paragraph as in section 11A.”
(5) In paragraph 27BA—
(a) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
“(1A) The Secretary of State may also make regulations requiring responsible persons in respect of ships or aircraft—
(a) which have offshore workers on board, and
(b) which—
(i) have arrived, or are expected to arrive, in United Kingdom waters, or
(ii) have left, or are expected to leave, United Kingdom waters,
to supply information to the Secretary of State or an immigration officer.”;
(b) in sub-paragraph (2), after (1) insert “or (1A)”;
(c) after sub-paragraph (5) insert—
“(5A) For the purposes of this paragraph, ‘offshore workers’ and ‘United Kingdom waters’ have the same meaning as in section 11A.”
10 (1) Schedule 4A (maritime enforcement powers) is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 1(2), after the opening words insert—
“‘the 2006 Act’ means the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006;”.
(3) In paragraph (2)(1)(a), for “25 or 25A” substitute “24B, 25 or 25A of this Act or section 21 of the 2006 Act”.
(4) In paragraph (3)(1)(a), for “25, 25A and 25B” substitute “24B, 25, 25A or 25B of this Act or section 21 of the 2006 Act”.
(5) In paragraph 4(1), for “25, 25A or 25B” substitute “24B, 25, 25A or 25B of this Act or section 21 of the 2006 Act”.
(6) In paragraph 12(2), after the opening words insert—
“‘the 2006 Act’ means the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006;”.
(7) In paragraph 13(1)(a), for “25 or 25A” substitute “24B, 25 or 25A of this Act or section 21 of the 2006 Act”.
(8) In paragraph 14(1)(a), for “25 or 25A” substitute “24B, 25 or 25A of this Act or section 21 of the 2006 Act”.
(9) In paragraph 15(1), for “25 or 25A” substitute “24B, 25 or 25A of this Act or section 21 of the 2006 Act”.
(10) In paragraph 23(2), after the opening words insert—
“‘the 2006 Act’ means the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006;”.
(11) In paragraph 24(1)(a), for “25 or 25A” substitute “24B, 25 or 25A of this Act or section 21 of the 2006 Act”.
(12) In paragraph 25(1)(a), for “25 or 25A” substitute “24B, 25 or 25A of this Act or section 21 of the 2006 Act”.
(13) In paragraph 26(1), for “25 or 25A” substitute “24B, 25 or 25A of this Act or section 21 of the 2006 Act”.
Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006
11 In section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 (offence of employing a person who is disqualified from employment by their immigration status), after subsection (3) insert—
“(3A) Proceedings for an offence under this section that is committed in the territorial sea adjacent to the United Kingdom may be taken, and the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as having been committed, in any place in the United Kingdom.
(3B) Section 3 of the Territorial Waters Jurisdiction Act 1878 (consent of Secretary of State for certain prosecutions) does not apply to proceedings for an offence under this section.”’—(Tom Pursglove.)
This new schedule makes consequential and related amendments in NC20.
Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
Question proposed, That the Chair do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.
Bambos Charalambous
I want to put on the record my thanks to the Clerks, in particular Sarah Thatcher and Rob Page, for their amazing work in getting our new clauses and amendments into some form of legible parliamentary-type wording. I also thank the other staff, those in the room in particular, the Doorkeepers and those keeping a record of our sometimes very long speeches. I also thank you, Ms McDonagh, and Sir Roger, for the excellent way in which you chaired proceedings of the Committee.
I thank the members of the Committee—the Minister and all members, but in particular my friends and colleagues in the Opposition for their support and for helping us get to where we are today. I put on the record my thanks to my fellow shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax, and my hon. Friends the Members for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, for Sheffield Central and for Coventry North West, and to the hon. Members for Glasgow North East and for—I will attempt to say the name—Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East.
Finally, I thank my staff, Katherine Chibah, Giulia Monasterio, Cian Fox, Charlotte Butterick and Tashi Tahir, for all their hard work on the research and the speeches, and for their general support. It has been a challenging Bill Committee and I am pleased that we have got to the end of it in one piece.
Tom Pursglove
Before you adjourn the Committee for the final time, Ms McDonagh, I also take the opportunity to thank everyone who has been involved, in particular the Opposition spokesmen of both parties, who have put an awful lot of work into their preparations. I know that it is not just them involved in their work, but their teams, who go to extraordinary lengths and really look at the detail of the measures that the Government are proposing to draw up suggested new clauses. It is a herculean effort, so I thank the spokesmen and those working with them.
I thank you, Ms McDonagh, and Sir Roger, for your firm but fair chairing of the proceedings. That is always much appreciated, and you have done a brilliant job at keeping us all in order in—I think it is fair to say—a controversial Bill, which Members come at with very strong opinions on all sides.
I also thank my colleagues and in particular our departmental Whip, who as ever has done a fantastic job and stood in at very short notice for my absence on Tuesday. It was extraordinary.
Tom Pursglove
He did very well. I was concerned that I would not be wanted back. I also thank our standing departmental Parliamentary Private Secretary.
I also thank my officials, without whom it simply would not be possible to do this, for all the work they put in behind the scenes. I thank the Clerks of the House, too, who do a fantastic job in structuring the proceedings and ensuring that everything runs in an orderly fashion.
To finish, Sir Roger’s comments as he departed the Chair this morning put it rather well. These are controversial matters that people feel strongly about. Passions run high, but it is fair to say that the Committee has considered the matters in great detail and, I would argue, has done consideration of the Bill great justice.
Mr Goodwill
I thank the Minister, because everyone else has been thanked. He had not been long in his position when the Committee started, and he has shown tremendous skill and adeptness. I am pleased indeed that he recovered from the dodgy prawn he had the other week, which caused the Whip to have to stand in. The Minister started his career as my PPS, and I like to say that I taught him everything he knows, but not everything I know.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill, as amended, accordingly to be reported.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Tuesday 7th December 2021
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 7 December 2021 - (7 Dec 2021)
16:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 245 / Noes: 309 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 237 / Noes: 323 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:14 - The House divided: - Ayes: 235 / Noes: 314 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 251 / Noes: 296 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 233 / Noes: 318 - Question accordingly negatived.
19:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 235 / Noes: 313 - Question accordingly negatived.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 4—Former British-Hong Kong service personnel: right of abode—
‘(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of section 2(1) insert—
“(c) that person is a former member of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps or the Hong Kong Royal Naval service, or
(d) that person is the spouse or dependent of a former member of the Hong Kong Military Service Corps or the Hong Kong Royal Naval service.”’
This new clause would mean that all former British-Hong Kong service personnel, plus their spouses and dependents, would have right of abode in the UK.
New clause 5—British National (Overseas) visas: eligibility—
‘(1) Within two months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must amend the Immigration Rules to ensure that all persons meeting the condition set out in subsection (2) are eligible to apply for the British National (Overseas) visa.
(2) The condition referred to in subsection (1) is that the person has at least one parent who is a British national (overseas).’
This new clause would enable any persons from Hong Kong who have at least one parent who is a British national (overseas) to apply for the British National (Overseas) visa.
New clause 7—Exception to the requirement to pay fees in connection with immigration or nationality—
‘(1) In relation to an applicant meeting the criteria set out in subsection (2) of this section, the Secretary of State must by regulations provide for an exception to any requirement to pay fees set out in a fees order under section 68 (fees) of the Immigration Act 2014.
(2) The criteria referred to in subsection (1) are that the applicant has—
(a) lawfully resided in the UK for a minimum period of five years, and
(b) lawfully worked in a clinical capacity for the National Health Service anywhere in the United Kingdom for an unbroken period of three years
provided that, if the applicant leaves the employment of the National Health Service in any part of the United Kingdom within the three years following a successful application in respect of which the applicant was exempted from paying fees, those fees become payable on termination of employment in the National Health Service.’
This new clause exempts clinical NHS workers from the fees associated with immigration and nationality, provided that they have lived lawfully in the UK for at least five years, worked in the NHS for at least three years, and continue to work in the NHS for a further three years after being granted the fee exemption.
New clause 8—Children registering as British citizens: fees—
‘(1) Within two months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must amend the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018.
(2) The amendments referred to in subsection (1) must include—
(a) provision to ensure that the fees charged for applications for registration as a British citizen under the British Nationality Act 1981 or the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997, where the person in respect of whom the application is made is a child at the time the application is made, do not exceed the cost to the Home Office of processing the application;
(b) provision to ensure that no fees are charged for applications for registration as a British Citizen under the British Nationality Act 1981 or the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997 where the person in respect of whom the application is made—
(i) is a child being looked after by a local authority at the time the application is made; or
(ii) was looked after by a local authority when they were a child, and at the time the application is made is either—
(A) under the age of 21; or
(B) under the age of 25 and in full-time education.
(3) Within six months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report setting out the effect of such fees on the human rights of the children applying for registration as British citizens under the British Nationality Act 1981 and the British Nationality (Hong Kong) Act 1997.’
In respect of children registering as British citizens, this new clause would prevent the Home Office from charging a fee which exceeds the cost of processing the application. It would also abolish such fees altogether for looked-after children until they reach the age of 21 (or 25 if in full-time education), and would require the Government to produce a report setting out the effect of such fees on children’s human rights.
New clause 22—Requirement for the Secretary of State to waive the full capacity requirement—
‘(1) In section 44A of the British Nationality Act 1981, for “may” substitute “should”.’
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to require the Secretary of State to waive the requirement for a person to have full capacity if it is in that person‘s best interests to do so.
New clause 25—Birthright commitment under the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, produce a report setting out how the UK Government will give statutory effect to the recognition set out in the Belfast (Good Friday) Agreement 1998 of the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to identify themselves and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may choose.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay the report before each House of Parliament.’
New clause 33—Acquisition of British citizenship by birth or adoption: comprehensive sickness insurance—
‘(1) The British Nationality Act 1981 is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection 1(3A) insert—
(a) a person born in the United Kingdom after commencement who is not a British citizen is entitled, on application, to register as a British citizen if the person’s father or mother would have been settled in the United Kingdom at the time of the person’s birth, if Assumption A had applied.
(b) assumption A is that, in assessing whether the person’s father or mother met a requirement to have held comprehensive sickness insurance, this is to be regarded as having been satisfied whenever they
(i) had access to the NHS in practice; or
(ii) held a comprehensive sickness insurance policy.
(c) registration under this subsection shall be free of charge.”
(3) After section 50A insert—
“50B Exceptions
(a) is not to be treated as having been in the United Kingdom in breach of the immigration laws during a period of time that has been counted as part of a continuous qualifying period in a grant of leave to that person under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules, and
(b) is not to be treated as not being of good character on account of a failure to hold comprehensive sickness insurance during some period of residence in the UK.”
(4) The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 is amended as follows.
(5) After section 15, insert—
“15A Comprehensive sickness insurance
(1) For the purposes of any decision taken by a public authority under this Part after commencement of this section, a person is to be treated as having met a requirement to have held comprehensive sickness insurance, whenever they—
(a) had access to the NHS in practice; or
(b) held a comprehensive sickness insurance policy.
(2) This section shall in particular apply to any decisions taken under residence scheme immigration rules.”’
This new clause provides that a person seeking to acquire permanent residence documents, naturalisation or citizenship need not have had comprehensive sickness insurance prior to applying for citizenship.
New clause 34—Registration as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen: Fees—
‘(1) No person may be charged a fee to be registered as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen that is higher than the cost to the Secretary of State of exercising the function of registration.
(2) No child may be charged a fee to be registered as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen if that child is being looked after by a local authority.
(3) No child may be charged a fee to be registered as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen that the child or the child’s parent, guardian or carer is unable to afford.
(4) The Secretary of State must take steps to raise awareness of rights under the British Nationality Act 1981 to be registered as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen among people possessing those rights.’
This new clause would ensure that fees for registering as a British citizen or British overseas territories citizen do not exceed cost price. It would also ensure that children being looked after by a local authority are not liable for such fees, and that no child is charged an unaffordable fee. Lastly, it would require the Government to raise awareness of rights to registration.
Amendment 108, in clause 3, page 8, line 33, leave out subsection (4).
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to remove the good character requirement for a person applying for British overseas territories citizenship who has previously been discriminated against where this could perpetuate that discrimination.
Amendment 12, page 11, line 35, leave out clause 9.
This amendment would remove clause 9, which would enable the Home Secretary to deprive UK nationals of citizenship without notice.
Government amendments 17 and 18.
Amendment 2, page 12, line 33, leave out clause 10.
This amendment would remove clause 10, which restricts entitlement to British citizenship for children born stateless in the UK.
Amendment 111, in clause 10, page 13, line 23, after “birth”, insert
“without any legal or administrative barriers”.
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure that, in compliance with Article 1 of the 1961 UN Statelessness Convention, British citizenship is only withheld from a stateless child born in the UK where the nationality of a parent is available to the child immediately, without any legal or administrative hurdles.
Amendment 110, in clause 10, page 13, line 27, at end insert—
“(d) in all the circumstances, it would be in the best interests of the child for it to acquire the nationality in question.”
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure that the best interests of the child are central to decision-making in deciding whether to grant or decline an application for British citizenship by a stateless child who was born in the UK.
Henry Smith
The Chagos islanders have suffered over half a century of consistent injustices. They were forcibly exiled from their homeland, the Chagos islands—Diego Garcia and outer islands such as Peros Banhos—by the Harold Wilson Administration in the late 1960s to make way for a military base, and they were typically relocated against their will in Mauritius, but also in the Seychelles and other locations.
There are many aspects of the injustices suffered by the Chagos islanders on which I and many other hon. and right hon. Members across the House have campaigned, such as a right of resettlement, a right to compensation—a package has still not been fully realised to any extent at all—and a right to self-determination. It is London, Washington, the UN in New York or Port Louis that is seeking to decide their future sovereign status.
However, there is another injustice that has been suffered by descendants of Chagos islanders: the denial of their moral rights to British overseas territory citizenship. It is no fault of the grandchildren and other descendants of the Chagos islanders that their forebears were forcibly removed from their homeland and essentially dumped in other parts of the Indian ocean, but it has meant that they have lost their rights to British overseas territory citizenship. Had those individuals been born in other overseas territories, such as Gibraltar, the Falkland Islands or Bermuda, they would have a right to British overseas territory citizenship. This is causing great hardship for many families, and dividing many communities as a result.
Those who were born on the Chagos islands and the direct children of those born on the Chagos islands do have a right to British overseas territory citizenship and therefore British citizenship. They are able to settle in this country, and are productive members of our wider society. I am grateful that many have decided to live in my Crawley constituency. However, many grandchildren and other descendants of those islanders are technically seen as foreign nationals, and have to go through an expensive and rigorous visa process to be here, and then apply for indefinite leave to remain. That results in families with different nationality status and immigration status, often in the same household. Some are able to work and to access public funds and public services. Others are unable to, which creates issues in terms of housing overcrowding.
As I said, this community has suffered a series of injustices. It is the sort of thing you would expect to read in the history books of colonialism of several hundred years ago. We are not talking about many people either. We have just heard a lot about 20,000 Afghans evacuated from that country with the fall of Kabul. We have heard a lot about over 3 million BNO—British national overseas—citizens in Hong Kong with a potential right to settle in this country as a result of the increasing Chinese erosion of democracy there. With the Chagos Islanders, only numbers in the hundreds to low thousands would be eligible.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it is not about the numbers; it is about the principle and about living up to our historical obligations. I have seen a number of initiatives of this sort. I will be happy to support this new clause. It remains to be seen what the response will be from the Treasury Bench. Will he join me in putting the message across to the Ministers and officials responsible that this will never just go away? If not today, then sooner or later, these injustices will have to be addressed.
Henry Smith
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his support, and I agree with every word he said.
We have had over half a century of appalling injustice, in many different regards, for this community. It is now time that this House rights the wrongs that they have suffered. In allowing British overseas territories citizenship for the descendants of the Chagos Islanders, we can go a long way towards doing that. Chagos islanders were forcibly removed from their homeland not by this House but by an Order in Council. This issue has never had the proper scrutiny of this elected House, which can now play its part in righting a significant historical injustice. I therefore call on Members from across the House to support new clause 2.
Bambos Charalambous (Enfield, Southgate) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the excellent speech by the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) in proposing new clause 2. I pay tribute to his commitment to this cause, which has been a long-standing one for him and his constituents. I wish to put on record the Opposition’s support for the new clause, which seeks to rectify the long-standing injustice in British nationality law that affects a relatively small number of people—Chagossian people, descendants of the Chagos islanders, who were forcibly removed from the British Indian Ocean Territory in the 1960s. The fact that British citizenship does not automatically pass to second and third generation Chagossians despite some of them migrating to the UK with their British parents as very young children is nothing short of a scandal. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will support new clause 2.
Whereas the hon. Member for Crawley is seeking to rectify an injustice, the Nationality and Borders Bill does the opposite and seeks to create chaos and injustice. I will focus my comments on part 1. Clause 9 provides the Government with dangerous and unprecedented powers to deprive UK nationals of citizenship, without warning. We are wholeheartedly opposed to this. Through clause 9, the Government seek to amend the long-standing position under the British Nationality Act 1981 that an individual must be notified if they are to be deprived of their nationality. It exempts the Government from giving notice of a decision to deprive a person of citizenship if authorities do not have the subject’s contact details or if it is not “reasonably practical” to do so. The Government’s proposal also allows such secret deprivations to take place solely on the basis that the Home Office deems it “in the public interest” or in the interest of “foreign relations”. Effectively, this means that the Home Secretary can strip someone of their citizenship without informing them because it would be internationally embarrassing for her to do so. This abhorrent proposal therefore enables the Government to remove basic fairness, on top of an already dangerous power.
Like many measures in the Bill, there is no practical reason for this change. Present rules already allow for citizenship deprivation letters to be delivered to an individual’s last known address. The real purpose of this rule appears to be to introduce measures that remove the right to appeal. These measures make lawful previously unlawful citizenship stripping. They ask Parliament to pretend that an unlawful decision was lawful all along. It is shameful and Orwellian in equal measure.
James Daly (Bury North) (Con)
I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could cast his mind back to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, where, for the first time, people who had acquired British citizenship through birth were made subject to citizenship deprivation powers. So what he has just commented on was brought in and voted through by a Labour Government. Could he address that point?
Bambos Charalambous
As I mentioned, any reasons to strip people of citizenship are given on notice, but this deprives people of the right to—
Bambos Charalambous
I do not agree with the principle of it: it should be done on notice.
Clause 9 means that individuals will not be able to challenge deprivation of their nationality as they will not be aware or told that they are no longer British citizens, and the time limit for appeal may run out before the individual becomes aware that their rights have been stripped. As Reprieve has pointed out, under these proposals, a person accused of speeding would be afforded more rights than someone at risk of being deprived of their British nationality.
Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)
I very much agree with the point that my hon. Friend is making. Is he aware of the very widespread alarm that clause 9 is creating up and down the country?
Bambos Charalambous
My right hon. Friend is exactly right.
In recent years, the Government have unlawfully failed to satisfy the simplest of obligations in relation to citizenship deprivation: providing notice to people that they are seeking to deprive them of their rights. Having been found to have unlawfully stripped people of citizenship without telling them, the Home Secretary now seeks to undo these unlawful actions.
Paul Bristow (Peterborough) (Con)
Can I just ask the hon. Gentleman very simply: does he agree with the principle of citizenship revocation? Forget the issue of duty of notice—does he agree with the principle of it?
Bambos Charalambous
The British Nationality Act has been in law for the last 40 years and that provides the power to strip people of citizenship. What we are talking about here is doing it without notice.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that to deprive a person of their citizenship without warning or explanation would be a flagrant breach of natural justice and that to do so as an alternative to submitting that person to due process under the law risks undermining our national security, rather than enhancing it?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. She is exactly right. How can it be right that somebody is able to be stripped of their citizenship without knowing about it? That is clearly a breach of natural justice.
Hilary Benn (Leeds Central) (Lab)
My hon. Friend has made a very important point about people not knowing that they have been deprived of their citizenship and how that might affect their ability to appeal. Clause 9 says that someone subject to these new rules
“may appeal against the decision to the First-tier Tribunal.”
However, as I understand it, rule 8 of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission gives individuals 28 days to appeal deprivation of citizenship if they are outside the United Kingdom. Does not he agree that the Minister, in responding today, has to give absolute clarity that that 28-day period will be extended?
Bambos Charalambous
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. How can someone know when the 28 days are going to run if they have not received notice of the decision to strip them of their citizenship? It is basic.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that at the heart of this matter is the complete stripping away of due process? A person does not have to be given notice, or a reason why they are being stripped of their nationality. This has a disproportionate impact on our black, Asian and minority ethnic communities.
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. This measure will clearly affect people who have other citizenships available to them, because it is unlawful to deprive someone of citizenship and leave them stateless. Clause 9 is about people’s citizenship, identity and, ultimately, rights; without citizenship, people do not have rights, and that leaves them without an identity or a sense of belonging.
Bambos Charalambous
I will give way one last time, but I need to make progress; otherwise, there will be very little time for anyone else to speak.
Richard Graham
I am grateful to the hon. Member. He is a reasonable man, so I am sure that he will agree that when it comes to sensitive issues, such as the very small number of people whose nationality may be revoked by the Home Secretary, as has been possible for the past 100 years, it is incredibly important that they are not the subject of rather embarrassing scaremongering, such as that being done by the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain). Will the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) confirm at the Dispatch Box his clear understanding that when someone has a single nationality, they cannot have their nationality revoked and be sent abroad, as the hon. Member for Bradford East has implied?
Bambos Charalambous
Many people have dual nationality in the UK, and those are the people who are in fear of the measure being introduced. I will now make progress.
The clause not only represents a total disregard for justice and the rule of law, but also says to certain British citizens that despite their being born and raised in the UK, their rights will always be precarious and subject to change, because, in the words of the Home Office,
“British citizenship is a privilege, not a right.”
The consequences of that are drastic. It is a threat to all, but particularly to those from ethnic minority backgrounds. According to analysis by the New Statesman, nearly 6 million people in England and Wales could be affected, and under this proposal, two in five people from an ethnic minority background are eligible to be deprived of their citizenship without being told.
Have the Government learned nothing from the Windrush scandal? They are repeating the same mistakes time and again. How can we trust the Government and the Home Office? How can we trust them with the measures proposed in clause 9? Simply put, we cannot, and I therefore commend the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) on bringing forward amendment 12, which would remove clause 9 from the Bill. We support that amendment in the name of fairness and in order to uphold the rule of law.
Another aspect of part 1 that we are concerned about is statelessness and, in particular, clause 10, which is intended to disentitle stateless children in the UK from their statutory right to British citizenship. I thank my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) for tabling amendment 111, which would give effect to the recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which published an excellent report on the Bill earlier this month. I wish to put on record my thanks, and I am sure the whole House’s thanks, for the enormous contribution she has made as a parliamentarian to preserving rights and demanding equality. She will be sorely missed when she steps down at the next election.
Clause 10 proposes amending and restricting a vital safeguard in British nationality law that prevents and reduces childhood statelessness. Under our international obligations, we have safeguards that mean that a child who was born in the UK and has always been stateless can acquire British citizenship after five years of residing here. The Government’s proposals to restrict and amend that obligation are an affront to children. They will impose the most profound of exclusions on children: the denial of any citizenship, and particularly citizenship of the place where they were born and live—the only place they know. This exclusion and alienation, when inflicted on a child in their formative years, will be highly damaging to their personal development and their feelings of security and belonging. The Government consistently failed, on Second Reading and in Committee, to explain what assessment has been made of the impact of this proposal on statelessness. That is unacceptable.
We Opposition Members therefore welcome amendment 111, and support its intention of ensuring that the Government act in compliance with article 1 of the 1961 UN statelessness convention. It would amend clause 10 so that British citizenship was withheld from a stateless child born in the UK only when a parent’s nationality was available to the child immediately, without any legal or administrative hurdles. This is a necessary amendment, as the Government have failed to protect the existing safeguards, which are in line with international law, in this Bill; on the contrary, they have introduced cruel and unworkable proposals that will only exacerbate the challenges for children and young people in the UK.
New clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), is on an issue that follows on from that of child statelessness. We support that new clause, which concerns the fee—£1,012 for a child—that people must pay to exercise their right to be registered as a British citizen. Like hon. and right hon. Members across this House, I have raised many cases on behalf of constituents navigating this inefficient, ineffective and expensive system. The fees imposed by the Home Office deny people their rights. Application fees are one barrier, and Home Office delays and inefficiencies are another. If we look at the figures, we see that the unfairness is extremely stark—even to the former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), who rightly described the registration fees for children as
“a huge amount of money to ask children to pay”.
Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)
I have heard that when the Bill was being prepared, the Children’s Commissioner was not consulted at all about its implications for the status of children. Can that possibly be right? Can my hon. Friend enlighten the House on that point?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I am not aware that the Children’s Commissioner was consulted, but I am sure the Minister will clarify whether they were.
The fee for a child to register as a British citizen stands at £1,012. The Home Office confirms that the cost of registration is only £372. The remaining £640 is, therefore, money made after delivery of the service. Home Office registration fees do not reflect the cost of registration. On the Government’s watch, people are being prevented from accessing the immigration system, and that leads to exclusion and isolation for the children and young people who are denied citizenship due to the barriers in their way.
Citizenship should not be about cost; it should be about contributing to our communities and inclusivity, but under the current system, it is about cost. By design, it is about astronomical application fees. Rather than fixing these problems through this legislation, which, despite its draconian measures, provides a unique opportunity to right this wrong, the Government concern themselves with outlandish and unworkable policies. I strongly urge Members from all parts of the House to carefully consider new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham. It would deliver fairness where the Government have failed to, and it has our full support.
Finally, I wish to speak about another issue that has broad cross-party support—a further important and unique opportunity to right wrongs. New clause 5, in the name of the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and others, relates to the British national overseas visa scheme. As we know, the BNO scheme was, in theory, designed to offer a path to citizenship for Hongkongers, but in practice the scheme is not working as well as it could. Indeed, there are worrying and significant loopholes in it that mean individuals and groups of individuals are being left in limbo. That is particularly true for younger Hongkongers who have fled the country over fear of repercussions, as those born after 1997 do not hold BNO passports, and are therefore unable to settle in the UK via the BNO route. The result of this loophole in the BNO scheme is that young people who have fled police brutality find themselves fighting for their rights within the sclerotic and inefficient UK asylum system, having been arbitrarily excluded from the scheme because of their age.
Hongkongers born after 1997 do not hold a BNO passport. Those documents were issued to citizens following the handover of Hong Kong from the UK to China in 1997, so those aged under 24 cannot benefit from the BNO scheme. Home Office figures show that there were 124 asylum claims from Hong Kong nationals in the year to June 2021, compared with 21 the year before and just nine in the year to June 2019. This is a growing problem, and it cannot be swept under the rug. For those stuck in the system, there is, in the words of Hong Kong Watch, an “agonising wait”. That should not exist, and could be fixed in the BNO scheme. Again, the Opposition proposed that in Committee, and naturally we fully support new clause 5. There are deep and historical ties between the UK and Hong Kong. The Government must not waiver in their commitment to people whose way of life has been put at risk. By accepting new clause 5, they could take a significant and immediate step towards that, with the Opposition’s support.
The Government’s decision to offer the Hong Kong BNO scheme is a welcome expression of the UK’s historical relationship with the citizens of Hong Kong. Individuals and families arriving from Hong Kong will enrich the UK’s cultural life and contribute to our economy. However, without amendment, the scheme is in danger of being just more warm words. As I have said on other amendments and new clauses, despite our deep concerns about the Bill’s draconian, dog-whistle politics when it comes to refugees and asylum seekers, it provides an opportunity to right wrongs in our system. I will leave my comments there, as I know that many hon. Members wish to speak.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Perhaps I should give a little bit of guidance. There are two groups of amendments this afternoon. If colleagues wish to speak to the second group of amendments, they should wait until we get to that group. Obviously, many colleagues will want to speak in various parts of the debate, so it might be wise for colleagues to prioritise the groups that they wish to speak to. I shall prioritise those who have tabled amendments in this first group. I call David Davis.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask a question with respect to your ruling? I take it that I will be able to speak to my amendments in the second group in debate on that group, and that I do not have to address them now. Is that correct?
Madam Deputy Speaker
I am sure that very careful consideration will be given to the tabled amendments, but some people may not get in on both groups. If there are votes on the first group, that will eat into the time for the second group.
Mr Davis
Thank you for that, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not looking for a promise.
Before I talk about my amendment, for which I have a one-minute speech, let me address questions that my hon. Friends on the Government Benches asked the Opposition spokesman. He was asked whether he agrees with the idea of withdrawing citizenship, full stop. My answer is that the British Nationality Act 1981 gives too much power to the Home Secretary—[Interruption.] I will answer, if I am not interrupted. It gives too much power, without sufficient early judicial intervention. It allows for a right of appeal, but it does not require the right of application to court first, and given that we are talking about something as serious as citizenship, it should.
We should not give the state the power to take every right away from erstwhile citizens of the country. That is not just my view; it also happens to be that of our biggest ally. In my time in this House, I have only once had a visit, as it were, from the State Department of the United States, and that was on this policy. In some people’s view, we are leaving our “human detritus” out in the conflict zones of the middle east. Most of our allies, having started with that policy, have withdrawn it and are taking back their people to put them on trial in their own country. From a security point of view, this policy does not stand up in the view of our allies.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
My right hon. Friend is making an incredibly strong point. Does he think it is quite inappropriate for one of the leading nations at the United Nations, with the privilege of a veto, not to accept its international responsibilities, when all other members of the permanent five do?
Mr Davis
I do think that, but I was focusing on the security element, and I do not think that the security argument stands up.
Amendment 12, in my name, would remove clause 9 from the Bill. That would not take away the Home Secretary’s right of rejecting citizenship, but it would take away her right to do so without notification. Of course, that matters. I go back to judicial rights. Say that someone does not know that they have had their citizenship withdrawn. They cannot appeal the matter for as long as they do not know, and that might be a long time.
Clause 9(2) says that the requirement to notify
“does not apply if it appears to the Secretary of State that”—
and there is a series of conditions, one of which is that notice should not be given if that is
“in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country”.
I cannot think of a weaker reason to withhold the rights of one of our citizens than to favour our diplomatic relations with another country. I do not think we are on the same page on that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I remind hon. Members that being fairly brief in remarks, as done admirably by David Davis, will allow more people to get in. I call the SNP spokesperson, Anne McLaughlin.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
Even though the Scottish National party has fundamental disagreements with most of this horrific Bill, that is not the case for part 1, where we are in agreement with much of it. We support the efforts to correct some historical injustices of UK nationality law and bringing British citizenship and British overseas territories citizenship law back into line. It should have happened a long time ago, but we support that it is happening now. We pay tribute to the campaign groups that have continued to make the case over several years, including the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, and Amnesty International. However, there are a number of issues that I want to raise and I will start with the SNP’s new clauses.
New clause 34 would ensure that the Government do not profit from people registering as British citizens or British overseas citizens. Hon. Members might be interested to know that, in 2018, the Home Office made profits of £500 million by charging £500 million more than it cost to process applications. The cost to the Home Office of the registration process is about £372 a person, but to the person applying, it is a minimum of £1,100 for children and £1,200 for an adult. Why? More importantly, why does that matter? How does that affect someone’s life?
I would like to share a story that I told in Committee of someone who has become part of my family and the devastating impact that the extortionate fees had on his family life. Cambull—that is not his real name—came from Sudan. The village where he grew up was razed to the ground, everybody fled, and he did not know where the rest of his family were. He assumed that his brothers, sister, mother and father had died, but he did not know for sure. He kept hearing rumours over the years. He came here as an asylum seeker and got his refugee status. He worked in security on minimum wage, zero-hours contracts, but he had a diligent approach to his job and built a life for himself. But the need to know for sure what had happened to his family members was always in the back of his mind. Any of us would share that need.
The Red Cross got some information for Cambull. There was a possibility that some of his family had survived, but nothing was certain. He needed to go back to find out if that was the case. To do that, he needed the protection of a British passport and British citizenship, so he set about applying. Because he was on the minimum wage, it took him years to save up the fees. I realise there are many in here who cannot imagine that, and I make no criticism of them—I am not being facetious—for never having experienced poverty. I would like nobody to experience it, but I would urge Conservative Members to trust me when I say that it took him years to save up the £1,200, and he could not have saved any harder. Had he been charged what it actually cost the Home Office, he would have got to Sudan a whole lot sooner. I know that nobody in this Chamber would have wanted what happened to him to have happened—I am coming to that—but I want to explain the impact of these extortionate fees in the hope that the Government can be persuaded to reduce them.
It took Cambull a long time, but he did finally get back to Sudan, with his British passport, to see what had become of his family, and he discovered that his mum had, in fact, survived the brutal attacks. She later became ill, and was ill for many years, but she lived longer than anyone expected because she had clung on hoping she would see his face one more time. She died two months before he got there. As I have said, I am not for a second suggesting that anybody here or anybody drafting the legislation would not care about what happened to Cambull, but if he had been able to apply for his citizenship when he became eligible—in other words, if he had been able to afford the cost because it was the actual cost, rather than the cost plus profit—he could have been reunited with his mum before she passed away, and it would have meant so much to both of them. There are so many Cambulls out there and others with different stories.
I want to express my party’s support for new clause 8 in the name of the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). I will leave her to make what I know will be very good arguments about the even more offensive practice of making profit from children’s applications. One of those arguments is of course that the courts have already ruled against it, but that does not seem to make a difference to this Government these days.
Finally, on awareness raising in relation to new clause 34, several organisations, including Amnesty, have expressed concern about the lack of it. They have asked for assurances that where an individual application is successful, the Government will take positive action to ensure that other potential applicants are made aware of their equal or similar right to register at discretion. This means that where an example is identified, as the Bill says, of
“unfairness,…an act or omission of a public authority, or…exceptional circumstances”,
on which it is right or necessary to exercise the discretion, there should be publicity and awareness raising. We talked about that in Committee, but those organisations want to know that it will happen, and that members of the public who could use the legislation to the same positive effect will have access—easy access—to such information. I would also like an assurance from the Minister that awareness raising will apply equally to British citizenship and British overseas territories citizenship.
On new clause 33, EU citizens have been living in the UK without knowing that, for some, there is an obscure requirement to hold a form of private health insurance. With free access at the point of need to our unique NHS, of which we are all proud, the EU rules on the need for comprehensive sickness insurance were not really written with the UK’s unusual situation in mind. New clause 33 is necessary because, for many, this requirement has only become apparent when applying for citizenship or when applying for British passports for their children born in the UK, and it is now presenting significant hurdles to obtaining citizenship. It could easily be rectified by this new clause, which would allow an applicant the right of free access to the NHS to satisfy the requirement that an individual should hold CSI.
The Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove)—made sympathetic noises on this in Committee, so if he will not accept this new clause, will he at least tighten up the guidance so that nobody has to take the risk of shelling out over £1,200 to apply, only to lose it when the decision maker takes the view on CSI that the Minister seemed to be suggesting he would not want them to take?
We support many of the amendments and new clauses, but I will mention just a couple in particular. Amendment 2 in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) would leave out clause 10 on statelessness. Clause 10 requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a child was unable to acquire another nationality before being permitted to register as a British citizen. This creates an additional and unjustified hurdle to stateless children’s registration as British citizens. Rather than ease the process and reform the current system to help children attain citizenship, the Government are intent on putting up more barriers and making it more difficult for children under 18 to be registered. Why? Because they have a handful of anecdotal examples of parents who appear to be using the system, as far as they are concerned, to jump the queue.
In fact, I remember only one such anecdote in Committee. However, I do remember hon. Members on the Committee asking repeatedly for evidence, and the Minister stated repeatedly that evidence would be forthcoming. I remember that the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) asked, I asked several times, the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle) asked and my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) asked. When I looked at the record, I counted at least 10 times that we asked for something more than anecdotes, and we were told that the evidence would be forthcoming, but it just has not been, so perhaps the Minister is going to surprise us and give us the evidence now.
The impact of the anecdotes—or the one anecdote I remember being given—was that a child who has done nothing wrong may end up registered as British five years before they otherwise might be. That hardly seems grounds for introducing this restrictive clause. The impact of statelessness on children can be dreadful. It is a terrible thing for a child to feel that they do not belong during their formative years.
I come now to amendment 12 in name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). We are very much opposed to clause 9, which, as we have heard, grants the Home Secretary the power to strip UK nationals of their citizenship in secret and without advance warning. This is deeply concerning, and it sends completely the wrong message. Since this has become public knowledge, I have had a number of people phoning me about it in an absolute panic.
Steven Bonnar (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (SNP)
Does my hon. Friend agree with me that it is not only us and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) who share these concerns? A petition that was started on change.org by my constituent Mr Kashif Iqbal has now got over 150,000 signatures calling for the removal of clause 9 to ensure that British citizenship cannot be stripped from our constituents in this manner.
Anne McLaughlin
I am coming to the end, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I pay tribute to Mr Iqbal, my hon. Friend’s constituent, because that is what we want. We want public pressure, and in Committee I felt that we were not being listened to at all. Of course, we did not win any of the battles in Committee and we are probably not going to win any of the battles here, but we will try, and public pressure is what will make this Government change their mind.
As I have said, we do support many of the amendments—for example, new clause 2 on Chagos islanders, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) for his tenacity on that. We support new clauses 4 and 5 on Hong Kong citizens, new clause 7 on health care workers—it seems a bit of a cheek to be charging people for the privilege of putting themselves at risk fighting the pandemic—and those amendments and new clauses from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. As I say, we support righting the historical wrongs, but our primary concerns are stateless children, stripping away people’s nationality without notice, the CSI requirement for EEA citizens, and the need to end the practice of profiteering from people registering as British citizens—that has to stop.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I remind hon. Members that this debate has to finish at 4.46 pm. Obviously, the Minister will require some time at the end, so if colleagues speak for about five minutes, we might make it.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I wish to speak to new clause 5, and I thank the more than 50 colleagues, representing every party in this House, who have supported it. I also wish to thank Ministers for engaging positively with me on the substance of the amendment.
My new clause aims to provide greater protection for the brave young people in Hong Kong who are fighting oppression. In particular, it gives them a right to settle in the UK, which is very difficult for them at the moment. Why is this needed? I would illustrate that with one case—that of 20-year-old Tony Chung, who has been handed a prison sentence of more than three and a half years. His crime was that what he said on a small student Facebook group when he was 18 years old was deemed to amount to secession and to be in breach of Hong Kong’s national security law. This illustrates how what was once Asia’s freest and most vibrant city is moving towards totalitarianism. Political persecution is growing by the day. Amnesty International calls it a human rights emergency, and I agree. The Hong Kong Government, at the behest of Beijing, are silencing the free press, gagging civil society and smothering all forms of dissent in the city.
Ms Nusrat Ghani (Wealden) (Con)
As my right hon. Friend knows, I am a signatory to his new clause. Does he share my concern that 93% of those who have been arrested just for being pro-democracy are young people? We have a unique obligation to protect them and provide them with safe and legal passage. When dealing with the Chinese Communist party that can “disappear” a tennis player, or even sanction Members of Parliament, we must be absolute in the support we give to young Hongkongers.
Damian Green
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and she anticipates a point I was about to make. The key point that arises from her remarks is that the British Government have, sensibly and rightly, introduced the British National (Overseas) visa, which allows people in Hong Kong who registered for that scheme before the handover of Hong Kong in 1997 the right to settle in this country. The problem is that many of the dissenters and demonstrators in Hong Kong are under 25, and therefore too young to have qualified under that route as it currently stands. I seek to give under 25-year-olds that route as well.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having tabled this new clause. It speaks of the decency of what we represent here in this House, and I support him in that. Does he agree that right now, many of the individuals he is referring to are desperately looking to us for some hope of freedom? We as this, the mother of all Parliaments, need to offer them the chance of that freedom.
Damian Green
My right hon. Friend is exactly right. Most of these young people are fighting for the values that we fight for and that this Parliament represents—that I why I am so pleased that Members across the House have supported the new clause. In practical terms, I have thanked Ministers for being positive in their engagement, and I hope to hear more from the Minister when he winds up the debate.
Although the Government are moving in this direction, and their heart is in the right place on this, I fear that at this stage they may not move far enough. In particular, I know the Minister is keen on using the youth mobility scheme, which exists not just for Hong Kong but for many other countries, as a route for young people in Hong Kong to move towards settlement. However, I will enter two quite large caveats about using that scheme.
The first is straightforward practicality, which I can illustrate by the example of a 19-year-old young woman from Hong Kong called Venus—that is not her real name, for obvious reasons. She was involved in many protests, and the university she was at reported those protests to the Hong Kong authorities. She evaded the police for a time, but she soon became aware that they were coming for anyone involved in protests, under the pretext of the national security law. She fled to the UK from Hong Kong the day after, and several of her friends were arrested two weeks later. If she had applied through the youth mobility scheme, it would have taken at least three weeks for her to get out of Hong Kong, which would not have been enough. That is a practical point about using the youth mobility scheme.
My other point is that the youth mobility scheme is reciprocal, requiring both sides to agree. If the Chinese authorities, or the Hong Kong authorities, decided not to participate in a reciprocal scheme, they could close it down tomorrow. What would Ministers do in those circumstances?
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for tabling this new clause. Does he agree that the under-25s from Hong Kong who are seeking asylum and safety in our country not only have to navigate a difficult asylum system, but now also face difficulties with access to healthcare, and also with safety once here?
Damian Green
I do not wish to get into wider issues in the immigration system, as at the moment I am most concerned with giving people a route to get to this country apart from the asylum system. We already have a couple of hundred of people in the asylum system, and if Ministers could find, or if we could find, another route, that would take a bit of pressure off the asylum system. I recommend that Ministers look at Canada’s young talent work experience pathway to permanent residence as a suitable exemplar to follow for Hong Kong.
I want to work with Ministers on this, and I believe that they have the best interests of the people in Hong Kong at heart. I hope not to have to move the new clause to a vote this time; I want to give Ministers more time to work out better details of a mobility scheme that is suitable for young people in Hong Kong. As we know, after this week the Bill will go to the Lords, where it will excite detailed interest. By the time their lordships debate it, I hope and expect that Ministers will have sorted out the gaps that remain in their proposals sufficiently, so that a similar new clause is not needed again. If that is not the case, I expect—indeed, I encourage—their lordships, to table a similar new clause and let us have another go. If that has to happen, those of us supporting the new clause will be less accommodating to the Government than I propose to be today. However, I hope it does not come to that. We all have a duty to the brave people fighting for democratic values—our values—in Hong Kong, and by the time this Bill has passed through all its stages, I want to know that we have fulfilled that duty. It is over to the Minister to do the right thing.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. May I clarify that everybody who wants to speak in this debate is now standing? I call Bell Ribeiro-Addy.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Streatham) (Lab)
I wish to speak to new clause 8 about child citizenship fees, which I am grateful has been signed by a number of Members. The children in question are not migrants. I repeat that they are not migrants, because every time this issue is raised, there is some suggestion that there is something slightly illegal behind this, which is disgraceful. On the contrary, the large majority are exactly like me and the Prime Minister, and have every right to British citizenship. This Government, and all successive Governments, accept that, but the issue is that they are being priced out.
We in this country charge British children—children!—up to 10 times more to claim their citizenship rights than their counterparts in Spain, France, Belgium, Denmark and Sweden. The fee is the most expensive in Europe. If the £35 fee introduced back in 1983 had risen in line with inflation, it would be only £120 today. Instead, we charge £1,012—a fee that has doubled in the past decade, and which the Government have the ability to increase at will. It is a fee that far too many cannot afford, and a fee the level of which neither I nor the Prime Minister had to pay.
Why do I keep mentioning myself and the Prime Minister? It is because the circumstances of our births are no different to those of the children in question today. Indeed, many Members across the House were not born here or were born to migrants, and none of us faced such barriers to claiming our citizenship. No one questions our rights, and our British citizenship gives us the right to sit as Members of this House. I repeatedly mention myself and the Prime Minister because I believe that neither of us should be in a position to make things difficult for those children born after us. I certainly did not come to this House to do that.
Like the Windrush generation, through no fault of their own, and often with no idea of what is to come, these children go on to face real difficulties with everyday life and with things that we take for granted, such as travelling, getting a job, renting a home or going to university without being asked to pay international fees. That is in the country they were born in or have lived in their whole lives. Make that make sense.
Citizens UK, Amnesty International, and the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, which has led on this campaign, have estimated that between 85,000 and 215,000 children with a legal entitlement to British citizenship have ended up undocumented due to the extortionate registration fee. Imagine how many children have never had the opportunity to reach their full potential because they spent the end of their childhood, and the beginning of their adulthood, fighting to prove that they have rights in their own country, or fighting to prove that they belong in the only place they have ever called home. It is exactly what happened with the Windrush generation.
We must understand that the harm of being denied citizenship rights in the only country you know cannot be overstated. It is not just about societal barriers; it is the psychological impact of being constantly treated like a second-class citizen. Why do I continually compare them to the Windrush generation? That is because, just like the Windrush generation, a piece of legislation or policy that attempted to dissuade migrants and make the environment more hostile for them is impacting on a group of people who have every right to be here. Just like the Windrush generation, this policy disproportionately affects those of black, Asian, and minority ethnic heritage.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that to make children bear the burden of this Government’s hostile environment policy must be wrong?
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I am sure she will agree with me that, clearly, no lessons have been learned.
New clause 8 does not even ask the Government to scrap the fee, which is my personal preference; it just asks them to reduce it to cost and examine its impact on the rights of children. The new clause does, however, ask for the fee to be scrapped for children in care, for the obvious reason that children in care are the responsibility of the state. As we approach Christmas and we are thinking about families and home, with all the disadvantages that children in care face, the Government seem all too at ease with telling these children that they have no country to call home unless their local authority is willing to pay for it.
I spoke to children who were Lambeth care leavers and they told me horrific tales of threats of deportation to countries they have never been to because they cannot prove their link to their citizenship due to issues with their relations with their parents. Our cash-strapped local authorities cannot afford to keep paying these fees, and they are not border guards or immigration specialists who understand exactly what is happening.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) is absolutely right that there are parts of the citizenship section of the Bill that we appreciate, and things have been corrected. I spoke to the Immigration Minister earlier this week, and I was grateful for his time—I promised I would say something nice, and I did. If we are correcting all these other things, why would we not correct this policy now? We know exactly what the issue is. We know that the courts ruled, the Government appealed, and the courts ruled again that these fees are not in the best interests of children. This Bill is so horrible in so many other areas; is there not just one thing that we can all agree on? Just like with the Windrush scandal, why do the Government want to be dragged screaming into submission on something that they know is absolutely right?
I am glad to be standing here today, because I get to keep the promise that I made just before my election to a group of students from St Gabriel’s College who, along with Lambeth Citizens, explained to me their plight as children who were suffering in this way. I am proud to be a governor at their school, because they are what I call citizens. They are affected by this issue. Some of them have moved on, but they continue to fight for others in their place. I promised that I would stand up in the House and try to show that these young people are valued by their country—because this is their country. I hope that, when new clause 8—hopefully—goes to a vote, every other Member of this House will walk through the Lobby with me and show those young people that they have every single right to be here, that we will not continue to price them out, and that they should be able to access every single right, just like myself and the Prime Minister have been able to do.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 4, which would secure the right of abode of the brave and loyal servicemen who served Queen and country in the British military, in the Hong Kong Military Service Corps and the Hong Kong royal naval service corps, until 1997. They were servants of the Crown and I believe they should be treated equally to all those who have served in Her Majesty’s armed forces.
Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)
I am a co-signatory to new clause 4, and I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing it to the House. Does he agree that this is a unique group of individuals because of that service, and therefore that they should be considered favourably by the Government?
Andrew Rosindell
They most certainly should, and it should not have taken all this time for the Government to accept the need to deal with this matter. This is a left-behind group of ex-servicemen, and they really do need to be given the right of abode here in the United Kingdom.
Only 159 of the 654 British Hong Kong servicemen who applied under the 1990 to 1997 British nationality selection scheme prior to the handover of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China were offered full UK passports for service to the Crown. I believe that those who applied for UK passports and were denied them have been discriminated against, and it is time that was rectified. They should have been treated equally to the 159 and given British citizenship for their armed forces Crown service.
The campaign for the right of abode of former British Hong Kong servicemen has established the number of servicemen still seeking recognition from the Government at around 301, with immediate family growing the group to around 1,000. That is a very low number of people when compared with the 3 million citizens affected by the changes made last year to introduce the BNO passport, which was such a welcome support for the people of Hong Kong.
Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Am I right in thinking that these very patriotic individuals are seeking the right to come here if they need to in case of future discrimination? They are not necessarily all likely to have to take up that right.
Andrew Rosindell
My right hon. Friend makes a superb point, and he is of course completely correct. These ex-servicemen in Hong Kong are not demanding the right to come here straightaway, but they want that option should there ever be a need for them to leave Hong Kong—if they felt unsafe or their families were under threat. Surely, in such a situation, Her Majesty’s Government should support those who have served Her Majesty’s armed forces.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member and the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) for tabling this important amendment. Does the hon. Member agree that, while the amendment is welcome and it would be an improvement on the current situation, it would still mean that young people born after 1997 were relying on the BNO status of their parents, and that that would disproportionately impact poorer Hongkongers and people whose families moved after 1997?
Andrew Rosindell
I think that refers to a different amendment, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
On new clause 4, is it not the case for this very explicit group of people, who have given loyalty and service to this country in standing for freedom, liberty and the rule of law, that it would be deeply ironic and unjust if we were to leave them to the vagaries of a regime that has turned out to be entirely opposite freedom, liberty and the rule of law? That is why we owe them this duty of care, if they choose to take it up.
Andrew Rosindell
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I agree wholeheartedly. This is about giving people who have loyally served the Crown and defended freedom and liberty in Hong Kong the option, if they so choose, to live in the United Kingdom and be treated as equals. That is surely something we should now accept. This measure is long overdue, and I hope that the Minister will respond accordingly.
I know that Mr Speaker himself shares my interest in resolving this long-standing issue. Prior to his elevation to the Chair, I worked on this issue with him for over a decade. I have worked with a number of Ministers—Home Secretaries and Ministers of State—including my friend James Brokenshire, the late Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup. We have worked together to try to resolve this matter and right this wrong that has been done to these servicemen, but I say with deep regret that, so far, no concrete steps have been taken by this or previous Governments to resolve this matter.
An appropriate solution must include a mechanism to grant every single one of these servicemen immediate settled status in the UK if and when they decide that they would like to take up that option. Furthermore, it should not create another group of left-behind servicemen by requiring an arbitrary period of service for people to be eligible for the right of settlement or by putting an age limit on the immediate family members they can bring to the United Kingdom. Only legislation that includes all those measures will be sufficient to finally correct the anomaly that has led to these fine servicemen being left behind. My new clause 4 would secure those objectives and finally give these servants of the Crown the right to be treated as fully British, which is no less than they deserve.
I ask the Government to support my new clause or to produce an appropriate and legally acceptable way to support these veterans and give them the status they are entitled to, dealing with this matter once and for all. With that in mind, I thank the Minister for reaching out to me about suggesting an alternative solution that may be possible. However, let me be clear: I require guarantees that will not be watered down. If the Minister does not feel able to support my new clause, I expect him to provide a fair and just solution that gives these brave and patriotic Hongkongers the outcome they deserve. I ask him to use this opportunity to provide the assurances I seek.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Can I once again urge colleagues to stick to the five minutes that we talked about? We are going to have to impose a time limit shortly if we are going to get everybody in.
Mr Carmichael
We have a fair old mixter-maxter of different amendments, new clauses and other provisions, and as I try to find a common theme, I find this: policy decisions that we make as a country and that we make in this place sooner or later have domestic policy implications. It does not matter how hard we try to ignore them, as we have with the rights of the Chagos islanders, or how hard we resist the logic of our decisions, as we have in the case of the Hongkongers until recent years—eventually they all require to be dealt with.
I want first to deal briefly with amendment 2, in my name, which would remove clause 10 from the Bill, and with amendment 12, in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), which would remove clause 9. Clause 10 restricts the rights of children who would be born in this country but who would otherwise be stateless. The point about clause 9, which the right hon. Gentleman made very well, is not only that the removal of citizenship is obnoxious but that removal without notice is supremely dangerous. It is perfectly legitimate for Government Back Benchers to point out that the genesis of removal is to be found in the 2002 Act—[Interruption.] I see them nodding. However, I would gently counsel them that finding a way of making a measure introduced by David Blunkett, as Home Secretary, even more illiberal and draconian is not necessarily something about which anybody should be particularly proud.
It is the removal without notice that is particularly objectionable. As the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, one of the things we are dealing with here is the basic British sense of decency. We should not be using citizenship as some sort of tool for further punishment; there are plenty of other ways in which people who have done wrong can be punished. However, we do not use fundamental concepts of domestic and international law, such as citizenship, as a tool to do that.
The hon. Members for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) and for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) have tabled various provisions on the financial barriers that have been put in place. I was happy to sign the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Streatham, and I very much support those tabled by the Scottish National party.
It seems to me from my casework as a constituency Member that the immigration system is already so complex that it is virtually impenetrable to those who are not in some way legally qualified—and, as far as I can see, to many who are. It should not therefore be administered in such a way that it is open to the Government to make a profit from these cases. There are already sufficient financial barriers in place for those who wish to have, and need to have, citizenship, and we should not be putting a further financial barrier in their way.
There is a whole range of different matters before the House this afternoon, which illustrates to me the fact that this Bill is far from properly scrutinised. We are taking it at a canter this afternoon. There may well be reasons for that in the minds of the Government’s business managers, but, as is the case with trying to wish away the consequences of our foreign policy decisions, they will not carry any water when the Bill gets to the other place, and I fear that, even though the Government will probably get their way in virtually everything today, we will not have heard the last of this Bill yet.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. After the next speaker, I will impose a time limit of four minutes.
Rob Roberts (Delyn) (Ind)
I rise to speak to new clause 7, which is in my name, and has been kindly supported by Members from eight different parties, including immigration and NHS subject experts, for which I am exceedingly grateful. I would like to declare an interest: my partner is an NHS clinician from overseas, but this new clause would not benefit him as he already has his permanent residency status confirmed.
In this country, we typically use the word “hero” far too casually; it is lavished on our celebrities and sports stars, but, while I am sure they are very deserving, this pandemic has shown us who this country’s true heroes are—our NHS workforce. While the entire NHS has played a vital role, our thanks and gratitude should perhaps go in particular to our NHS clinical workers who have come from other countries. They are individuals who have travelled huge distances to be here, often separated from their families, putting their own lives at risk to help save our lives. Regardless of their or our citizenship, the duty and responsibility to care and contribute to the wellbeing of others always comes first with them.
Although I welcome the many steps that the Government have taken already for foreign NHS workers, we need to go further, and I ask the Minister to give this some serious consideration for support this afternoon. With fees for indefinite leave to remain at almost £2,400 and citizenship applications at another £1,330, the total cost of naturalisation is almost £4,000—one of the highest fees of its type in the world, and that is after a minimum of five years, in which there will also have been an initial visa cost, another high fee to be renewed every third anniversary. The process of becoming a citizen for our NHS workers is a costly and challenging one.
Let us take as an example the case of Carrie. It is a real-life case, but I have used a different name. Carrie moved to the UK in 2016, leaving behind a husband and a four-year old child back home in south Asia. It took another year for her husband and daughter to join her because of the costs involved in dependants’ visas. They could only get to be together as a family once more by taking a loan, which she has to pay for over three years.
Three years after she arrived—so with still one more year of loan payments to go—she had to get another loan and compound her cash flow problems because she was due for visa renewal, and so had a load more fees. This year, Carrie is entitled to apply for indefinite leave to remain, with loans still ongoing from previous renewals, and the ILR is more expensive again. What does she do? What options are available to Carrie? Her only choice is to apply for another loan, even bigger than before, to have the right to occupy a space in the UK and call it home. She pays her taxes every month, and has done so for five years—and oh, by the way, she is an intensive care unit nurse. She has spent the past five years, especially the past 18 months, saving lives. She should not be in debt; we should be in her debt.
I feel that it is our duty to create a new route to permanent residency for NHS workers, one that will not leave them in debt, poverty, or in constant worry about funding their next application, and that is by abolishing the costs associated with applying for indefinite leave to remain for NHS clinical workers.
I am proud that our NHS attracts such global talent and recruits from around the world, and, frankly, we would not be able to run it without them. As of last year, more than 160,000 NHS staff stated that they were of a non-British nationality, from more than 200 different countries. Residency should not be about cost; it should be about inclusion, about our communities and about contribution. Arguably, by saving our lives and keeping us safe, our NHS workers have given the biggest contribution of all.
Despite being such valued members of the communities in which they live and work, without ILR and citizenship, individuals cannot be fully part of them. Without ILR, they face barriers to home ownership, difficulty obtaining a mortgage and challenges in the job market and in higher education—there are so many different aspects. Scrapping the fees would not only make ILR more affordable and a viable option for foreign workers in our NHS, but create a more diverse and, crucially, more integrated society. Why is that important? A few weeks ago, I had a message from my partner, who was distressed at having met a new patient that morning who said, “I hope you’re not from Myanmar.” We have a long way still to go with integration and acceptance.
People from other countries who have worked in the NHS during the pandemic and throughout their lives deserve to be able to call the UK home, and actually feel like it is. It is time to abolish the fees for indefinite leave to remain for those who do clinical work in our NHS, so that those who spend time helping and treating us in our time of need can finally feel like they belong and are welcomed here with open arms.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call Seema Malhotra, with a time limit of four minutes.
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
I want first to acknowledge my support for new clause 8, which my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy) tabled, and to congratulate her on a very powerful speech on ending the shame of profiteering from child citizenship fees. I also support the arguments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous).
I will make my short contribution mainly about amendment 12, which is in the name of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and to which I have added my name. It seeks the removal of clause 9—tabled by the Home Secretary—which would deprive UK nationals of citizenship without notice. That is an extraordinary proposal, which has caused shockwaves across communities. In particular, in Feltham and Heston, it has really affected the south Asian community. I am grateful to all who have written in to me and signed the petition, which has almost 150,000 signatures. I also thank the immigration solicitor, Mr Harjap Bhangal, for his work and awareness raising of this issue.
I was born in Britain in Hammersmith in west London, and I grew up in Hounslow. It appears that, under the law, as drafted, I could theoretically be deprived of my citizenship with no notice, and potentially without appeal, because my parents were born in another country, even though they became British nationals and served their community with distinction. Perhaps the Minister will be able to say in his closing remarks whether that could ever happen to anyone. It appears that this proposal is the thin end of an appalling wedge. Members of my extended family were also among those who were expelled from Uganda in mass expulsions of the Indian community. I am sure that the Minister will understand why this has caused such concern.
The Home Secretary’s clause would amend the British Nationality Act 1981, which requires the Secretary of State to give a person written notice of their deprivation order, the reasons for the order and their right of appeal. In clause 9(2), proposed new section 40(5A) of that Act specifies circumstances in which the Secretary of State would be able to deprive a person of their citizenship without notice. That includes when
“the Secretary of State does not have the information needed to…give notice”
or
“it would…not be reasonably practicable to give notice”
for any other reason, or if giving notice would not be
“in the interests of national security”,
in the interests of relations with another country or “otherwise in the public interest”.
Perhaps someone can tell me what “relations with another country” means. If, in theory, a foreign Government with whom the Government are negotiating a trade deal say that they want British citizenship revoked from a group of people they would like to see returned back to their country of origin as a condition, possibly for political reasons, in theory, the Home Secretary could do so without saying why. This is a matter not of what this is likely to be about, but of what becomes possible. There is no practical reason for this change. The present rules governing notice allow for citizenship deprivation letters to be delivered to the individual’s last known address.
I cannot support the Home Secretary’s clause, which has breathed huge distrust and insecurity into the lives of millions of peaceful, law-abiding people. Having this power, without needing to give explanation, could affect not just those people but their children and grandchildren. I urge all hon. Members to support amendment 12 today.
Richard Graham
Today’s debate covers many different aspects. I certainly hope that the Government will consider new clause 4 carefully, but I want to focus on new clause 9 and the impact that the change in notification of revocation of nationality has had.
I say straightaway to the hon. Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), who is not in her place at the moment, that when she describes the Bill as “hostile” and “horrible”, she should consider very carefully, as we all should, the impact on the lives of so many people of those who are killed by terrorists. Whether they are in Manchester, in London Bridge or anywhere else, the important thing about those ghastly incidents is that they affect those from every background, of every faith, of every race and of every colour. Clause 9 is not—
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
I am not sure whether I heard the hon. Member properly. We are talking today about people dying because of this Government’s policies—because they are so desperate that they are fleeing war-torn countries—and he wants us to think about terrorists. I think that that is quite appalling. I would really like him to withdraw that comment.
Richard Graham
With the greatest respect, what I am talking about is a specific aspect of the revocation of nationality for appalling behaviour against the interests of the country to which we all belong and of which we are all nationals—a very specific point—so I will not follow the hon. Member into that debate, I am afraid.
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
To clarify, in reference to the very eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), the hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) drew an association between terrorism and the fees for children seeking to get nationality here. That is what has just happened. I think he should revoke those comments.
Richard Graham
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s comments. I specifically quoted two words that the hon. Member for Streatham used in relation to the clause—she spoke about this “horrible” Bill and this “hostile” Bill. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Olivia Blake) will recognise that the clause has been used by Opposition Members, notably the hon. Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), to stir up concerns—which, bluntly speaking, I regard as scaremongering—among members of different ethnic communities in our country. To my way of thinking, that is deeply inappropriate.
What we are talking about is the notification of revocation of British nationality to a tiny, tiny number of people who have chosen to behave in a way that is totally against the interests of our country and who have allied themselves with the enemies of this country. All the clause will do is allow for the absence of physical notification where those individuals are either unreachable or in a war zone. So far, so good.
Stephen Timms
I am listening carefully to the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but will he take it from me that the alarm about the clause is not because of any stirring from the Opposition, but because of the reality of its content and the Government’s track record?
Richard Graham
Over the past 10 or 11 years, I have agreed with the right hon. Gentleman many times on many issues, particularly work and pensions. On this particular point, I am sorry, but I think he is being a little disingenuous about how some of his colleagues are using it to stir up concerns when actually we need to be together as a nation. Where I agree with him is that there is real work for the Government to do—as the Minister knows, because he kindly gave me time on the point yesterday—to communicate much more effectively with Britons across this country about the facts of the legislation, which draw on a right that has been there for the Government for 100 years, since the first world war. Most people—most of our constituents—have no idea about that.
Richard Graham
I have given way quite a lot. Can I make some progress? I am just conscious that a lot of people want to speak. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, let me make some progress and let us see where we are.
The really important points are as follows. How many people have actually had their UK nationality revoked in such a context? On which crimes does the 100-year clause have an impact? Is there a right of appeal to a legal tribunal? There is. Will anyone have their single nationality revoked, completely obliviously to where their parents or grandparents might have come from originally? The answer to that, to my strong understanding, is almost certainly no in 99.999% of cases.
In the remaining time, may I press my hon. Friend the Minister for clarification, not just for Members but for those in the nation at large, to reassure them about the nature of the atrocities that need to be committed for this clause to be applied, and the fact that it absolutely does not target anyone of any origin whatsoever? Indeed, if it did, my wife, who was Kenyan when I married her, would certainly be affected. There are millions of people who potentially might be affected, and that is why reassurance is required to make clear that this is purely about a very simple business of notification when a person is unreachable or in a war zone.
On that note, I will give way to the hon. Member for Streatham.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
I am very glad that the hon. Member has given way. I was not present when he referred to my speech, but I want to ask him if he really understands what the issues are. The Government, as he rightly said, already have the ability to reduce people’s citizenship, so why do they want to make it even easier, and why do they want to remove all checks and balances? This is where the concern arises. After what has happened to the Windrush generation, and after what has happened to the young people who—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I am afraid that we have run out of time. The allotted time allows two interventions, and we have had those, so I am afraid that that is it.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I have just welcomed Little Amal to Parliament Square. Little Amal is the 3.5-metre puppet which has travelled 8,000 km across the world to raise the plight of refugees and support them. However, I did not rise to speak about refugees. I want to speak about clause 9, which has been mentioned several times during the debate.
I know that these powers to strip people of their citizenship are not new powers. I do not need a lecture about what has happened in the past, and which Government introduced it. What worries me is that the legislation that is being introduced now is making the powers more draconian. Since 2019, we have seen the Government justify the deprivation of citizenship of people who do not possess dual nationality, who were born in this country, and who have not set foot in the country to which they are being returned. The Secretary of State simply referred to “reasonable grounds to believe” that an individual would be eligible for foreign citizenship; that was not even confirmed.
Alex Sobel (Leeds North West) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is describing exactly what could have happened to me when I was born. It is likely that if this Bill had been law in the early 1970s, I would have been stripped of my citizenship as a young child. [Interruption.]
Tulip Siddiq
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] Let me just say that, being a middle child, I am not intimidated by the braying from the other side of the House, so I will continue to advance my arguments.
Clause 9 states that the Government do not need to notify someone who has been stripped of citizenship. Is there data from the Home Office which says that the Government cannot enact this law because they have had so many problems reaching people to notify them that they have been stripped of their citizenship? Is there a genuine blockage, or is this being done because it means more power and more severity?
Tulip Siddiq
No, I will not give way.
Is this also being done because it means that the appeals process and the decisions that are made will receive less scrutiny? The Government need to think long and hard about all that.
I am also concerned about the extent to which the Government are beginning to increase the frequency of their use of this policy. Between 2006 and 2018, 175 people lost their citizenship on national security grounds, but 104 of those instances occurred in just one year, 2017. If the Government feel that they have to use these powers more and more frequently, that is a worrying trend. Of course dangerous criminals should be locked up and serve their sentences, but if a criminal has been born and raised here and has been radicalised in this country, why do we think it is the responsibility of another country to try that person? That cannot be right.
I know that this will provoke some reaction from the Government Benches, but the truth is that it is nearly always non-white people whose citizenship is being revoked. Before there is any more braying, let me read out the statistics. According to the New Statesman’s analysis of data from the Office for National Statistics, two in every five people from non-white ethnic minorities in the UK are likely to be eligible for deprivation of citizenship. This compares with one in 20 characterised as white. We cannot argue about the statistics.
Tulip Siddiq
Yes, I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who made a wonderful speech.
Richard Graham
I am grateful to the hon. Lady. She is making some interesting points, but it is really important for us all to understand that this is not some sort of act of racism. Anna Chapman was a Russian spy with dual nationality and she had her nationality revoked. So I urge the hon. Lady to do the right thing by her old friend Jo Cox and to do the things that bring us together. This is about the good of the nation. It has nothing to do with colour or race.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. What I would say to everyone is that I am not trying here to flame tensions or to play politics. I am genuinely saying that ethnic minorities in this country are in fear of this clause. It has created widespread fear in communities. If we start treating non-white criminals and terrorists as though they are the responsibility of another country and not our responsibility, we will send a signal to law-abiding non-white British citizens that they are somehow less British in this country. I genuinely ask the Government to consider this.
Alexander Stafford
I have been listening to the hon. Lady and I am very confused. Can she tell me where exactly in the Bill it refers to people’s skin colour or ethnicity? Otherwise, this is pure scaremongering and trying to create division. The Bill does not reference skin colour or ethnicity. A terrorist is a terrorist, and I do not want them in this country, regardless of their skin colour.
Tulip Siddiq
I do not feel that I can even respond to the hon. Member’s comments, but I will say that I agree that terrorists are terrorists. Regardless of their skin colour, they should be tried in this country, because they are British terrorists who were born here, radicalised here and committed their crimes because of growing up here. I really think that maybe the hon. Member should go on unconscious bias training, because I am not sure what else to say to him.
Finally, I would say to the Minister that the Government also have to think about whether the powers that they are bringing in are compatible with this country’s international obligations.
Sarah Owen
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is perhaps not the best look to persuade people to trust this Government with their citizenship, when they are shouting down Members who are of an ethnic minority, raising concerns—[Interruption.] And shouting down another one. We are raising genuine concerns on behalf of our constituents and their families.
Tulip Siddiq
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I was born and raised in this country. I do not even need to mention the colour of my skin. I am here representing people who are genuinely worried about the powers in the Bill and how their lives will be impacted as we move forward. I would just say, without taking up too much time, that people in this House should consider that the powers we have in this House will have a severe impact on people who are non-white, are law-abiding British citizens, make up the fabric of our community, do everything right and now feel that they are being penalised.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I know that emotions are running high on both sides, but Members on both sides should try to take the heat out of this. I have heard shouting on both sides and it is really not helping the debate.
Paul Bristow
I rise to speak to amendment 12 to clause 9. Peterborough is a city of an estimated 20,000 Muslims and a city full of people who can trace their ancestry to scores of different countries around the world. Many are dual nationals. They are my friends, my colleagues and my supporters. I speak as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on British Muslims—something I do with pride.
Last week, I held a surgery at the Khadijah mosque and met my local branch of the Conservative Muslim Forum. A common experience within British Muslim households and families are stories from first-generation migrants—grandparents and great-grandparents—telling younger family members that there may come a time when they will be asked to leave. Despite our shared values, this insecurity is understandable and genuinely felt. The UK was a very different country in the 1970s, when racism and far-right marches were common and Idi Amin had just thrown the Asians out of Uganda. Even today, Islamophobia and racism are all too common.
Some 93% of Muslims say they feel strongly that they belong to Britain. That not only applies to Muslims; it applies to other communities, too. There is nothing—nothing—in this Bill that should make families more insecure, and those who push this perception on social media and in this House spread fear and anxiety. They should understand the consequences of their actions.
For over a century, Home Secretaries have had the ability to remove British citizenship in exceptional circumstances, provided it does not leave a person stateless. There must be a significant risk of harm to the public, such as terrorism, and there is a right to appeal. This Bill makes no changes to these existing powers. There is a legitimate debate to be had about whether it is right for the Home Secretary to have this power and whether she should be able to strip, albeit in limited circumstances, dual nationals of their citizenship. That argument was raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).
But that is not what this Bill is about. Clause 9 alters the requirement for the Home Secretary to serve notice on a person in cases where this would be impracticable, such as if they are in hiding or in the middle of a warzone. To present this as a threat to people living in my city is scaremongering, which is shameful. Nobody in Peterborough is affected by this minor change to the law, and no constituent should feel concerned about their citizenship.
Let me tell the House what Labour activists and Labour councillors are saying in my constituency. Councillor Amjad Iqbal, a legal practitioner—not a lawyer—messaged constituents saying:
“As your councillor I am very concerned at some of the policies this government is sharing behind closed doors. As ethnic minority individuals I wish to share this with you and please sign and send to Paul Bristow the MP whose Government is responsible for this fiasco.”
Behind closed doors? We are debating it in the House of Commons.
Another councillor, Councillor Qayyum, said ward residents
“have been told that their Nationality cannot be revoked by an MP who has written to them on official letterhead paper. This is untrue.”
I cannot revoke anyone’s citizenship. To send out that message to people in my constituency is shameful. This misinformation has consequences for some of the most vulnerable people in my city.
One of the kindest, most loving families in my constituency—a family I helped with a schooling issue—came to me after being told by an activist that I want to see them deported and deprived of their citizenship. This is despicable. I know why Members opposite and the Labour party do this—it is because they have nothing left to say.
Imran Hussain
I also rise to speak in support of amendment 12.
Citizenship is a fundamental right that speaks to our very sense of belonging and identity, which is why it is enshrined not just in law but in the UN charter, the universal declaration of human rights and the 1954 convention relating to the status of stateless persons.
Under this Home Secretary, the Government have failed to treat citizenship with the reverence and respect it deserves. By removing the requirement to give notice, she has done away with due process and has expanded her already draconian powers that allow her to deprive anyone of British citizenship, provided she believes it is in the interest of the public good.
Reference has been made to powers that, according to the analysis of the Office for National Statistics, could affect 6 million people, many from a Pakistani, Indian, Bangladeshi, Jamaican or Nigerian background. Let me be absolutely clear: that is the group of people the Bill will disproportionately impact, which is why this House must vote the clause down today.
Over the past fortnight since I originally raised this issue, I have had people telling me, much like some of the arguments we have heard from the Government Benches, “As long as you don’t break the law, you have nothing to fear from the Home Office.” I absolutely disagree: working-class people from a black, from an Asian or from any ethnic minority background have everything to fear from this Home Office. Let us not forget that it is this Tory Home Office that presided over the mass deportations in the Windrush scandal; that it is this Home Office that continues to prosecute a hostile environment against migrants, refugees and asylum seekers; and that it is this Home Office that uses Orwell’s “Nineteen Eighty-Four” not as a warning, but as a guidebook. I therefore have no confidence, and neither do my constituents, that, based on its record, the Home Office will not further expand the scope of its powers to deprive someone of British citizenship on more spurious grounds.
The powers that the Home Secretary has even now to deprive someone of British citizenship already create two tiers in society based on foreign ancestry, but removing the requirement to provide notice takes things even further. An individual stripped of citizenship will not be told or given reasons and will therefore have no real right of appeal—and all this can happen even as they are being deported. Frankly, such a move should send shivers down the spine of anyone interested in upholding liberty and due process. I simply ask those who want to accuse me of sensationalising the situation to come walk for a day, for a year, for a lifetime in the shoes of someone the Home Office has decreed to be a second-class citizen, and then tell me that they honestly believe that these are not the real fears of those from ethnic minority backgrounds in our own country today.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I wish to focus on clause 9 but will refer to amendment 12.
Clause 9 amends the deprivation of citizenship powers in the British Nationality Act 1981. Currently, as Members have highlighted, section 40(5) of that Act requires the Secretary of State to give a person written notice of a deprivation order, the reasons for it and the person’s right of appeal. The power to deprive an individual of their citizenship has been available for more than a century, since the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914, and is currently also contained in the 1981 Act. Home Office powers to strip British nationals of their citizenship were introduced after the 2005 London bombings and broadened in 2014.
As we have heard, there has been some criticism of the clause in the House and outside the House. For example, the Runnymede Trust states that citizenship is not a privilege and that the Bill is
“a threat to ethnic minority Britons”.
I wholly disagree. Citizenship of any country is a privilege, not a right. We are all privileged to be British citizens. It is a privilege that comes with responsibility.
The deprivation of citizenship on conducive grounds is rightly reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK or whose conduct involves very high harm. It is integral to the national security of this country that if an affected person cannot be contacted, or if knowledge of their whereabouts derives from sensitive intelligence sources, we can act in the best interests of this country and our citizens.
Removing someone’s British citizenship is a last resort against the most dangerous people who pose a risk to society, or those whose conduct involves very high levels of harm. It is rare and always come with a right to appeal. Deprivation of citizenship on fraud grounds is for those who obtained their citizenship fraudulently and so were never entitled to it in the first place.
The Bill does not change any existing rights, or the circumstances in which a person can be deprived of their citizenship. Decisions are made following the careful consideration of advice from officials and lawyers, and always in accordance with international law. Each case is assessed individually. With regard to seeking to deprive an individual of their British citizenship on the basis that that is conducive to the public good, the law requires that this action should proceed only if the individual will not be left stateless.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The hon. Member is describing a textbook example of how the Home Office is supposed to work, but in the experience of many of my constituents, time and again its decisions are riddled with errors, mistakes and misjudgments all the way through, from top to bottom; and the Minister knows this well. Given that the Home Office makes so many mistakes, does the hon. Member agree that it needs to be a lot more careful with the people it is dealing with?
Sally-Ann Hart
I agree, in that I, too, have constituents who have been waiting for five years for their asylum status to be decided. I am sure that the Minister agrees that the Home Office officials who deal with people need to have proper and efficient processes in place.
More generally, although human migration has been going on for millennia, we face increasing global challenges caused by a range of complex climate, economic, social and political factors. Uncontrolled mass migration has caused a swing to nationalism in some European countries, and we must not let that happen here. This country has always welcomed immigrants; we have lived together in a tolerant society that welcomes immigrants. The developed world, including our allies in Europe, needs to take better measures to control migration, but also to help people thrive in their homeland, rather than facing the indignity and lack of worth that they face in Europe, where people are exploited or detained in facilities. No man, no woman, no Government, nor any faith should be upholding this new form of slavery.
Afzal Khan (Manchester, Gorton) (Lab)
I rise in support of amendment 12, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). Before I speak to the amendment, let me put on record my complete and absolute opposition to this Bill in its entirety.
This Bill is a sham. This Home Secretary is intent on extending her predecessor’s hostile environment policies to ensure that migrants and asylum seekers feel unwelcome and unwanted in the UK. The legislation is not only atrocious, but poorly written, as is demonstrated by the fact that the Government tabled 80 amendments to their own Bill after it had undergone line-by-line scrutiny in Committee.
Let me turn to clause 9, which amendment 12 seeks to remove. The inclusion of this clause, which allows the Home Secretary to deprive a person of their British citizenship without any warning, is deeply worrying. In the last couple of weeks, more than 60 of my constituents have contacted me to say that they are concerned about the clause. The Government declare that citizenship is a privilege, not a right. They have got it backwards; citizenship is a right, not a privilege, and this clause represents a fundamental breach of the rule of law.
I secured my British citizenship in the ’80s, after nearly two decades in this country. It is people like me and those with migrant heritage who have the most to fear from this clause and this Government. Black, Asian and minority ethnic people—whether they are migrants or not—are frightened of what this Government could do to them, particularly in the wake of the Windrush scandal. Depriving someone of their citizenship is a serious undertaking; it should be subject to appropriate safeguards, which must include giving individuals notice. For this reason, I support amendment 12, which would remove the clause from the Bill.
I want to finish with the words of one of my constituents, who said:
“As an aunt to five children of mixed heritage, as someone with a sister-in-law who is Moroccan, as someone with friends who were not born in Britain, and as a human being who exists in this world, I believe this bill is inhuman, unconscionable, and evil in its intent.”
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. I will reduce the time limit to just three minutes, because I want to try to get as many people in as I possibly can, and I will ask the Minister to respond to the debate no later than 4.30 pm.
Alexander Stafford
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. The residents of Rother Valley warmly welcome the Bill. I will speak against new clause 12 and in favour of clause 9. I have been very disappointed with the tone of the debate, especially with regard to the poor victims of the Windrush scandal, which was an absolute tragedy for this country. Opposition Members are somehow equating this Bill with Windrush. This Bill is designed to strip citizenship from dual citizens who are a threat to this country—terrorists, hardened criminals and those people we do not want in this country and should not be part of this country. For Opposition Members to equate those sorts of reprobates with Windrush is deeply insulting and deeply troubling. It is no more than scaremongering and trying to wind people up.
The Bill is not about taking citizenship without notice; that will not happen unless it is not “reasonably practical” to give that notice. I want to hear from Opposition Members on how we could go to, say, an ISIS fighter in Syria and hand them a notice saying, “You’re being deprived of your citizenship”, or to some terrorist in Chechnya saying, “Excuse me, Mr Terrorist, please stop shooting people—I’ve been sent here by the Government to give you a notice.” That would be ludicrous and would put UK Government officials in danger.
The question for this House is whose side we are on. Are we on the side of the rule of law, British citizens and British officials, or do we want to send British officials into harm’s way—to the ISIS suicide bombers of Iraq and Syria to give them a piece of paper? I say no. [Interruption.] I hear chuntering from a sedentary position. I am happy to take interventions from Opposition Members if they wish to challenge this, but none is forthcoming, because they know that this is the truth. They know that this Bill—
Bell Ribeiro-Addy
The hon. Member says that officials cannot go to some places to inform people about their citizenship. How did they notify Shamima Begum, I might ask, that she no longer had her British citizenship? There are clearly ways to do it. Opposition Members’ objection is that there are already mechanisms in law that allow the Government to deprive people of their citizenship. Why do they want to make that easier? Look at everything that has happened with immigration over the past number of years. That is why people from black, Asian and minority ethnic communities are afraid—because every time the Government change legislation, things are worse for people from those communities.
Alexander Stafford
I thank the hon. Lady for that point, although I am a bit confused about it. Shamima Begum could be deprived of her citizenship first because she was found, as she was in a refugee camp, and secondly because she was a terrorist—and I say, good. It is good that her citizenship was taken away. Long may we continue taking citizenship away from terrorists.
Frankly, if people have done nothing wrong and are not terrorists or a threat to this country, they have nothing to fear. That is the message to put out there. This is about such a small minority of cases. Some would argue that we should take this measure against more of these terrorists and reprobates. I would definitely support that. This Bill is not about targeting minorities; it is about bad people. I am confused about whose side Labour Members are on. Are they on the side of upstanding, law-abiding British people, or the side of people who want to do harm to the country—to blow people up, cause damage and put us in harm’s way? I am very confused by their point of view.
Sam Tarry
Thousands of constituents in Ilford South are certainly not terrorists. What happens if they decide to go on a protest about their rights, or against something that the Government are doing to them? Would they then be deemed a terrorist, and at what point? Remember that some of the laws that the Government are looking to bring forward over the next couple of weeks extend the circumstances in which people can be accused of being terrorists. If someone is a climate activist, are they now a terrorist? What about someone who is campaigning because their family are Bangladeshis who are drowning in Bangladesh due to this Government’s inaction on climate change? Can it then be said, “You’re a terrorist—you’re going to have your citizenship removed”? The problem is that people in Ilford South do not trust this Government to take care of minority communities because their track record is so dreadful.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We cannot have interventions that last longer than the speech that is being given.
Alexander Stafford
I thank the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry). That seems to be Labour Members’ argument. They are creating a Windrush of victims, and talking about activists as terrorists. They are not actually on the side of British people, or on the side of victims or activists. They would rather put up these straw men and say, “Ah, but what happens if the evil hand of Government does this or that?” It is complete rubbish. This Bill is designed to allow us to take control of our borders and of who lives in this country. The people of Rother Valley fundamentally want good people in this country, and people who actually know what is going on. There is an appeals process and, as we have established, a tribunal. The Bill is not about arbitrarily taking away citizenship; it is about helping and looking after our country.
Labour is making a desperate bid to stir up, dare I say it, racial tension—and it is racial tension. As the grandson and son of immigrants, I find that deeply upsetting. It is encouraging division in our country when we need to come together to defeat the terrorists and the bad people. The Bill gives the Government no more power than they had before, except for when it comes to notification. I would say that that protects British officials from going into war zones to give notification. We are not talking about depriving people of citizenship in this way when we can trace them; we are not talking about people in the United Kingdom with a postcode, who we can go to, speak to, and deal with. We are talking about those we cannot get access to. I do not see why Labour is supporting those people who want to do harm to this country. It is telling that in order to, frankly, scam votes out of people, it is trying to appeal to the lowest base.
Alexander Stafford
I have given way twice, and have already gained a couple more minutes, so I will not give way on this point.
I will briefly speak to new clause 4, which my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) spoke in favour of. It is superb, and I hope that the Government have listened. Those Hongkongers who have given military or police service should be at the front of the queue, and the Government should look to my hon. Friend’s new clause and support it, because it is exactly what the Bill is about: looking after the good people, protecting those who have done good things and given service to our country, and keeping out the bad ones. That is why I support it.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I was proud to add my name to new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy), on the abolition of the excessive fees that children are being charged, and I hope that the Government accept it. Overall, this Bill is deeply flawed, driven by ideology and destined to have lasting catastrophic consequences. If it is intended to make our system of citizenship and asylum fairer and more humane, it does the opposite. If it is intended to smash the evil gangs who trade in human lives, it does the opposite. If it is intended to end the heart-rending tragedy of people dying in the icy waters of the English channel, it does the opposite. If it is intended to make our borders secure and make us safer, it does the exact opposite. Yet the Government plough on with their hostile environment, without thought for the devastating impact it may have.
Ministers have been warned by experts and academics that the Bill undermines the UK’s commitment to the 1951 Geneva refugee convention and much more besides. Given the weight of evidence against the Government’s approach, one might wonder why they persist. Why, indeed? The removal of ethnic minorities from these islands has been a long-standing fascist demand. On the streets where I grew up, it was translated into something more straightforward and visceral. Chalked up on walls or shouted through letterboxes was, “Send them back.” Now this Government are hanging the sword of Damocles over our head. If someone does something wrong, or something perceived to be wrong by the nation of their ancestral heritage, they could be stripped of their citizenship and ordered to “go back home.” This right-wing rhetoric has returned in the Nationality and Borders Bill that is in front of the House this afternoon.
Let us be blunt, Mr Deputy Speaker: the Bill will not affect your good self, because of the colour of your skin, but it will impact people like me, because of the colour of our skin and our ancestral heritage. What is even more galling is that the Prime Minister is getting someone with brown skin to do his dirty work with a Bill that could have disastrous consequences for black and brown people. No wonder there are accusations of tokenism from within the Asian, African and Caribbean British communities. What is the point of having black and brown people as Cabinet Ministers sitting on the Conservative Front Bench if they are going to directly act against the interests of black and brown people, just so that they can hold ministerial office?
When the military Government of Myanmar disempowered ethnic groups by removing their citizenship, many of us shuddered with horror, but people are now frightened that the Home Secretary can remove their citizenship at a stroke, retrospectively and without any notice.
James Daly
It is better to move on from such an appalling speech.
Amendment 12, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), which would remove clause 9, is a quite straightforward legal matter. However, as I have listened to the debate, I have thought on occasion that hon. Members have been debating a clause that does not exist or is not in the Bill. As I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous), the Labour Government, through the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002—as well as through further legislation in 2016—codified and ensured that a Home Secretary of whatever political party had the power to exclude or take away somebody’s citizenship in certain circumstances. If there was an objection to that principle, an amendment should have been tabled. Anyone in the House had the opportunity to do that. However, the only amendment tabled on this measure concerns the notice period—that is it. Let us therefore have a debate on the notice period. If the Labour party opposes in principle what the previous Labour Government did in 2002 and 2016, I am certain that its Front-Bench team would have tabled an amendment.
Let us get to the notice period and what we are arguing about, on which important issues were raised. The right hon. Member for Leeds Central (Hilary Benn) made a point that I hope the Minister will address. If an order is made without notice, does the appeal process start when the order is made or when the order is received, as is currently the norm and the law?
I could read out some of the scaremongering and appalling things said about the Bill, but I do not want to go down into that. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Paul Bristow) gave a magnificent speech on that. I find it surprising, because if this or any other Government wanted to do things of which they are being accused, they could do them now. What does it matter whether people have notice or not? There was the genuinely unbelievable suggestion that the Bill could be used to address climate change activists. The Opposition are genuinely scraping the barrel when it comes down to that level. I am here to tell my constituents that that is scaremongering. There is a requirement for exceptional circumstances in clause 9, which are there to protect them, and no one has anything to fear from the clause at all.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I am deeply concerned by and opposed to the great majority of the proposals in this inherently authoritarian Bill. Much of it appears to be written to satisfy front-page tabloid headlines rather than to fix the broken asylum system. It amounts to a fundamental rejection of our international obligations under the 1951 UN convention relating to the status of refugees and does nothing to resolve these complex issues at all. Even the Government’s own impact assessment suggests that measures in the Bill could lead to an increase in unsafe journeys across the channel rather than a reduction in them. The Bill originally tried to criminalise not only asylum seekers but those who try to help and rescue them. I cannot recall a more immoral and wicked piece of UK legislation.
I am disturbed by clauses 9 and 10, which enable a Home Secretary to deprive UK nationals of citizenship without notice and restrict stateless children’s access to British citizenship. As a British citizen with dual nationality, I personally feel the ice-cold chill of those proposals. It looks and feels like a ramping up of the hostile environment. I will not support a set of clauses that create a hierarchy of British citizenship. The Government are trying to reframe citizenship as a privilege, not the right that it is. The message this sends is that certain citizens, despite being born and brought up in the UK and having no other home, remain migrants, so that their citizenship and therefore all their rights are permanently insecure.
This Bill clearly disproportionately targets those of Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi or other racial groups, regardless of their country of birth. The racialised nature of this tiered system is obvious: the citizenship of those like myself, many of my constituents and millions of others of minority and migrant heritage is less secure and less important than those who belong to majority ethnic groups in the United Kingdom. It is a shameful piece of legislation that we should all be concerned about. Much of the Bill appears to be written to satisfy the front pages of tabloids, as I have said. It is not in favour of all the communities such as those of our parents, who came here years and years ago and worked hard to rebuild this country, and they are facing this because of this Tory Government.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
There have been some powerful speeches, and I want in particular to pay tribute to the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford East (Imran Hussain), whom Conservative Members would have done better to listen to rather than shout at.
I want to address the Government’s clause 9, which proposes removing people’s citizenship without notice and, in effect, removing their rights of appeal. When people from black and minority ethnic backgrounds raise concerns—deep concerns—about this proposal, the response from the Government is, “Trust us”. “Trust us”—the people who deported black citizens in the Windrush generation? “Trust us”—the people who sent “Go home” vans around working-class estates? “Trust us”—the people who authored the hostile environment? “Trust us”—the people who are talking in this legislation about offshore detention centres? “Trust us”—the people who have created an atmosphere in which others are trying to demonise those going into the waters off our country to try to save lives and prevent death? “Trust us”? It is no wonder that the people at the sharp end of this Government’s hostile environment and at the sharp end of this racist legislation do not trust this Government.
It is absolutely appalling that people are being made to feel as if they do not belong in their own country and as if they are somehow second-class citizens. Let me contrast that—[Interruption.] No, they are not being made to feel that because of Members of Parliament raising these concerns. It is because of the legislation—the racist, divisive, scapegoating legislation—that this Government are bringing in.
Richard Burgon
I am not going to give way. The hon. Member talked enough rubbish before.
I want to draw a contrast with a community event that I attended in the most ethnically diverse ward in my constituency, Gipton and Harehills, in Leeds on Friday. Young people were there reading poems about their experiences, and one poem read by a local resident was about how the community has welcomed asylum seekers and welcomed refugees. Rather than using the issue of migration as a weapon of mass distraction to distract people from the responsibility that the Tory Government and their policies have for the misery in their lives, this Government would do better to listen to the message of hope and unity from diverse communities and stop peddling this legislation of division, racism, scapegoating and hate—and I make no apologies for this speech.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I just want to put on record four things. First, this Bill is an appalling piece of legislation. It is designed to appease the most backward elements in our society and it is designed to chase headlines in the popular media. The attacks on refugees and the attacks on people who support refugees are nothing but appalling and disgusting. The idea that this country has always been a welcoming place for refugees is simply not true. Often, it has been very hostile towards refugees. If we were that welcoming, we would not have so many people who have legitimately sought asylum in Britain living in desperate poverty, because the Home Office cannot be bothered to process their applications, and they are living in penury as a result. It would not be criminalising people who are trying to save lives on our shores, or prosecuting people in the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, or anything else. We should all be very proud of people who demonstrated in memory of those who died off Calais, including the 250 people who attended a demonstration at the Stade in Hastings a couple of weeks ago.
I wish to refer to three parts of the Bill. I absolutely support new clause 2, tabled by the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith). I have been a member, and in the past chair, of the Chagos Islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) all-party group for many years, and I worked with Olivier Bancoult, and many other Chagos islanders. We did wrong to the Chagos islanders in the 1970s and ’80s when they were driven off their land, and we have done wrong by them many times since then. The reason British nationality was offered was that the late Tam Dalyell and I tabled an amendment to previous legislation, to try to get recognition of the rights of Chagos islanders. Unfortunately, the Foreign Office and the Home Office collectively got it wrong, and the new clause corrects a mistake—let us be generous and call it a mistake—that was made many years ago, and will grant security to Chagos islanders living in this country.
I strongly support new clause 8 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). Nationality fees should be based solely on the cost of processing, not on the Home Office making a vast amount of money out of that. The new clause would help to right what is an intrinsic wrong.
In my remaining 39 seconds, I strongly support amendment 12, tabled by the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis), about the removal of British nationality. Many of us in the House—probably everybody—has at some point been to a citizenship ceremony at our town hall. They are nice; they are moving occasions. But all that could be for naught. The Home Secretary could simply remove the right of citizenship from someone who has gained it in this country or gained it through their heritage. Such a removal requires the agreement of another country, but people will not get that, and we will end up with stateless people as a result.
Stephen Timms
I wish to support new clause 8, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). The “Barriers to Britishness” report was published a year ago this month, and in his foreword, the Conservative hon. Member for South Leicestershire (Alberto Costa) pointed out that the cost of citizenship in the UK is the highest in the western world, and that
“the combined cost of applying to become a citizen in Australia, Canada, the USA and France still does not add up to the cost of a single application in Britain. The fee of £1,330 is almost four times the cost to the Home Office of processing an application.”
This is a hostile environment for hard-working, law-abiding migrant families, and that is why clause 9 provokes such anxiety.
I know many families on the so-called 10-year route to indefinite leave, which means that two and a half years’ leave to remain at a time needs to be obtained four times, before they can apply for indefinite leave. They pay extortionate fees every time. Sometimes people lose their jobs because they do not have leave to remain between one two-and-a-half-year period ending and the Home Office getting round to granting the next. No recourse to public funds applies throughout that 10-year period—that is the subject of a different amendment that we will debate later.
At the Liaison Committee last year I told the Prime Minister about a family I know. Both parents work, the mother as a teaching assistant and the father in a big international company. The mother’s job continued after lockdown, but the father was laid off. Lockdown happened in one of the gaps between two-and-a-half-year periods, and the father’s employer did not know whether it was allowed to furlough him under the new scheme, so it did not. That family had no recourse to public funds, and all they could do was turn to a foodbank to survive. At the Liaison Committee the Prime Minister said that hard-working, law-abiding families in that position should have help of one kind or another. I very much agree with him, but unfortunately they do not, and every two and a half years they have extortionate visa fees. How do people cope with massive fees? For one family I know, we are talking about £14,000 every two and a half years in order to stay in the UK. For 10 years, they get no child benefit, even if the children are British citizens; no universal credit if somebody loses a job; and, prior to the pandemic, no free school meals if the family hit hard times. That is the hostile environment for law-abiding, hard-working migrant families, which is why families are so worried about what is in this Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
It has certainly been an interesting debate. I thank the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) —I think he is moving on to pastures new after this debate—and I welcome the new shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey), to his position.
The debate started with at least one positive point from an Opposition Member, when the SNP spokesperson, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), referred to some of the changes we are looking to make to correct historical anomalies that have existed for far too long. The reforms we make in the Bill to British nationality law will finally address those anomalies, which will have a positive impact for a significant number of people. The Bill also includes measures for the Home Secretary to grant British citizenship to people who would have become British citizens if not for unfairness and exceptional circumstances beyond their control.
Let me turn to some of the amendments. Government amendments 17 and 18, in relation to deprivation of citizenship, are minor and technical amendments to correct a drafting error in clause 9, so this is an appropriate opportunity to address amendment 12 tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis).
We heard some quite strong comments from Opposition Members about amendment 12, but let us really get into what clause 9 does. It amends section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 to allow the requirement to give notice of a decision to deprive a person of their citizenship to be disapplied in certain limited circumstances, such as where there is no way of communicating with the person. For example, as was well pointed out by my hon. Friends on the Conservative Benches, if someone is in a warzone, it is rather impractical to suggest that we should ask them to stop shooting so that we can pop up and serve them a notice. We heard some extraordinary comments from Opposition Members implying that we can simply pop a letter in the post and it will almost certainly get to someone.
To be clear, clause 9 does not change the circumstances under which a person can be deprived of British citizenship, nor does it remove the right of appeal against a decision to deprive a person of their citizenship. Rather, it preserves the right of appeal in cases where specified circumstances mean it is not reasonable to serve a person with a notice of a decision to deprive. The Government’s minor amendments to clause 9 clarify that the statutory right of appeal in deprivation cases is a right to appeal against the deprivation decision itself and not the deprivation order.
As was touched on, deprivation of citizenship is hardly a new concept; it has been in operational practice for many years, including under Labour Governments. The 1981 Act provides a statutory right of appeal against a decision to deprive. Clause 9 preserves that right of appeal in cases where the notice of a decision to deprive has not been served. Once a person makes contact with the Home Office, they are given a copy of the deprivation decision notice. They can then seek to exercise their statutory right to appeal against the decision.
Kevin Foster
Amendment 12 would remove clause 9 in its entirety, undermining the integrity of the immigration system and this Government’s efforts to keep dangerous people out of this country. To reiterate, there is no change in the scope of who could potentially be deprived, no change in the criteria, and appeal rights are still there.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
It is important that we are completely accurate in what we are saying. It is true that the Bill actually does extend the role of the Home Secretary with regard to notices. Let us be clear: it places in the power of the Home Secretary the decision that they need not give notice if that is
“in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country, or,”
breathtakingly,
“otherwise in the public interest.”
That confers a huge amount of discretion on the Home Secretary. The Bill takes our concerns about due process to another plane.
Kevin Foster
I am pleased the right hon. Gentleman did not throw a book at the Dispatch Box this time. Let me repeat what I just said: no one extra in scope, no change in criteria, and judicial oversight still there for an appeal. Let us be clear that we cannot simply allow someone who could cause high harm to this country, or who has gained citizenship via fraud, to avoid these provisions simply by hiding away—for example, in one of the repressive regimes that some Opposition Members seem far too supportive of—where we cannot reasonably issue them with a notice. We cannot be in a position where we could never deprive someone of citizenship just because it is not practical to pop a letter in the post to them.
I turn now to new clause 2, which I am afraid would undermine a long-standing principle of British nationality law dating back to 1915, under which nationality or entitlement to nationality is not passed on to the second and subsequent generations born and settled outside the UK and its territories, creating quite a major precedent. However, I do hear the strong point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith) and, to be fair, by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). We will continue to consider what more we could do, particularly given the low uptake of the £40 million Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office fund designed to assist this diaspora community, and we will certainly be keen to look at that and, potentially, at how it could allow those people to settle here in the UK.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell) spoke powerfully to new clause 4. The Government remain extremely grateful to former British Hong Kong service personnel. He will be aware that under the British nationality selection scheme a limited number of personnel who were settled in Hong Kong could apply to register as British citizens. Additionally, because they were all adults at the time, all such veterans would have been eligible to acquire BNO status between 1986 and 1987. We therefore believe that most should hold BNO status and be eligible for the BNO route.
Granting the right of abode would set quite a precedent. However, I am pleased to confirm that the Home Secretary has identified an option that will enable our Government to treat this group of personnel in a similar way to other non-UK service personnel who were based in Hong Kong before handover. To be clear, that would be on top of the existing pathways they are already eligible for, including the BNO visa route and any other route. There is considerable work to be done to fully scope the impacts of this policy and the practicalities of its delivery, and I will aim to provide further details to the House as soon as I am able to, with a view to a solution being provided before the end of the next calendar year. I hope that that is of reassurance to my hon. Friend, whose regular challenge to us is that it is not just about having an idea; it is also about having a timeline to deliver it.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) and others spoke powerfully about new clause 5, which raises issues about eligibility for the BNO route and particularly about those who were too young to obtain BNO status before the handover to China and whose BNO parents or grandparents, with whom they form a household, do not wish to apply for that route—effectively, they do not wish to move from Hong Kong. There are issues with the new clause as it is drafted, given that it does not contain an age limit and its scope could extend even to those who have never set foot in Hong Kong. However, we hear the very strong points that have been made, and we very much recognise the importance of our close ties to the people of Hong Kong.
I emphasise that those who are not eligible for the BNO route have a number of other UK immigration routes available to them, not least the very expanded skilled worker route. Individuals from Hong Kong can also apply to come, for example, as a student. As my right hon. Friend referred to, there is the existing youth mobility scheme, which is open to those aged between 18 and 30 and which offers a two-year grant of leave in the UK, with scope to switch, once people are here, to routes that lead to permanent settlement. There are currently 1,000 places available each year, and the scheme is substantially under-subscribed.
We believe that those existing measures allow a lot of people to come, and we expect one or two of the new routes being created next year to also open up a pathway to this age group in Hong Kong, alongside others. However, my right hon. Friend asked me about two specific points. First, if the other side unilaterally enacted its provision, that would not automatically change the immigration rules here in the United Kingdom. That would be something we would have to do to close the route for applications by Hong Kong nationals. I must be clear that if unilateral action happened that further damaged the rights and abilities of people in Hong Kong, the Government would look closely at whether to maintain the scheme, to put something else in its place or to continue to allow it to go forward. I point out that we have a number of successful YMS schemes.
On the timeline for applications, whatever route we put in place—I would not want to disabuse my right hon. Friend—there would be a period of time between applying and getting a decision. In the context of our simplification process and the fact that we have moved to create, in some cases, wholly digital pathways for application to the BNO route by Hong Kong citizens, we are certainly happy to look again at whether some of those principles could be applied to the YMS in Hong Kong.
I noted the comments from the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts). We very much welcome and value the contribution of overseas workers in the NHS; that is why we introduced the health and care worker visa. However, making changes in one area would potentially require changes in others, including to routes that some other NHS staff are on. I should also point out that new clause 7 itself would see the applicant, if they left NHS employment within three years, having to pay the fee. I can understand why he sought to put his provision into the Bill, but it would be quite a novel approach that would be difficult for the Home Office to operationalise and would inevitably require enforcement. That is why we do not think it is the right approach.
I am grateful for the opportunity to debate children registered as British citizens under new clause 8. However, I must be clear that we are still waiting for the Supreme Court to give its judgment on this issue, and we will then look to respond.
We do not believe we can accept new clause 33, as we believe all applicants for UK nationality should be treated the same in the tests applied, but we are considering how the issue could be picked up as part of our work on simplification—applying it not only to those who hold settled status under the EU settlement scheme, but potentially to ILR holders more broadly. Although we will not accept the new clause today, I hope the hon. Member for Glasgow North East will be pleased to hear that we are looking closely at that work. I emphasise again, as I have said many times before, that no one has been refused British citizenship purely on the basis of the CSI requirement in free movement regulations.
Turning to amendment 2 in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), which would remove clause 10, unfortunately we are seeing an increasing trend of applications for children whose parents did not take the step of registering their child’s birth with their embassy or high commission, leaving their child without a nationality. Given the request for data, concerns about the use of that route were confirmed by Home Office sampling.
Of more than 200 cases sampled, 96% of parents were Indian or Sri Lankan. Crucially, a child born in the UK to a parent from those countries can only access their citizenship if the parent registers the birth at the relevant high commission. To register the child’s birth they would need to comply with the requirements set. Within the sample, 90% of Indian and Sri Lankan parents had chosen to contact the high commission to obtain letters to show their child was in fact not a citizen, and so clearly had no problem in approaching their authorities. In many cases, the parents had, I think it is safe to say, a chequered immigration record, with only 16% of parents having permission to be in the UK at the time of the child’s birth. In 67% of the cases, the parents had obtained leave to remain in the UK as a result of the child’s applications. That points to why we believe this is a clear concern.
To deal quickly with amendments 110 and 111, amendment 110 would mean in practical terms that parents who had chosen not to register their child’s birth could argue it was not in their child’s best interest to have their nationality. That could raise some obvious issues and concerns and create quite an argument, when in reality that is not something they should be doing—certainly not for an immigration benefit.
Overall, the package of measures in the Bill is fair and proportionate. Again, I say, as many Members have done in their interventions, that the scaremongering about some of the provisions in the Bill and about people who would never be in the scope of the tight criteria for deprivation of citizenship is nothing less than shocking. The criteria applies to those who have committed the worst offences or who are literally overseas committing war crimes. This will never apply in the way that Opposition Members have suggested. I urge the House to reject some of the nonsense that we have heard and vote to support these measures, which will transform our migration system and make sure that we have a nationality system that is fit for purpose.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 1—Prescribed period under section 94(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999—
‘(1) The Asylum Support Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/704) are amended as follows.
(2) In regulation 2(2) (interpretation) for “28” substitute “56”.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), this section does not prevent the Secretary of State from exercising the powers conferred by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to prescribe by regulations a different period for the purposes of section 94(3) (day on which a claim for asylum is determined) of that Act.
(4) The Secretary of State may not prescribe a period less than 56 days where regulation 2(2A) of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/704) applies.’
When an individual is granted refugee status, their eligibility to Home Office financial support and accommodation currently ends after a further 28 days. This new clause would extend that period to 56 days or allow the Secretary of State to set a longer period.
New clause 9—Settled and pre-settled status under EU settlement scheme: certification—
‘(1) Within granting a person settled status or pre-settled status under the EU settlement scheme, the Secretary of State must require the provision of a physical certificate to that person.
(2) The certificate mentioned in subsection (1) must confirm that the relevant person has the relevant status (settled status or pre-settled status).’
This new clause would require the Government to issue a physical certificate when granting settled status or pre-settled status under the EU settlement scheme, allowing all those with such status to provide documentary proof.
New clause 10—Asylum visa for persons in France—
‘(1) On an application by a person (“P“) to the appropriate decision-maker for entry clearance, the appropriate decision-maker must grant P entry clearance if he is satisfied that P is a relevant person.
(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1), P is a relevant person if—
(a) P is in France on the date of application;
(b) P is not a national of a member State of the European Union or a national of Liechtenstein, Iceland, Norway or Switzerland;
(c) P intends to make a protection claim in the United Kingdom;
(d) P‘s protection claim, if made in the United Kingdom, would have a realistic prospect of success; and
(e) there are good reasons why P’s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(e), in deciding whether there are good reasons why P‘s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom, the appropriate decision-maker shall take into account—
(a) the relative strength of P‘s family and other ties to the United Kingdom;
(b) the relative strength of P‘s family and other ties to France;
(c) P‘s mental and physical health and any particular vulnerabilities that P has; and
(d) any other matter that the appropriate decision-maker thinks relevant.
(4) For the purposes of an application under paragraph (1), the appropriate decision-maker must waive any of the requirements in paragraph (5) if satisfied that P cannot reasonably be expected to comply with them.
(5) The requirements in this paragraph are—
(a) any requirement prescribed (whether by immigration rules or otherwise) under section 50 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006; and
(b) any requirement prescribed by regulations made under sections 5, 6, 7 or 8 of the UK Borders Act 2007 (biometric registration).
(6) No fee may be charged for the making of an application under paragraph (1).
(7) An entry clearance granted pursuant to paragraph (1) shall have effect as leave to enter for such period, being not less than six months, and on such conditions as the Secretary of State may prescribe by order.
(8) Upon a person entering the United Kingdom (within the meaning of section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971) pursuant to leave to enter given under paragraph (7), that person shall be deemed to have made a protection claim in the United Kingdom.
(9) The Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 is amended as follows.
(10) After paragraph 30(1)(b) of Part 1 of Schedule 1 insert— “; or
(c) are conferred by or under sections [Asylum visa for persons in France] and [Right of appeal against France asylum visa refusal] of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.”
(11) In this section and in section [Right of appeal against France asylum visa refusal]—
“appropriate decision-maker” means a person authorised by the Secretary of State by rules made under section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 to grant an entry clearance under paragraph (1);
“entry clearance” has the same meaning as in section 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971;
“protection claim”, in relation to a person, means a claim that to remove him from or require him to leave the United Kingdom would be inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s obligations—
(a) under the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28th July 1951 and the Protocol to that Convention;
(b) in relation to persons entitled to a grant of humanitarian protection; or
(c) under Articles 2 or 3 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950.’
This new clause would provide for a person in France to be granted entry clearance to allow them to claim asylum in the UK in certain circumstances.
New clause 11—Right of appeal against France asylum visa refusal—
‘(1) If an application by a person (“P“) for entry clearance under clause [Asylum visa for persons in France] is refused by the appropriate decision-maker, P may appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against the refusal.
(2) The following provisions of, or made under, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 have effect in relation to an appeal under these Regulations to the First-tier Tribunal as if it were an appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State under section 82(1) of that Act (right of appeal to the Tribunal)—
(a) section 84 (grounds of appeal), as though the sole permitted ground of appeal was that the appropriate decision-maker was wrong to conclude that P was not a relevant person;
(b) section 85(1) to (4) (matters to be considered);
(c) section 86 (determination of appeal);
(d) section 105 and any regulations made under that section; and
(e) section 106 and any rules made pursuant to that section.
(3) In an appeal under this section, the First-tier Tribunal—
(a) shall allow the appeal if it is satisfied that P is a relevant person; and
(b) shall otherwise dismiss the appeal.
(4) In an appeal under this section, in deciding whether there are good reasons why P‘s protection claim should be considered in the United Kingdom, the First-tier Tribunal shall apply section [Asylum visa for persons in France] (3) as though for the words “appropriate decision-maker” there were substituted the words “First-tier Tribunal”.’
This new clause would allow a person whose application for entry clearance under clause [Asylum visa for persons in France] has been rejected to appeal to the First-tier Tribunal.
New clause 12—Residence permits: recourse to public funds—
‘Within two months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations ensure that anyone holding a valid UK residence permit has recourse to public funds.’
Under this new clause, everyone holding a UK residence permit (many of whom currently have no recourse to public funds) would have recourse to public funds.
New clause 13—Undocumented migrants: access to work and services—
‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) Omit sections 20 to 47.
(3) The Immigration Act 2016 is amended as follows.
(4) Omit sections 1 to 45.’
This new clause would repeal the sections of the 2014 and 2016 Immigration Acts which sought to further restrict undocumented migrants’ access to work and services.
New clause 14—Immigration health surcharge: abolition—
‘Within two months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must amend the Immigration (Health Charge) Order 2015 in such a way as to abolish the immigration health surcharge.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to abolish the immigration health surcharge.
New clause 15—Time limit on immigration detention—
‘(1) This section applies to any person (“P”) who is liable to detention under a relevant detention power.
(2) P may not be detained under a relevant detention power for a period of more than 28 days from the relevant time.
(3) If P remains detained under a relevant detention power at the expiry of the period of 28 days then—
(a) P shall be released forthwith; and
(b) P may not be detained under a relevant detention power thereafter, unless the Secretary of State or an immigration officer, as the case may be, is satisfied that there has been a material change of circumstances since P’s release and that the criteria in section [Initial detention: criteria and duration](1) are met.
(4) In this section, “relevant detention power” means a power to detain under—
(a) paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal);
(b) paragraph 2(1), (2) or (3) of Schedule 3 to that Act (detention pending deportation);
(c) section 62 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention of persons liable to examination or removal); or
(d) section 36(1) of the UK Borders Act 2007 (detention pending deportation).
(5) In this section, “relevant time” means the time at which P is first detained under a relevant detention power.
(6) This section does not apply to a person in respect of whom the Secretary of State has certified that the decision to detain is or was taken in the interests of national security.’
This new clause would prevent people who are liable to detention under a relevant power from being detained for longer than 28 days.
New clause 16—Initial detention: criteria and duration—
‘(1) A person (“P”) to whom section [Time limit on immigration detention] applies may not be detained under a relevant detention power other than for the purposes of examination, unless the Secretary of State or an immigration officer, as the case may be, is satisfied that—
(a) P can be shortly removed from the United Kingdom;
(b) detention is strictly necessary to effect P’s deportation or removal from the United Kingdom; and
(c) the detention of P is in all the circumstances proportionate.
(2) P may not be detained under a relevant detention power for a period of more than 96 hours from the relevant time, unless—
(a) P has been refused bail at an initial bail hearing in accordance with subsection (5)(b) of section [Bail hearings]; or
(b) the Secretary of State has arranged a reference to the Tribunal for consideration of whether to grant immigration bail to P in accordance with subsection (2)(c) of section [Bail hearings] and that hearing has not yet taken place.
(3) Nothing in subsections (1) or (2) authorises the Secretary of State to detain P under a relevant detention power if such detention would, apart from this section, be unlawful.
(4) In this section, “Tribunal” means the First-Tier Tribunal.
(5) In this section, “relevant detention power” and “relevant time” have the meanings given in section [Time limit on immigration detention].’
This new clause sets out the circumstances in which a person to whom NC15 applies may be held in initial detention, and the maximum duration of such detention.
New clause 17—Bail hearings—
‘(1) This section applies to any person (“P”) to whom section [Time limit on immigration detention] applies and who is detained under a relevant detention power.
(2) Before the expiry of a period of 96 hours from the relevant time, the Secretary of State must—
(a) release P;
(b) grant immigration bail to P under paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016; or
(c) arrange a reference to the Tribunal for consideration of whether to grant immigration bail to P.
(3) Subject to subsection (4), when the Secretary of State arranges a reference to the Tribunal under subsection (2)(c), the Tribunal must hold an oral hearing (“an initial bail hearing”) which must commence within 24 hours of the time at which the reference is made.
(4) If the period of 24 hours in subsection (3) ends on a Saturday, Sunday or Bank holiday, the Tribunal must hold an initial bail hearing on the next working day.
(5) At the initial bail hearing, the Tribunal must—
(a) grant immigration bail to P under paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 to the Immigration Act 2016; or
(b) refuse to grant immigration bail to P.
(6) Subject to subsection (7), the Tribunal must grant immigration bail to P at a bail hearing unless it is satisfied that the Secretary of State has established that the criteria in subsection 1 of section [Initial detention: criteria and duration] are met and that, in addition—
(a) directions have been given for P’s removal from the United Kingdom and such removal is to take place within 14 days;
(b) a travel document is available for the purposes of P’s removal or deportation; and
(c) there are no outstanding legal barriers to removal.
(7) Subsection (6) does not apply if the Tribunal is satisfied that the Secretary of State has established that the criteria in subsection 1 of section [Initial detention: criteria and duration] above are met and that there are very exceptional circumstances which justify maintaining detention.
(8) In subsection (6), “a bail hearing” includes—
(a) an initial bail hearing under subsection (2); and
(b) the hearing of an application for immigration bail under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 10 of the Immigration Act 2016.
(9) In this section, “Tribunal” means the First-Tier Tribunal.
(10) The Secretary of State shall provide to P or to P’s legal representative, not more than 24 hours after the relevant time, copies of all documents in the Secretary of State’s possession which are relevant to the decision to detain.
(11) At the initial bail hearing, the Tribunal shall not consider any documents relied upon by the Secretary of State which were not provided to P or to P’s legal representative in accordance with subsection (10), unless—
(a) P consents to the documents being considered; or
(b) in the opinion of the Tribunal there is a good reason why the documents were not provided to P or to P’s legal representative in accordance with subsection (10).
(12) The Immigration Act 2016 is amended as follows—
(a) After paragraph 12(4) of schedule 10 insert—
“(4A) Sub-paragraph (2) above does not apply if the refusal of bail by the First tier Tribunal took place at an initial bail hearing within the meaning of section [Bail hearings] of the Sovereign Borders Act 2021.”.’
In respect of people to whom NC15 applies, this new clause would require the Secretary of State to either release them, grant immigration bail or arrange a reference to the Tribunal within 96 hours.
New clause 18—Illegal immigration: offences—
‘(1) Any person who is present in the United Kingdom without legal authority shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) Any person who enters or attempts to enter the United Kingdom without legal authority shall be guilty of an offence.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine (or both);
(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);
(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).’
This new clause would create offences in respect of persons who have entered the UK illegally or who have remained in the UK without legal authority.
New clause 19—Illegal immigration offences: deportation orders—
‘(1) Any person who is convicted of an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 shall be subject to a deportation order unless the Secretary of State deems such a deportation order to be against the public interest.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, a deportation order shall be deemed to be in the public interest unless a certificate to the contrary has been submitted by the Secretary of State to the Court.’
New clause 21—Nation of Sanctuary—
‘(1) The Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers must jointly produce guidance setting out how measures under this Act may be exercised in a way that secures compliance with—
(a) the Welsh Government’s commitment to be a “Nation of Sanctuary”; and
(b) the plan published by the Welsh Government in January 2019 entitled “Nation of Sanctuary – Refugee and Asylum Seeker Plan”.
(2) Before issuing the guidance, the Secretary of State must—
(a) in collaboration with the Welsh Minister, prepare and consult on a draft; and
(b) publish a response to the consultation.
(3) In preparing the guidance, consideration must be given to the following matters as far as they relate to refugees and asylum seekers—
(a) conditions in asylum accommodation;
(b) access to public services;
(c) access to language support;
(d) access to education and training;
(e) employment opportunities; and
(f) access to health and social services.
(4) No guidance may be published under this section unless a draft of the guidance has been laid before and approved by Senedd Cymru.’
This new clause would require the UK and Welsh Governments to jointly produce guidance setting out how measures under this Act can be exercised in a way which is consistent with the Welsh Government’s commitment of being a Nation of Sanctuary. No guidance can be published unless it has been approved by the Senedd.
New clause 23—Illegal immigration: offences and deportation—
‘(1) Any person who travels to the United Kingdom from a safe third country and attempts to remain in the United Kingdom without lawful authority shall be guilty of an offence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable–
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine (or both);
(b) on summary conviction in Scotland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both);
(c) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum (or both).
(3) A person prosecuted for an offence under this section must be held in secure accommodation until the trial and any subsequent appeal have concluded.
(4) Following conviction for an offence under this section—
(a) a person sentenced to a fine must remain in secure accommodation until the person consents to leave the United Kingdom or until execution of a deportation order relating to the person;
(b) a person sentenced to imprisonment must be returned to secure accommodation immediately following the person’s release from prison, and must remain in secure accommodation until the person consents to leave the United Kingdom or until execution of a deportation order relating to the person.’
New clause 24—Indefinite leave to remain payments by Commonwealth, Hong Kong and Gurkha members of armed forces—
‘(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 68(10), after “regulations” insert “must make exceptions in respect of any person with citizenship of a Commonwealth country (other than the United Kingdom) who has served at least four years in the armed forces of the United Kingdom, or any person who has served at least four years in the Royal Navy Hong Kong Squadron, the Hong Kong Military Service Corps or the Brigade of Gurkhas, such exceptions to include capping the fee for any such person applying for indefinite leave to remain at no more than the actual administrative cost of processing that application, and”.’
This new clause will ensure that Commonwealth, Hong Kong and Gurkha veterans applying for Indefinite Leave to Remain following four years of service will only pay the unit cost of an application.
New clause 26—Age assessments: restrictions—
‘(1) Age assessments under section 49 or 50 must only be undertaken if there is significant reason to doubt the age of the age-disputed person.
(2) A person conducting age assessments under section 49 or 50 must be a social worker.
(3) Age assessments must be undertaken in accordance with the Association of Directors of Children’s Services Age Assessment Guidance or equivalent guidance in the devolved jurisdictions.
(4) When an age assessment is conducted, a process must be used that allows for an impartial multi-agency approach, drawing on a range of expertise, including from—
(a) health professionals;
(b) psychologists;
(c) teachers;
(d) foster parents;
(e) youth workers;
(f) advocates;
(g) guardians; and
(h) social workers.
(5) When making regulations under section 51, the Secretary of State must not specify scientific methods unless the Secretary of State receives written approval from the relevant medical, dental and scientific professional bodies that the method is both ethical and accurate beyond reasonable doubt for assessing a person’s age.
(6) Any organisation developed to oversee age assessments must be independent of the Home Office.’
This new clause would place various restrictions on the use of age assessments.
New clause 27—Unaccompanied refugee children: relocation and support—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, make arrangements to relocate to the United Kingdom and support a specified number of unaccompanied refugee children from other countries in the European Union.
(2) The number of children to be resettled under subsection (1) shall be determined by the Government in consultation with local authorities.
(3) The relocation of children under subsection (1) shall be in addition to the resettlement of children under any other resettlement scheme.’
This new clause introduces a safe route for unaccompanied children from countries in the European Union to come to the UK.
New clause 28—Immigration health surcharge: exemption for international volunteers—
‘(1) Part 3 of the Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 38, insert—
“38A Immigration health surcharge: exemption for international volunteers
(1) A charge under section 38 may not be imposed on persons who have leave to enter, or to remain in, the United Kingdom through a visa to work voluntarily for a period of no more than 12 months, or for such period as may be prescribed by regulations, for a registered UK charity advancing the charity’s primary purpose.
(2) A statutory instrument containing regulations under this section must not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”’
This new clause would ensure that international volunteers, including those working in health and social care, will be exempt from paying the immigration health surcharge.
New clause 29—Immigration Rules: entry to seek asylum and join family—
‘(1) Within six months of this Act being passed, under the power in section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament rules making provision for the admission of persons coming for the purpose of seeking asylum.
(2) These rules shall make provision for admitting persons who have a family member in the United Kingdom who is ordinarily and lawfully resident in the United Kingdom.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a “family member” means a grandchild, child, parent, grandparent, sibling, uncle or aunt.’
This new clause would require the Government to make provision within the Immigration Rules for people to be admitted to the UK for the purposes of seeking asylum where they have a family member in the UK.
New clause 31—Route to settlement for children and young people who arrived in the UK as minors—
‘(1) Within twelve months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must amend the Immigration Rules so that – for persons to whom this section applies – the requirements to be met for the grant of indefinite leave to remain on the grounds of private life in the UK are that—
(a) the applicant has been in the UK with continuous leave on the grounds of private life for a period of at least 60 months;
(b) the applicant meets the requirements of paragraph 276ADE(1) of the Immigration Rules or, in respect of the requirements in paragraph 276ADE(1)(iv) and (v) of those Rules, the applicant met the requirements in a previous application which led to a grant of limited leave to remain under paragraph 276BE(1) of those Rules.
(2) This section applies to—
(a) persons who have been granted limited leave to remain on the grounds of private life in the UK because at the time of their application—
(i) they were under the age of 18 years and had lived continuously in the UK for at least 7 years (discounting any period of imprisonment) and it would not have been reasonable to expect them to leave the UK;
(ii) they were agreed 18 years or above and under 25 years and had spent over half their life living continuously in the UK (discounting any period of imprisonment).
(b) persons—
(i) who were granted leave to remain outside the rules on the basis of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights; and
(ii) who arrived in the UK as a minor.
(c) any dependants of a person to whom paragraph (a) or (b) applies.’
Under this new clause, the route to settlement would be shortened from ten years to five years for children and young people who arrived in the UK as minors and have leave to remain on the basis of having grown up in the UK.
New clause 32—Compatibility of Part 2 with the Refugee Convention—
‘(1) The provisions in Part 2 of this Act and any subordinate legislation made under Part 2 are, so far as it is possible to do so, to be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Refugee Convention.
(2) Where a court is required to determine whether a provision of this part, or any subordinate legislation made under it, is compatible with the Refugee Convention, and is satisfied that it is not, then it must make a declaration to this effect.
(3) In this section, “court” has the same meaning as in section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998.’
This new clause would ensure provisions of Part 2 were read as far as possible in a manner consistent with the Refugee Convention, and where that was not possible, this was declared by the Courts.
New clause 35—Refugee Family Reunion—
‘(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, rules must be laid down by the Secretary of State under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 to allow any person (“P”) who has been recognised as a refugee in the United Kingdom to sponsor—
(a) any child of P under the age of 25, who was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time P left the country of P’s habitual residence in order to seek asylum;
(b) any parent of P;
(c) any sibling of P under the age of 25, who was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time P left the country of P’s habitual residence in order to seek asylum; to join them in the UK.’
This new clause would expand the range of family members who can apply to be reunited with a refugee in the United Kingdom.
New clause 36—Asylum dispersal – analysis of costs to dispersal authorities—
‘(1) Within six months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report analysing of the costs incurred by local authorities for undertaking the role of asylum dispersal authorities.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must include a summary of submissions made by—
(a) local authorities who act as asylum dispersal authorities, and
(b) organisations acting on behalf of the local authorities.
(3) The report under subsection (1) must set out the Secretary of State’s proposals for reimbursing the costs incurred by asylum dispersal authorities.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an analysis of the costs incurred by local authorities who host dispersed asylum seekers, and proposals for reimbursing them.
New clause 37—Independent Asylum Agency—
‘Within 12 months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament proposals for an independent asylum agency with responsibility for deciding applications for refugee status, and related protection claims.’
New clause 38—Instructions to the Migration Advisory Committee—
‘Within two months of this Act coming into force, the Secretary of State must instruct the Migration Advisory Committee to undertake the following work—
(a) a review of the minimum income requirements for leave to enter and remain as a family member of persons who are British citizens or settled in the United Kingdom; and
(b) a report making detailed recommendations on the design of a work visa for remote areas.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to instruct the MAC to undertake work reviewing the minimum income requirements for family visas; and on the design of a remote areas visa scheme.
New clause 40—Immigration Rules since December 2020: report on effects—
‘(1) Before this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must commission and lay before Parliament an independent report on the effects of its Immigration Rules on the UK economy and public services since December 2020.
(2) The areas to be covered by the report must include but are not limited to—
(a) food supply;
(b) fuel supply;
(c) hospitality and tourism;
(d) NHS;
(e) social care; and
(f) construction.’
This new clause would require the Government to commission and publish an independent report on the effects of its Immigration Rules on the UK economy and public services since December 2020.
New clause 41—Asylum seekers’ right to work—
‘The Secretary of State must make regulations providing that adults applying for asylum in the United Kingdom may apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment if a decision at first instance has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within 3 months of the date on which it was recorded.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling asylum seekers to work once they have been waiting for a decision on their claim for 3 months or more.
New clause 42—Refugee family reunion—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for refugee family reunion, in accordance with this section, to come into effect after 21 days.
(2) Before a statement of changes is laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with persons he or she deems appropriate.
(3) The statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection.
(4) In this section, “refugee status” and “humanitarian protection” have the same meaning as in the immigration rules.
(5) In this section, “family members” include a person’s—
(a) parent, including adoptive parent;
(b) spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner;
(c) child, including adopted child, who is either—
(i) under the age of 18, or
(ii) under the age of 25 but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum;
(d) sibling, including adoptive sibling, who is either—
(i) under the age of 18, or
(ii) under the age of 25, but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; and
(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—
(i) the importance of maintaining family unity,
(ii) the best interests of a child,
(iii) the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person,
(iv) any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person who was granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or
(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(6) For the purpose of subsection (5)—
(a) “adopted” and “adoptive” refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules;
(b) “best interests” of a child shall be read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.’
This new clause would make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection.
New clause 44—Safe and legal routes—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the date of Royal Assent to this Act and annually thereafter, publish a report on—
(a) all current safe and legal asylum routes to the United Kingdom,
(b) the eligibility criteria for legal entry into the United Kingdom, and
(c) details of the application process.
(2) The Secretary of State must publish a report on its resettlement target of refugees per year, and report on this every year.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a summary of safe and legal routes to refuge in the UK each year, alongside their eligibility criteria and application process. It would also commit the UK and Secretary of State to publishing its resettlement targets, and reporting on this annually.
New clause 45—Asylum seekers: employment—
‘(1) The Immigration Rules, as laid before Parliament under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971, are amended as follows.
(2) In paragraphs 360 and 360C (right to request permission to take up employment) for “one year” substitute “six months”.
(3) Omit paragraphs 360A and 360D (which place restrictions on the employment that may be taken up).
(4) After paragraph 360E insert—
360F (none) In paragraphs 360 to 360E, the terms “asylum applicant” and “individual” mean—
(a) a principal applicant, or
(b) an adult dependant of a principal applicant in accordance with paragraph 349.”’
This new clause would permit asylum seekers waiting for more than six months for a decision on their claim to take up employment.
New clause 46—Shortage Occupation List—
‘(1) Before a Minister of the Crown makes any changes to the Immigration Rules Appendix Shortage Occupation List as provided for by the Immigration Rules, the Secretary of State must—
(a) consult each devolved authority on proposed changes, and seek their consent; and
(b) lay before Parliament an independent impact assessment of the proposed changes including, but not limited to, the submissions received from the devolved authorities under paragraph (a).
(2) If a devolved authority does not provide the consent sought under subsection (1)(a), the Minister of the Crown may not proceed with the changes.
(3) In this section “devolved authority” means the Scottish Ministers, the Welsh Ministers or a Northern Ireland department.’
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to consult and receive the consent of the devolved governments before making changes to the Shortage Occupation List in order to ensure that it allows additional flexibility and reflects the different needs of each nation.
New clause 48—Family reunion and resettlement: unaccompanied minors—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within a period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, amend the Immigration Rules in order to ensure that an unaccompanied minor seeking asylum in the EEA who has a family member present in the United Kingdom is entitled to claim asylum in the United Kingdom.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “family member” includes—
(a) a parent or guardian of the applicant;
(b) an aunt, uncle or grandparent of the applicant;
(c) a sibling of the applicant;
(d) the spouse of the applicant;
(e) an unmarried partner with whom the applicant is in a stable relationship; or
(f) any children of the applicant.’
This new clause would allow unaccompanied children to have access to family reunion with close relatives in the UK.
New clause 49—Co-operation with European Union on family reunion arrivals and safe returns—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within a period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, produce a report setting out a negotiating mandate for an agreement with the European Union setting out protocols for identifying the state responsible for determining an asylum application using a hierarchy of criteria, including but not limited to—
(a) family unity,
(b) possession of residence documents or visas,
(c) irregular entry or stay, and
(d) visa-waived entry.
(2) The Secretary of State must lay the report before each House of Parliament.’
This new clause would require the Government to produce a negotiating mandate setting out a proposed reciprocal arrangement with the European Union for safe returns and safe legal routes, to cover the issues previously covered by the Dublin III agreement which has now ended.
New clause 50—Advertising assistance for unlawful immigration to the United Kingdom—
‘(1) It is an offence to advertise by any means, including using social media, services designed to facilitate the commission of an offence under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, to a fine or to both, or
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.’
New clause 51—Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must make regulations setting out the terms of a resettlement scheme for Afghan citizens known as the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme (“ACRS”).
(2) There must be provisions within the ACRS to allow those who are fleeing persecution and have family members in the UK to apply for the Scheme.
(3) For the purposes of this section, “family member” includes—
(a) the spouse of the applicant;
(b) an unmarried partner with whom the applicant is in a stable relationship;
(c) any children of the applicant;
(d) a parent or guardian of the applicant;
(e) an aunt, uncle or grandparent of the applicant; or
(f) a sibling of the applicant.
(4) Regulations under this section must be made and the ACRS must come into force within 30 days from the date of Royal Assent to this Act.’
This new clause will place the Afghan Citizens Resettlement Scheme on a statutory footing and ensure that it includes provisions for a family reunion route within it.
New clause 52—Non-UK service personnel: waiver of fees—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, make regulations exempting relevant persons from the payment of fees in respect of the exercise of functions in connection with immigration or nationality under section 68 of the Immigration Act 2014.
(2) For the purposes of this section, “relevant persons” are persons who—
(a) do not hold British citizenship and are serving or have in the past served in the UK armed forces for a minimum period of five years; or
(b) are dependents of persons identified in paragraph (a).’
Amendment 8, page 14, line 4leave out clause 11.
This amendment would remove clause 11, which provides for the differential treatment of refugees depending on their method of arrival in the UK.
Amendment 114, in clause 11, page 15, line 2, at end insert—
‘(7A) Notwithstanding subsections (5) and (6), a person listed in subsection (7B) must not be treated differently from a Group 1 refugee and in particular—
(a) must not face a restriction on their leave to enter compared to any Group 1 refugee;
(b) must have access to indefinite leave to remain on the same basis as any Group 1 refugee;
(c) must not have no recourse to public funds conditions attached to any leave to enter or remain given to them; and
(d) must have access to family reunion on the same basis as Group 1 refugees.
(7B) Subsection (7A) applies to—
(a) an Afghan national who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in Afghanistan;
(b) a Syrian national who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in Syria;
(c) a Uighur who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in China;
(d) a Christian convert who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in their country of nationality; or
(e) other persons who are refugees because they are outside of their country of nationality for fear of persecution for a Convention reason as set out in article 1 of the Refugee Convention.’
This amendment would prevent the Secretary of State from treating Afghans, Syrians, Uighurs and Christian converts and other people who are refugees at risk of persecution, differently from Group 1 refugees.
Government amendments 19 to 25.
Amendment 132, in clause 15, page 18, leave out lines 27 to 39 and insert—
“(a) there are in law and in practice—
(i) appropriate reception arrangements for asylum seekers;
(ii) sufficient protection against serious harm and violations of fundamental rights;
(iii) protection against refoulement and removal in violation of Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights;
(iv) access to fair and efficient State asylum procedures, or to a previously afforded refugee status or other protective status that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2-34 of the 1951 Convention;
(v) the legal right to remain during the State asylum procedure;
(vi) a refugee status granted to those who are recognised as refugees that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2-34 of the 1951 Convention for those found to be in need of international protection; and
(b) it is safe for the particular claimant, taking into account their individual circumstances.”
This amendment modifies the definition of a “safe third State” to limit it to States that are in fact safe, in law and practice, for the particular claimant.
Amendment 133, in clause 15, page 18, line 41, leave out “5” and insert “3”.
This amendment is consequential on a later amendment about the definition of “connection”.
Amendment 134, in clause 15, page 18, leave out lines 43 to 46.
This amendment removes subsection (6), which states that a claimant whose asylum claim has been denied by virtue of their connection to a particular safe third State may be removed to any other safe third State.
Amendment 135, in clause 15, page 19, line 2, leave out “may” and insert “must”.
This amendment would clarify that under specific circumstances, an asylum claim that would otherwise be considered inadmissible must be considered under the immigration rules.
Government amendment 26.
Amendment 136, in clause 15, page 19, leave out lines 3 to 10 and insert—
“(a) in the absence of a formal, legally binding and public readmission agreement between the United Kingdom and the State to which the person has a connection;
(b) as soon as the proposed State of readmission refuses to accept the person’s return or if the person’s readmission has not been agreed within three months of the registration of their asylum claim, whichever is sooner;
(c) if, taking into account the claimant’s personal circumstances, including their family ties to the United Kingdom and the best interests of any children affected by the decision, it is more appropriate that the claim be considered in the United Kingdom; or
(d) in such other cases as may be provided for in the immigration rules.”
This amendment broadens the circumstances in which the Secretary of State must consider an asylum application, despite a declaration of inadmissibility.
Amendment 137, in clause 15, page 19, leave out line 21 and insert—
“(a) has been granted refugee status or another protective status in the safe third state that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2 to 34 of the 1951 Convention.”
This amendment would strengthen the safeguards in place before a “connection” can be relied on for the purposes of inadmissibility, so as to ensure that the right to seek and enjoy asylum is protected.
Amendment 138, in clause 15, page 19, leave out lines 24 to 32.
This amendment changes the definition of a “connection” to a safe third State by deleting the possibility of finding someone inadmissible on the basis of having been granted nothing more than protection against removal in a third State.
Amendment 139, in clause 15, page 19, line 33, leave out “3” and insert “2”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 138.
Amendment 140, in clause 15, page 19, line 37, leave out “4” and insert “3”.
This amendment is consequential on amendment 138.
Amendment 141, in clause 15, page 19, leave out lines 43 to 45.
This amendment changes the definition of a “connection” to a safe third State so as to prevent a person being found inadmissible on the basis of a connection to a State to which they have never been.
Amendment 142, in clause 15, page 20, leave out lines 1 to 4 and insert—
“for refugee status or other protective status that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2 to 34 of the 1951 Convention.”
This amendment changes the definition of a “relevant claim” to a safe third State to ensure that inadmissibility is based on access to a protective status consistent with the Refugee Convention.
Amendment 14, in clause 17, page 21, line 16, at end insert—
‘(1A) The Secretary of State may not serve an evidence notice on a person who was under 18 years of age at the time of their arrival in the United Kingdom.’
This amendment would remove the ability to serve an evidence notice on children and young people who arrived in the UK before the age of 18.
Government amendment 27.
Amendment 118, page 21, line 27, leave out clause 18.
Government amendments 28 to 30.
Amendment 119, page 24, line 30, leave out clause 21.
Government amendments 31 to 38.
Amendment 145, page 25, line 11, leave out clause 22.
Government amendments 39 and 40.
Amendment 146, page 26, line 7, leave out clause 23.
Government amendments 41 to 43.
Amendment 120, page 29, line 2, leave out clause 25.
Amendment 15, in clause 25, page 29, line 13, at end insert—
‘(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2), “good reasons” include, but are not limited to, the claimant having been under the age of 18 years at the time of their arrival in the UK.’
Under this amendment, a claimant who was under the age of 18 at the time of their arrival in the UK would be regarded as having good reasons for providing evidence late.
Government amendments 44 and 45.
Amendment 121, page 30, line 2, leave out clause 26.
Government amendments 46 and 47.
Amendment 11, in clause 28, page 32, line 1, leave out paragraph (a).
This is a paving amendment for Amendment 9.
Amendment 150, in clause 28, page 32, line 4, at end insert—
‘(2) This section and Schedule 3 will have effect notwithstanding—
(a) the Human Rights Act 1998;
(b) the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms agreed by the Council of Europe at Rome on 4th November 1950 as it has effect for the time being in relation to the United Kingdom, including any Protocol to that Convention;
(c) EU derived law and case law retained under sections 2 to 7 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018; and
(d) the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees done at Geneva on 28 July 1951 and its Protocol.
(3) No law or requirement identified in subsection (2) shall affect the interpretation or application of any provision of this section, including restrictions on the actions or policies of public authorities.’
This amendment is to ensure that the provisions in clause 28 and Schedule 3 are not open to judicial interpretation or disapplication under the measures listed in subsection (2).
Amendment 144, page 33, line 21, leave out clause 31.
Amendment 147, in clause 32, page 34, line 24, leave out subsections (2) to (4).
Government amendments 48 to 50.
Amendment 115, in clause 39, page 38, leave out lines 15 to 23.
This amendment would remove certain criminal offences relating to entering and arriving in the UK.
Government amendment 51.
Amendment 102, in clause 39, page 38, leave out lines 19 to 23.
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to prevent ‘arrival’ in the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance, rather than ‘entry’ into the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance, becoming an offence.
Government amendments 52 and 53.
Amendment 116, in clause 39, page 39, line 9, at end insert—
‘(F2) No criminal offence is committed under subsections (B1) to (D1) where a person enters or arrives in the United Kingdom for the purposes of making a claim for asylum or humanitarian protection, if the person is one of the following—
(a) an Afghan national who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in Afghanistan; a Syrian national who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in Syria; a Uighur who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in China;
(b) a Christian convert who is a refugee because they face a risk of persecution in their country of nationality; or
(c) other persons who are in need of international protection; or who are refugees because they are outside of their country of nationality for fear of persecution for a Convention reason as set out in article 1 of the Refugee Convention.’
Clause 39 as drafted would involve the criminalisation of the arrival and entry of asylum seekers and refugees with an offence subject to up to four years imprisonment. This amendment would prevent this from happening.
Government amendments 54 and 55.
Amendment 103, in clause 39, page 39, line 30, leave out subsection (4).
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to prevent the offence of facilitating a breach of immigration law being extended to include facilitating ‘arrival’ in the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance in addition to facilitating ‘entry’ into the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance.
Government amendments 56 to 59.
Amendment 104, in clause 39, page 40, line 2, at end insert—
‘(10) In section 31(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (defences based on Article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention), after paragraph (aa) insert—
“(ab) section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971 (illegal entry and similar offences)”.’
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to extend the statutory defence based on Article 31 of the Refugee Convention to offences of illegal entry under section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971.
Government amendments 60 and 61.
Amendment 105, in clause 40, page 40, line 7, leave out subsection (2).
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to maintain the current position that the offence of helping an asylum seeker to enter the United Kingdom can only be committed if it is carried out “for gain”.
Government amendments 62 and 63.
Amendment 1, in clause 40, page 40, line 8, at end insert—
‘(3) In section 25A(3) of the Immigration Act 1971 (helping asylum seeker to enter United Kingdom), for paragraph (a) substitute—
“(a) aims to—
(i) protect lives at sea, or
(ii) assist asylum-seekers; and”’.
This amendment would add people working on behalf of organisations that aim to protect lives at sea to those who are exempt for prosecution for helping someone seeking asylum to enter the UK, as long as those organisations do not charge for their service.
Amendment 106, in clause 45, page 43, line 12, at end insert—
‘(6B) Nothing in this section, or in sections 10A to 10E, permits a person to be removed from the United Kingdom if that removal would violate their common law right to access justice.’
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to make clear that the regime for providing notice to persons liable to removal remains subject to the common law right to access justice, which in the asylum context is mirrored by Article 13 ECHR.
Amendment 107, page 49, line 3, leave out clause 47.
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to prevent it being compulsory for decision makers and tribunals to take into account whether a person has failed to cooperate with any immigration process when making decisions on immigration bail.
Amendment 122, in clause 48, page 49, line 34, leave out
“has insufficient evidence to be sure of their age”
and insert
“has reason to doubt that the claimant is the age they claim”.
This amendment to Clause 48(1) would align primary legislation to current practice as set out in statutory guidance to ensure children are not subjected to age assessments if there is no significant reason to doubt their age.
Amendment 123, in clause 49, page 51, line 9, leave out “must” and replace with “may”.
Amendment 124, in clause 49, page 51, line 17, leave out subsections (4) to (8).
Amendment 125, page 52, line 1, leave out clause 50.
Amendment 126, page 52, line 22, leave out clause 51.
Amendment 13, in clause 71, page 69, line 38, at end insert—
“(c) the individual is travelling to Northern Ireland on a local journey from the Republic of Ireland.”
Under this amendment, persons who are neither British nor Irish would nevertheless be able to make local journeys from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland without the need for an Electronic Travel Authorisation.
Government amendments 91 to 93.
Amendment 9, in schedule 3, page 82, line 36, leave out paragraphs 1 and 2.
This amendment leaves out paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 3 to the Bill, which would amend section 77 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (no removal while claim for asylum pending).
Amendment 10, in schedule 3, page 84, line 2, leave out paragraph 4.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 9.
Government amendments 94 and 95.
Amendment 96, in schedule 6, page 95, line 25, at end insert—
‘(4) Authority for the purposes of subsection (3) may be given in relation to a foreign ship only if the Convention permits the exercise of Part A1 powers in relation to the ship.’
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to follow the drafting in the equivalent paragraphs of sections 28M, 28N and 28O of the Immigration Act, and ensure that enforcement action complies with international maritime law, similar to other enforcement action under Schedule 4A to the Immigration Act 11.
Amendment 97, in schedule 6, page 98, leave out lines 6 to 11 and insert—
“(a) every description of vessel (including a hovercraft) used in navigation, but
(b) does not include any vessel that is not seaworthy or where there could otherwise be a risk to the safety of life and well-being of those onboard.”
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure that enforcement action such as pushbacks could not be taken against unseaworthy vessels such as dinghies.
Amendment 98, in schedule 6, page 98, line 20, at end insert—
‘(1A) The powers set out in this Part of this Schedule must not be used in a manner or in circumstances that could endanger life at sea.’
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure the maritime enforcement powers cannot be used in a manner that would endanger lives at sea.
Amendment 113, in schedule 6, page 99, line 37, at end insert—
‘(13) Nothing within this Act or this paragraph B1 authorises any action or measure which is inconsistent with the United Kingdom’s international legal obligations.’
This amendment seeks to ensure the consistency of Part A1 paragraph B1 (power to stop, board, divert and detain) with the United Kingdom’s international obligations, including under international refugee law, international human rights law and international maritime law.
Amendment 99, in schedule 6, page 102, line 31, at end insert—
‘(2) Force must not be used in a manner or in circumstances that could endanger life at sea.’
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure that the use of force in maritime enforcement powers cannot be used in a manner that would endanger lives at sea.
Amendment 4, in schedule 6, page 102, leave out lines 35 to 40.
This amendment would remove the provision granting immigration and enforcement officers immunity from civil or criminal liability for anything done in the performance of their functions.
Amendment 100, in schedule 6, page 102, line 36, leave out “criminal or”.
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to remove the immunity from criminal proceedings for “relevant officers” for criminal offences committed whilst undertaking pushbacks or other maritime enforcement operations.
Amendment 101, in schedule 6, page 102, line 36, leave out lines 36 to 40 and insert—
“J1 The Home Office, rather than an individual officer, is liable in civil proceedings for anything done in the purported performance of functions under this Part of this Schedule.”
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure that the Home Office is liable, rather than immigration officers and enforcement officers being personally liable for civil wrongs that may occur whilst undertaking pushbacks or other maritime enforcement operations.
Tom Pursglove
I am conscious of the wide interest in a significant number of these amendments, so I will predominantly focus my remarks on the Government amendments in this first instance and address other matters in the wind-up.
Our asylum system must not reward those who enter the UK illegally from manifestly safe countries where they cannot possibly still be fleeing persecution and fear. People must claim asylum in the first safe country they come to, and making a secondary and unnecessary move to the UK puts lives needlessly in danger while pushing aside other vulnerable people, including women and children.
We must break the criminal networks that facilitate illegal immigration and exploit people. People who come to our shores illegally will be treated differently. Although we cannot resettle everyone who needs sanctuary, the large numbers we resettle in the UK will be made very welcome. We will be fair but firm in how we continue to embark on this landmark reform of our asylum system.
New clause 20 is a minor, technical amendment that will ensure a small number of references to justices of the peace in immigration legislation in the context of obtaining entry and search warrants in Northern Ireland instead become references to lay magistrates. This is a simple measure that tidies up the statute book.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The Minister makes a critical point about claiming asylum in the first safe country. People traffickers rely on the idea of selling a destination, regardless of where the person starts. The measures my hon. Friend describes will frustrate the people traffickers and do a great service both to this country and to their many victims.
Tom Pursglove
Not for the first time, I find myself agreeing with my right hon. Friend wholeheartedly. It is fair to say that nobody needs to get into a small boat to reach safety. France is a safe country with a fully functioning asylum system, and the same applies to Belgium, Germany and countries across the European Union.
All people do by getting into a small boat is hand over significant sums of money to evil individuals who treat people as cargo and have no regard for human life. We have to bring it to an end, which is precisely what we seek to do with this Bill. I look forward to my right hon. Friend’s support in the Lobby, as we have had throughout the Bill’s passage.
Government amendments 19 to 25 to clause 12 make small technical amendments to apply the provisions in the clause to asylum seekers or failed asylum seekers who are supported under existing legislation if and when uncommenced provisions come into force.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
What my hon. Friend just stated is not unique to him but was stated by the former Labour Home Secretary Charles Clarke, who said:
“It is simply not acceptable to destroy identity documents, use false passports, lie about your personal history, refuse to say how you reached this country or any of the other devices which the people-smuggling gangs employ to make their money. Asylum seekers who knowingly commit such acts should lose their right of asylum in this country and be returned as soon as possible to their country of origin.”
He was right, wasn’t he?
Tom Pursglove
Any right-minded or fair-minded person would think it was entirely appropriate for people to engage with the immigration system in this country in an appropriate manner that complies with our evidential requirements. People should comply in the spirit of good will, because inevitably we want to provide sanctuary to those in need of sanctuary at the earliest opportunity possible. That is entirely what our reforms seek to achieve. We also think it is right and proper—as do, I think, the British people—to remove those who have no right to be here.
John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)
If the legislation is carried in the way the Minister wishes, what impact will it have on the awful, vile trade through small boats? Will it stop it? Is there a danger that the UK courts will overturn the intent?
Tom Pursglove
The measures in the Bill are significant. We have recognised—the Home Secretary has consistently recognised this and I recognise it as the Minister responsible for tackling illegal immigration—that the asylum system in this country is currently broken. The length of time it takes to process claims is unacceptable and we need to improve the situation. The Government’s intention is clearly stated: to improve the way we process claims. We expect individuals who seek to claim asylum in this country to comply with the requirements, but of course safety nets are in place, for good reasons, so that it will be taken appropriately into account if people cannot meet the deadlines. We believe that progressing on the basis of processing claims more quickly and removing those with no right to be here will make quite a significant difference. Importantly, it is also about the work that we do not just with our nearest neighbours in, for example, France and Belgium—that collaboration is important and is delivering results, and we want to secure a returns agreement that will help to build on that—but further upstream in removing those with no right to be here back to source countries.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
Yesterday, in a scathing attack on this Bill, Welsh Government Cabinet Ministers issued a statement saying that the Bill undermines Wales’s desire to be a nation of sanctuary, and will exacerbate inequality and harm. In their words:
“Wales is a welcoming nation and we will always stand with those who need us the most.”
Yes, Minister, we do keep a welcome in the hillsides and valleys of Wales. Will he scrap this inhumane Bill, end the hostile environment, put in place safe and legal routes, and stop undermining the responsibilities and aspirations of the devolved nations?
Tom Pursglove
The short answer to that rather long intervention is no. It is not the first time that I find myself disagreeing with Labour politicians, and I am afraid that I disagree with the Welsh Government on this point. All parts of this United Kingdom have a proud record of welcoming to this country people from around the world who are fleeing persecution and conflict; that tradition will continue, as I am sure the hon. Lady knows.
This country has to have a system that is fair but firm, and that brings to an end the abuses in the system previously and to date. Those who are not acting in the spirit that I think all of us would like to see are actually making it more difficult for genuine asylum seekers who are seeking sanctuary, and there are inevitably considerable associated resource implications.
Jeremy Corbyn
Would the Minister just think for a moment what it is like to get into a small dinghy and try to cross the channel, and imagine what sense of desperation people must have to risk their own lives to try to get to what they believe to be a place of safety? I am not defending people traffickers or criminal gangs. I am just saying that we have created a situation, in this country and across Europe, where we leave desperate people with no alternative but to turn to ruthless people to try to get to a place of safety and contribute to our society. I ask him: has he got any humanity?
Tom Pursglove
I am afraid that the intervention is a disappointing one, in the sense that I would not for a moment suggest that the right hon. Gentleman is doing anything that supports people traffickers—of course not. However, I think he is giving credence to their business model, and that is highly unacceptable and disappointing. He should reflect on his position on these matters. As I have set out, nobody needs to get into a small boat to seek to cross the channel to reach safety. The idea that anybody is in danger in France is utterly farcical. The bottom line is that France is a safe country with a fully functioning asylum system. That is a fact and he needs to reflect on it.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Of course, what the former leader of the Labour party was trying to say was that the French are failing to look after the people in their own country. In that regard, he is right, isn’t he?
Tom Pursglove
It is probably fair to say that those on the Benches of the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) quite regularly try to reinterpret his comments. In the end, it is highly unacceptable for anybody to get into a small boat for this purpose. I think it is fair to say that this House speaks with one voice in saying that people should not be making dangerous crossings, and we perhaps just disagree about how to render the route unviable.
The Government have brought forward a comprehensive Bill as part of the wider package of measures that we are seeking to introduce to address this issue. It is disappointing that some of us in the House seem to have quite a lot to say in complaining about our approach, but do not actually have a viable alternative to our policy.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
I have sat through hours of this debate and have been shocked—although I should not be surprised—by some of the smearing and scaremongering that we have heard. Is it any wonder that we receive some of the communications that we do? There is much to support in the Bill. As the Minister says, the immigration system is clearly not working. I am struggling on one point around resettlement, on which we may be able to take more people with us. The Government have rightly promised that the Bill will provide new, safer routes that can help to address the channel crossings. Will the Minister tell us whether the Home Office now has plans, and can provide more detail on those plans, for more resettlement schemes through safe routes?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend. One of the things we have been very clear about is that we want to expand community sponsorship in particular, but a number of schemes that are already being delivered are making a considerable difference. We should not forget that 15,000 people were airlifted out of Afghanistan over the summer. Nor should we forget that the BNO route in relation to Hong Kong is a valuable and important route that is helping to provide sanctuary to many individuals. That is an ambitious offer that we have made.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
Is not the reality that there are people who come to France fleeing their country of origin with the desire to come to the United Kingdom? Will the Minister look at new clause 10, in the name of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), of which I am a co-sponsor and which puts forward a humanitarian visa scheme to enable people who are in France to start their application process off in France to come to the United Kingdom? We spoke about this in the Joint Committee on Human Rights last week and the Minister said he was going to go away and verify whether that suggestion had ever been put to the French. Has he been able to verify that for me?
Tom Pursglove
The hon. and learned Lady comes to this debate with ideas and suggestions about how we tackle this issue, but I disagree with her in terms of the suggestion she makes. In order to have a system like that in place, the French would have to agree to it. I think it is fair to say that there is considerable concern about the number of movements across France as things stand already. That is where, I am afraid, her suggestion, while offered in a spirit of co-operation and trying to be constructive, falls down.
Tom Pursglove
I would like to make some progress, if I may.
Amendments 39, 40 to 43, 46 and 47 clarify the Government’s intention that appeals should remain in the expedited appeal process wherever possible. The revised text, which reflects wording in the primary legislation that sets the statutory framework for tribunal rules, specifies that judges should only remove an appeal from the accelerated or expedited process where there is no other way to secure that justice be done.
Amendments 48 to 50 are minor and technical amendments to clause 34 on internal relocation. They clarify the ambiguity in the current drafting that has the potential to be interpreted in an unintended way, where an individual could only be internally relocated within a country where they had previously been in that part of the country.
The purpose of amendments 51 to 59 is to increase the maximum penalty for the existing statutory offence of overstaying, which is currently six months’ imprisonment. That maximum penalty dates back to the original legislation—the Immigration Act 1971—and is no longer considered sufficient for the present day. Given how much the world has changed over the past 50 years, the existing penalty hinders our ability to deter overstayers, and we consider that raising it would encourage better compliance. Clause 39 introduces a new maximum penalty of four years to align with illegal entry and other similar offences that have already been amended during the passage of the Bill.
In Committee, I promised to bring forward amendments to protect Royal National Lifeboat Institution individuals rescuing persons at sea and those in charge of vessels who find stowaways on board. I am pleased to say that this is now set out in amendments 60 to 63. I am grateful to Members across the House who have raised concerns in relation to this matter, and I am delighted to be able to put it beyond doubt this afternoon.
Tracey Crouch (Chatham and Aylesford) (Con)
My constituency may be landlocked but I grew up on the Kent coast, where many of those who cross the channel land, and I continue to donate to the RNLI, as do many of my constituents. We all know that those who volunteer to serve do so selflessly and often leave their place of work in order to go to sea or to provide support from the land. Will my hon. Friend join me in thanking those who volunteer for the RNLI from the Dungeness, Littlestone, Dover, Walmer and Ramsgate stations?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes the case so eloquently for the RNLI, and sets out the incredible work that its volunteers and others do to protect life at sea, along with many other agencies, such as Her Majesty’s Coastguard, which works tirelessly around the clock, often in very difficult circumstances. I certainly join her in placing on record the Government’s thanks and appreciation for everything they do, and for the individuals in her area who do this tireless work, day in, day out, and week in, week out.
Bambos Charalambous
This Bill is a sham. It does nothing to create safe routes for resettlement, nothing to garner international support for breaking people-smuggling gangs, and nothing to support victims of modern-day slavery. Instead, the Nationality and Borders Bill creates unworkable policies, lets down victims who have been trafficked, and breaks our international obligations. The Bill is a smoke-and-mirrors trick, designed to deflect attention from the Government’s failings and incompetence in the area of asylum and refugee protection.
It is shameful that since the abandonment of the Dubs amendment, the UK has turned its back on unaccompanied child refugees and young people in need of protection. Young people are having to turn to people-smuggling gangs. We need to make sure that the model is broken. People have died during dangerous crossings, and it is important that we tackle the criminal people-smuggling gangs. To do that, we need international co-operation and greater security, and that is why Labour Members have tabled new clause 50, which would make advertising people-smuggling routes via social media an offence. If the Government are serious about tackling the gangs, we cannot see why they would have any problem supporting the new clause.
Smugglers and trafficking gangs are putting people’s lives at risk, and they use social media to promote, encourage, advertise and organise these dangerous crossings. Too often, when the National Crime Agency asks Facebook, TikTok and others to take down dangerous material, they refuse. We have to strike at the heart of this illegal and dangerous operation. That is why we propose a new, additional criminal offence; it would not replace existing offences. The new offence would make it clear beyond doubt that such material is illegal and dangerous, that we will prosecute those responsible for it, and that we expect social media companies to take it down.
It is well known that people-smugglers promote dangerous routes on social media platforms including Facebook and TikTok. They often promise easy journeys at an extremely high cost. Those who are interested may be told to send private direct messages to the smugglers, because they know that private conversations are encrypted and much more difficult for police and intelligence agencies to access. If the Government are serious about tackling the criminal gangs profiting from people’s desperation, they must take urgent action to tackle the problem online. At the moment, they talk tough, but the policing and intelligence response is failing to keep up. The Government should back Labour’s new clause 50 today. Those seeking to profit online from people’s desperation must be made to feel the full force of the law.
As everyone in the Chamber knows, the Dubs amendment was passed in May 2016 by David Cameron’s Government in the wake of an increase in refugees arriving from Europe. It required Ministers to relocate and support asylum-seeking children from the continent. It was initially envisaged that the Dubs scheme would offer settlement to 3,000 children, but the number of places was capped at 480. In May 2020, it emerged that the smaller quota had been filled, and the scheme was abandoned. Ever since, Members from across the political spectrum have warned that this bad decision would force hundreds of vulnerable children to turn to people-smuggling gangs for assistance in travelling to Britain, placing them at greater risk of trafficking.
The Government’s inaction has been deeply depressing. Ministers have shown a callous disregard for the plight of children. When debating these issues, Ministers have made the shameful claim that so-called pull factors for refugees are a reason not to help unaccompanied children to safety.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Does the hon. Member recognise that since 2015, the number of unaccompanied children arriving in the UK and going into the care of local authorities has doubled from an average annual run-rate of just over to 2,000 to significantly over 4,000, and that the Syrian resettlement scheme included an element of specifically identifying vulnerable children and bringing them to the UK as a place of safety? Does he therefore accept that it is simply not true that the Government have turned their back on refugee children?
Bambos Charalambous
At the moment, there are no safe routes for children to come to the UK. That is why there has been an increase in crossings and more unaccompanied children crossing.
Tim Loughton
I have heard a lot of attacks on what the Government are trying to do, and a lot about social media; now we are hearing about children. I have some sympathy with the Dubs scheme—indeed, the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), and I previously tabled amendments in support of it—but I have not seen, in any of the amendments tabled, or heard of, in any of our debates, a single practical measure that Labour would take to deter adults from paying the people traffickers and taking to boats for these dangerous journeys. What is Labour’s plan for real solutions to a serious problem? I have not heard a single solution yet.
Bambos Charalambous
If the hon. Member will allow me to continue, he may be interested in what I will say on new clause 49, which addresses his point. I will try to make some progress; I was told off in the last debate for taking too long because I allowed interventions.
Labour believes that it is time that the Government showed global leadership, instead of shirking their commitments enshrined in the refugee convention. We urge them to support new clause 48, which proposes the reintroduction of Dubs.
In new clause 49, the Opposition ask the Government to produce a negotiating mandate that sets out proposed reciprocal arrangements with the EU for safe returns and safe legal routes. Such arrangements were covered by the Dublin III agreement, which has now ended. It is ridiculous that the Government are resorting to dangerous tactics such as push-backs in the channel, when we used to have civilised reciprocal agreements with our geographical neighbours.
Alex Sobel
I thank the shadow Minister for giving way, because the Minister would not. The Government seem to think that the Bill will end small boats crossing the channel, but as he said, the ending of Dublin III has increased the number of small boats making that crossing. Does he not think that, because of the Bill, we will be back here debating this in three years, when there will be even more small boats and even more children and adults dying in the channel?
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Bill will fail if there are not reciprocal arrangements, and that is deeply worrying. Not having those arrangements will encourage more dangerous crossings.
Bambos Charalambous
I agree with the hon. Member, but that is directly because we no longer have reciprocal arrangements. That is the crux of the problem with the Bill. We need more reciprocal arrangements with our international partners to allow other measures to be put in place.
Bambos Charalambous
I will make progress.
The agreements we had previously, such as Dublin III, gave people who were eligible a safe route here, and they also allowed us to send people to other safe countries when that was appropriate. It is well known that family reunion leads to better outcomes in terms of the ability of people to integrate. It is also well known that it is only with international co-operation that we can expect other countries to accept the safe return of individuals, where appropriate. We believe that new clause 49 is a sensible and proportionate measure to tackle the issues we face.
This brings me on to new clause 51, which does two things. First, it places the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme on a statutory footing to make sure that it is fully implemented. Secondly, it calls on the Government to draw up the scheme in a way that helps prevent people from being exploited by people traffickers and smugglers. The Government have accepted that safe and legal routes are important as an alternative to dangerous routes run by criminal gangs, but they have not implemented or designed safe and legal routes. That is why we propose that the resettlement scheme be designed in a way that allows those fleeing persecution in Afghanistan who have family in the UK to apply to be included in the resettlement scheme. There would be a specified opportunity for family members to apply under the scheme. The Government have already consulted on ensuring that these family members do not end up being exploited by criminal gangs, and have promised them a route to reuniting with their family members, so we see no reason why the new clause should be controversial, or why the Government would not open the scheme and allow family reunion within it.
It has been absolutely shocking to hear at first hand the stories of desperate people who are eligible to come here from Afghanistan being effectively abandoned. I have had Chevening scholars contact my constituency office who have been left without any support at all, and without any prospect of a safe route from that country. Other MPs have told me about people who have worked closely with the British but have also been left vulnerable—interpreters, women who worked as lawyers, and many others whose lives are under threat from the Taliban. Again, if the Government are serious about drawing people away from the people smugglers and offering them safe routes, then they need to get a grip of this situation.
Matt Rodda
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. Does he agree that at the core of this is the poor quality of our relations with some of our nearest neighbours, and, indeed, our falling standing in the international community, which I am afraid—[Interruption.] If I may finish, I am afraid that that is a result of Government policy over the Brexit deal and a number of other matters. Does he agree with me on that point?
Bambos Charalambous
As I have previously said, international co-operation is at the root of dealing with the problems that this Bill will purportedly address.
Shailesh Vara (North West Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Bambos Charalambous
I will give way one last time, but then I really must make progress.
Shailesh Vara
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. As a point of clarification, the comment was made in the previous intervention that Brexit was a Government policy. Does he agree that the Government were fulfilling the mandate of the British people at a referendum?
Bambos Charalambous
We have already had that debate—in the last Parliament. As is proposed in the Dublin III amendment—new clause 49—our safe and legal routes need to be replaced now that we have left the European Union. That is absolutely integral to making sure that we have the measures in place to deal with the problems we face.
Ministers have talked a lot about the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, but where are the results? We have been waiting since August for the scheme to be implemented, and it still has not been. People are dying. They do not have four years to wait. It is time for action, not words.
We should be looking after people who put their lives on the line by loyally serving the nation. It is nothing short of outrageous that visas for foreigners who served in the UK armed forces cost £2,389. In 2020, there were 5,110 Commonwealth citizens serving in the armed forces. Each year, about 500 of them choose to leave, and those who choose to stay in the UK are compelled to pay extortionate visa fees. A Government consultation has, as we know, proposed scrapping the fees for those who have completed 12 years’ service in the armed forces. Labour has campaigned long and hard for that change, but we believe the proposed qualification period is far too long, and we call on the Government to right that wrong and change the period of qualification. I am grateful to the two largest veterans charities, the Royal British Legion and Help for Heroes, for their campaigning work on this issue. They are clear that they believe the current situation is gravely unfair, and it is time the Government started honouring their promise to the armed forces.
Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)
I have met many Commonwealth soldiers in my constituency, including Fijians who have worked closely alongside Welsh regiments, and others from Commonwealth backgrounds who have come to our armed forces—indeed, I think they make up something like 11% or 12% of current Army recruitment. I have heard horrifying stories about how they have been treated in relation to visas and settlement, as well as with healthcare costs. It is completely wrong for that to be happening, and for them to be treated in such a way when they have served our country so bravely.
Bambos Charalambous
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. To ask servicemen and women to pay for the privilege of living in the country that they fought for and were prepared to defend is completely unreasonable. The current situation is embarrassing, and we ask the Government to do the right thing and waive fees for veterans seeking citizenship.
Bambos Charalambous
I will give way one last time, but I must make progress.
John Redwood
The hon. Gentleman is generous. Does Labour think there should be any limit on the number of people we invite in each year as migrants, and if so, what should that limit be?
Bambos Charalambous
As I have made clear, I am speaking about Commonwealth veterans who are fighting for us, defending our country. We very much support waiving the fees for them to become British citizens.
I will move on. Clause 11 is a particularly pernicious part of the Bill. As well as creating two tiers of refugees, it seeks to criminalise some refugees according to how they arrive in the UK. Criminalising people who are seeking our protection is a clear breach of the refugee convention and our obligations under international law. Let us consider the implications of that. Under clause 11, it is possible that an Afghan national facing persecution from the Taliban, Uyghur Muslims facing persecution in China, or a Syrian national facing persecution in Syria, could be criminalised. They could be criminalised merely for the way they arrive in the UK, yet their claim for asylum due to the persecution they faced has not lessened because of their means of arriving in the UK—of course it hasn’t. While the Government do little to secure safe and legal routes for persecuted groups, it is cruel to criminalise people who are escaping torture or death. Moreover, no evidence has ever been produced to suggest that such a measure will deter those irregular journeys, as the Government claim.
As a report by the Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed out, the Bill is littered with measures that are simply incompatible with human rights law and the UK’s obligations under international treaties. That is one reason why Labour believes that amendments 105 and 98 are necessary. By removing the term “for gain”, the Government are creating a situation where anyone in the channel who helps people in distress, as is their duty under maritime law, could be criminalised. That is clearly wrong, both morally and legally, and we strongly urge the Government to accept amendment 105. It is equally the case, as stated in amendment 98, that there should be safeguards against endangering life at sea. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended, it must be made certain that maritime enforcement powers cannot be used in a manner that would endanger lives.
This is a bad Bill, and we hope that the Government will take heed of the amendments we support. Only through international co-operation, safe and legal routes, and targeted measures against criminal gangs can we, with our international partners, improve the current situation.
Johnny Mercer (Plymouth, Moor View) (Con)
I will not take too long in my remarks, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I wish to make a couple of clear points about foreign and Commonwealth service personnel who serve in our armed forces and then have to pay to live in this country afterwards, and to use public services. There has been wide, broad, and deep support for action on this issue over the past few days, including from people who really do not like to get involved in politics. Whether it is the Royal British Legion, Help for Heroes and the veteran community or beyond, in our communities up and down the country, people recognise the morality behind the issue of charging those who serve to live in this country.
I speak to all sorts of people in the veterans community. Last night, I had a conversation with Prince Harry about this. He has contributed hugely to the veterans debate and I wanted his view. He said to me, “It’s not only morally right but would mean so much to those who have given so much.” That is not a political intervention; it demonstrates the moral purpose of this measure. It is an almost “effortless change”, as he said, for this Government to make, for us to finally see through what we have said to these people for so long. We owe it to them. They are our brothers and sisters. They have served with us over many years. I recognise that there are things going around today saying how we should not be doing this in primary legislation, for lots of reasons. I will come to that in a minute, but this has been going on for 20 years for these people, and at some point we have to grasp the nettle and make sure that we look after them.
The money is meaningless. I will address the figures that have been put out by the Government and others. On Monday, I was told that the Government could not do this because it would cost £160 million. That is garbage. Do not take my word for it; look at the Royal British Legion, which has campaigned on this issue for many years. I pay tribute to Members across the House, including those on the Conservative side, who have been Defence Ministers and have tried to deal with this problem but have hit the same issues we are hitting at the moment.
On that £160 million, the Royal British Legion has studied the figures. If someone who served in the military in this country applies for a visa, all their dependants use a special code. Someone can only use that code if they have served or they are a dependant, so we can pull the data between 2016 and 2020. It has never cost more than £1 million a year, so the majority of those fees are profit—a charge on our service personnel to stay here.
Let me address the consultation issue and the 12-year period. I do not want to air dirty linen in public, but I was there when that 12-year figure was decided on. It was done on a visit. It was plucked out of the air. There is no evidence whatsoever to back it up. There is evidence in the Department that someone from a foreign or Commonwealth country who serves in the military is likely to serve between six and seven years. Twelve years is well outside that. It is well beyond what our peer nations do, it is well beyond what our allies do, and it is incredibly unkind to these individuals who have worked and served for so long.
I have given the moral case and the financial case, but ultimately this decision comes down to Conservative Members. The whole country is aligned on this issue, and it has been for a very long time. All the political parties will support new clause 52 except the Conservatives, and we are the ones who made a promise that we would do something about this. That is unconscionable. Colleagues can of course take the calls from the Defence Secretary and others, with these figures that I have demonstrated are not true, or they can think about what they are here to do.
I am here to represent the Fijian family in Plymouth who left the military after nine years having fought in Afghanistan and Iraq; they may have been members of the United Kingdom Special Forces group—a relentless operational tempo. Finally they leave, their kids go to school and they save up for a house, but they have to pay a £10,000 bill to stay in this country that they fought for over so many years. Can colleagues really look that family in the eye and say, “No, you have to pay; we have to make a profit out of you for you to stay in this country, despite the fact that you were prepared to commit so much to the privileges and the freedoms we enjoy”?
Finally, I say to colleagues that the tide changes very quickly in politics. This issue has been around for 20 years now, and the tide changes. I know what it is like when people put the screws on and ask you to vote a certain way, but the tide changes. All we can do is what we think is right on the day. The moral and financial case for this measure has never been clearer, and I urge colleagues to consider it carefully before they cast their vote.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Rather than fixing the broken asylum system, the provisions in this part of the Bill risk breaking it all together, endangering, criminalising, delaying, warehousing, offshoring and depriving of their rights those who simply seek our protection. The Uyghur, the Syrian and the persecuted Christian I spoke about on Second Reading, as well as the Afghans who are now in danger because of events subsequent to that debate, all face those bleak impacts despite our best efforts in Committee.
Contrary to the claims that the Bill is about safe routes, it actually does not add a single one, while threatening to restrict vital family reunion rights, pushing more people towards smugglers and dangerous crossings.
Joanna Cherry (Edinburgh South West) (SNP)
I thank my hon. Friend for his forensic work on the Bill in Committee. He correctly says that the Bill does not propose any new safe legal routes, but there is one provision that does—new clause 10, in the name of the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Neil Coyle), of which I am a co-sponsor. It proposes having a humanitarian visa that people could apply for in France so that they could start the process of coming to the United Kingdom there. Can my hon. Friend confirm that SNP MPs will support new clauses 10 and 11?
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for her intervention, and I am happy to confirm that the SNP will support them. Indeed, there are a range of new clauses from both sides of the House, from Back Benchers in particular, that seek to add safe routes, and they all have our support. For our part, we have tabled new clause 35, which would expand refugee family reunion in a way that this House supported in 2018 in the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil).
Our other proposals try once more to limit some of the harm that the Bill will do at every stage in the asylum process. However, let me first welcome the amendments from the Joint Committee on Human Rights and others regarding the appalling maritime pushback clauses and the criminalisation of rescuers—provisions that risk serious harm even before an asylum seeker is able to enter the asylum process.
For those seeking asylum in the UK who do get here, is it not outrageous that they will be criminalised under an offence in clause 39 punishable by up to four years in prison? That is why our amendment 116 states clearly and simply that if Afghans, Syrians, Uyghurs, Christian converts or others are at risk of persecution in their countries of nationality, their mere entry or arrival for the purposes of seeking asylum is not a crime. Is it not extraordinary that that very idea has to be debated?
Clause 11 means that, having faced the criminal justice system, our Afghan and his colleagues will be stuck in one of the Government’s asylum warehouses. We say that we should not go down that path—a path that the Irish have just rejected as utterly failed and that brought shocking results at Napier Barracks—and that we should make community dispersal work. Our new clause 36 would ensure that dispersal authorities get the funding they need to undertake their vital role.
Clause 15 means that, stuck in that warehouse, the Syrian and his colleagues will have to wait for months on end before their asylum cases are looked at, because their claims will be deemed inadmissible under a ludicrously broad range of criteria that will allow the Home Secretary to say that another country should take responsibility—even if there is not the remotest chance of that actually happening, there is no real reason why it should happen or there are strong reasons, such as family ties, why the claim should actually be considered here. The Home Secretary could even insist that a human rights-abusing country that pays no more than lip service to the refugee convention should take charge, even when our Syrian or Afghan has absolutely no connection to that country whatever.
Amendments 132 to 142, drafted with advice from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, seek to put the necessary safeguards and restrictions in place. We are not saying that it is never appropriate for other countries to be asked to take over responsibility, but crucial safeguards must exist, and they are absolutely nowhere in this Bill. Already this year, 7,000 or so people have had their claims put on hold through inadmissibility procedures. Just 10 were removed. The remaining 6,990 are either still waiting or have been moved into the asylum process. They have been waiting for absolutely no good reason at all and almost certainly at a cost of tens of millions of pounds to the taxpayer. The whole set-up is absolutely ludicrous.
Having toughed out the additional delays, the Uyghur and his colleagues will find that it is the Home Office that finally considers their asylum claims, but we ask why. Time and again the Home Office has shown itself as not fit for purpose, which is why new clause 37 asks us to look to the Canadian model of an independent asylum decision-making body, to ensure that protection claims no longer suffer from political interference and politically motivated targets. Sadly, far from supporting independent decision making, a whole series of pernicious clauses in the Bill would see this Parliament telling decision makers what inferences to draw about evidence provided as part of a claim. We say, “Leave assessments of evidence to the decision makers who actually see it. We don’t get to see it.” That is why amendments 118 to 120 seek to remove clauses 18, 21 and 25.
Anne McLaughlin
Will my hon. Friend take an intervention?
Anne McLaughlin
I have been told to be very brief, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is my hon. Friend aware of Dr Nick Martin, a medical doctor who had been in the British Navy for a number of years and worked on Manus Island, one of the offshoring projects in Australia? He describes himself as “right of centre” and not a natural refugee supporter until he saw the vile way people were treated—[Interruption.] Well, we are modelling this on the Australian system. Does my hon. Friend agree we should listen to the voices of the people who have lived through this, rather than the people who tell us it will be all roses?
Stuart C. McDonald
The evidence about how disgraceful the Australian system was is overwhelming. My hon. Friend adds helpfully to that.
Despite all that, our Syrian, Afghan and Uyghur will almost certainly be recognised as refugees, but let us say that the persecuted Christian convert is refused because the judge is only 49% that he will be murdered on removal. Of those who challenge refusals, around 40% have been successful on appeal in recent years, but in this Bill appeal rights are restricted yet again, and certain appeal processes are accelerated.
Our amendment 121 would delete the Government’s attempt to reinstate the detained fast-track process, which was previously ruled unlawful. Amendment 145 removes another expedited appeal process. It is the Home Office that needs to address delays, not our tribunals. The SNP is also fully behind cross-party attempts to place time limits on the use of detention.
Even if our persecuted Christian, after appeal, joins the others in being recognised as a refugee, the misery this Bill will inflict on them is far from complete. The group will now face all the discriminatory measures heaped on by clause 11, which empowers the Home Secretary to punish recognised refugees through the insecurity of temporary residence, through no recourse to public funds, through limited family reunion and any other form of discrimination or punishment she thinks fit. It is a truly astonishing and outrageous provision. Amendment 114 specifically exempts Afghans, Syrians, Uyghurs, Christian converts and other refugees from such disgraceful treatment, and we fully support amendment 8 to remove the clause altogether.
If our Afghan or any of the others happens to be a young person whose age is challenged, the Bill risks making life especially difficult for them, thanks to the provisions of part 4, rammed into the Bill in Committee against the advice of numerous organisations and experts. The clauses will ramp up the use of age assessments by altering established guidance on when assessments are required, requiring them even when there is no reason to doubt a child’s age. They will allow the Home Office to meddle in an area that should be a matter for child protection and safeguarding teams, and to introduce new, unsupported, inaccurate and unethical scientific methods of assessment. Our amendments 122 to 126 seek to undo the damage of those provisions and leave those with expertise, not an anti-refugee agenda, in charge.
Finally, our new clause 32 simply requires the Bill to be interpreted so far as possible in line with the refugee convention. If the Government maintain there is nothing contrary to the convention in the Bill, surely they will have no problem with that new clause? The reality is, as numerous published legal opinions show, that these provisions are a blatant assault on the refugee convention, and the most vulnerable in the world will suffer. Our amendments seek to ameliorate some of the most outrageous aspects of the Bill, but the truth is that the whole thing needs to be canned.
Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con)
My amendment 150 to clause 28, using the “notwithstanding” formula, would exclude the Human Rights Act 1998, the European convention on human rights, EU and retained law and the United Nations refugee convention from judicial authority and judgment. This is all about tackling illegal immigration, which our 2019 manifesto made clear that we intended to and must resolve.
The amendment is not against genuine persecuted refugees; this is about economic migrants who claim that they are within the legal framework of protected refugees. The illegal traffickers convince them to use our human rights laws to come over to our shores in the certain knowledge that they will be protected by our judicial system. Illegal immigrants have no right to enter our borders. Despite the difficult journey that they have made to the French coast, they have no greater right to come here than any other illegal immigrant. When they come, as the traffickers have promised them, they are almost all allowed to stay under Home Office guidance and are protected by the judiciary. They then bring their families across and, with the benefits that they claim—not to mention education and housing—they enter what they believe to be the land of milk and honey. The returns are negligible because of the human rights legislation, as it stands.
John Redwood
I strongly support my hon. Friend’s amendment. Did he note that when I asked the Minister for an assurance that the legislation, unamended, would be proof against human rights legislation distorting the intent, he was not able to give me that assurance?
Sir William Cash
Not only was the Minister not able to, but he did not want to.
This year alone, 26,000 have entered and, unless the legal loopholes are effectively stopped, they will continue to come in a tsunami of numbers next year. The Government have provided a remedy partially in this Bill but not yet regarding the full legal framework of the Human Rights Act, the European convention on human rights, EU retained law and the refugee convention of 1951, as amended with universal application in 1967 by a protocol. On EU retained law alone, I have found on the Government’s website in the National Archives that this amounts to as many as 123 directives and regulations, spelling out masses of laws relating to asylum and immigration that originated in EU law and are now on our statute book, although a few have been revoked.
The official Home Office policy guidance for asylum screening is still essentially based on the same law, and it makes for dismal reading. It is essential that that is changed. At present, an asylum claim must be registered where an individual fears persecution or serious harm of persecution for any given reason on return to their country. How to evaluate a fear varies with every individual and can in many cases be deliberately exaggerated.
To be recognised as a refugee under the UN refugee convention, the claimant can assert that they have a well-founded fear of persecution and be not only unable, but unwilling, to go back to their country of origin or habitual residence. That can be invoked on grounds which include mere political opinions. Furthermore, they can claim that they are within the judicial sphere of “the humanitarian protection policy”, and the discretion as to whether an asylum claim should be accepted is heavily weighted in favour of asylum, even if the claimants do not even use the term “asylum” when they arrive on our shores.
A paper by the highly distinguished former professor of law at Oxford, John Finnis, and Simon Murray explains in graphic terms the law and case law in more than 100 pages of detailed analysis. They conclude that the European Court of Human Rights has wrongly circumvented fundamental principles originated in the European convention on human rights and the 1951 refugee convention. They also argue that, properly interpreted, the UK and other signatory states have no obligation to let in refugees arriving at our borders en masse, have no legal or treaty obligation to accept refuges at all, and have no obligation to provide asylum for dangerous refugees, such as criminals and terrorists.
The European Court, by radical and unwarranted interpretation, has used the article 3 provisions on torture and inhuman treatment and the article 8 provisions on the right to private and family life to extend the ambit of claimants to encourage them to engage in unlawful immigration. That has been done through the formula of so-called living instruments and recent UK judicial rulings that have continuously expanded claimants’ rights within the judicial system. Claimants are granted repetitive appeals that bring the immigration system under intense pressure at monumental expense to the taxpayer, with grave political consequences on the doorstep.
We need to pull the rug from under the traffickers’ feet, save the lives of those who are exploited by them, and protect our own manifesto promises. Despite the Government’s good intentions in aspects of the Bill, we must solve the fundamental problems presented by the human rights legislation and the legal framework of the provisions that I have mentioned. We cannot continue, with unwarranted interpretation and judgments by the judiciary, to allow illegal immigration.
I seek robust assurances today from the Government to resolve the matter by legislation, and I will press my amendment unless I get them. We cannot go on kicking the can down the yellow brick road. The journey has begun, but the question is where it ends. The yellow brick road is not only in disrepair, as it was in “The Wizard of Oz”, but littered with political precipices.
Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)
I rise to speak to amendments 96 to 100 and 102, which stand in my name and those of other hon. Members. They arise from the legislative scrutiny of the Bill by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
I remind hon. Members that the Joint Committee is a cross-party Committee with half its members from the House of Commons and half from the House of Lords. We undertake legislative scrutiny of all Bills for their human rights implications. We have taken evidence on the Bill from many people—including the Minister, for whose evidence we are grateful—and we are advised by our own legal experts.
In our report, which we published on 1 December, we concluded that the proposed new measures to criminalise those who enter the UK without a visa or without leave will breach human rights law and the refugee convention; our amendment 102 would deal with that. We also concluded that there should be no immunity from prosecution if criminal offences are committed by border officials, particularly where they lead to loss of life; our amendment 100 would deal with that. I hope that the Government will accept both amendments.
Our amendments 96 to 99 would deal with the major issues relating to pushbacks. The Bill provides greater powers for Border Force to “board, divert and detain” vessels. The Government acknowledge that crossings are perilous; this debate takes place in the shadow of the 27 people who drowned in the channel. The Minister was clear in his evidence to the Joint Committee that he does not want Government action to be the cause of yet more lives lost. Of course not.
Our amendment 97 would circumscribe the new powers to ensure that they could not be used against unseaworthy vessels such as dinghies. Our amendment 98 would ensure that they could not
“be used in a manner…that could endanger life at sea.”
Our amendment 96 would ensure that they could be used only in a way that complies with international maritime law, which the Government say they want to comply with. The Minister said in evidence to us that that is the Government’s intention and that they would make that intention clear in operational directions—but if the power is in the Bill, so should the protections be.
Given the Government’s intention, what reason could they possibly have to oppose the amendments? The Government have a big majority and can whip to vote them down, but the amendments have been tabled by a cross-party Committee of both Houses, they have been expertly drafted by our legal counsel, and they represent what the Government say is their intention.
The Minister is new and enthusiastic in his role. He was very forthcoming in his evidence to our Committee, and he and I have spoken about the subject privately, for which I am grateful. I offer him a bit of advice: not to be the Minister who votes our amendments down just because he can, not to be the Minister who makes his Back Benchers vote against ensuring that lives are not endangered—that is not the right thing for him to do—and not to be the Minister who gives new powers to Border Force that cost lives at sea.
Our amendments allow for the new powers, but make them compliant with international law and make them safe. The Government have no reason to oppose the amendments, so I hope that the Minister will say to his colleagues and his civil servants that he wants to reflect on them because he does not want to stand in the way of putting the Government’s intentions on the face of the Bill. If the Government do oppose the amendments, we will seek to press amendment 98 to a Division, but I hope that that will not be necessary.
Mr David Davis
May I say what a pleasure it is to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), and how sad I am that she will not be standing in the next election? May I also say what a particular pleasure it was to hear my old friend the Minister make such a measured and balanced case? I was very proud of him. That does not mean that we are going to agree on everything, as he will hear in a minute, but I think that he put a very good case.
The current asylum system is broken not just for us but for most of Europe; we should understand that this is not simply a national issue. It rewards smuggling gangs who prey on the desperate, it punishes those with genuine needs through bureaucratic impediments and it pushes the most vulnerable into harm’s way. We know, of course, that thousands have arrived across the channel and dozens, at least, have died as a result. We must find a system that destroys the criminal network underpinning this crisis, vigorously pursues enhanced co-operation with the French and other European parties, and distinguishes properly between economic migrants and those fleeing persecution. At present, we do not do that properly.
I believe that the Home Secretary is entirely committed to these approaches but, unfortunately, while I think that this is a very good Bill in many ways, one element of it—offshoring—sacrifices our long-term values to short-term political expediency, with fairly little chance of success.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
We agree on many things, but perhaps not on this. Does my right hon. Friend accept that, unless we get rid of the pull factor, we will never solve this problem? It is not necessary to go offshore. As my new clause 23 makes clear, it is possible to ensure that anyone who enters this country illegally from a safe country will be held in secure accommodation. The reason people keep coming here is that they know they will vanish in the community and will never be deported. Will my right hon. Friend, who is so good in so many ways, at least look at what we are proposing?
Mr Davis
Of course I will look at it. I have said to the Ministers that much of the Bill is worth while. My right hon. Friend is right about the pull factor, and there are many other things we can do. I have had discussions with the Minister about, for example, improving our surveillance. The irony is that at the moment Frontex, using British surveillance operations, does a better job in the Mediterranean than the Home Office does in the channel. There are many things we can do, and yes, I will look at all available options, as long as they are humane.
Clause 28 and schedule 3 grant the Home Office the legal powers to create an offshore processing system. I am afraid I must say to those on this side of the House that it is based on something of a mythology. It is based on the Australian Government’s approach in 2013. Its scope would allow children, modern slavery victims and torture survivors to be detained offshore, in a place where we have little legal control. The Australian model of offshoring was seriously problematic on a humanitarian level, and the supposed deterrent effect of the policy was really down to an aggressive push-back policy. What the Australians did was push those ships back effectively into the middle of the Pacific, or Indonesian waters in the Pacific. That was the biggest impact. It relates to the point made by my right hon. Friend about the attractiveness of these things.
The Refugee Council of Australia has documented the gut-wrenching sexual, physical and mental abuse that has pushed vulnerable children toward suicide. A 14-year-old girl, held offshore for five years, doused herself in petrol and tried to set herself alight; fortunately, she was stopped. A 10-year-old boy attempted suicide three times. A 12-year-old boy, held offshore for five years, had to be medically transferred to Australia because he had tried to starve himself to death and had reached the point at which he could not even stand up because he was so weak.
Members might think that these are isolated cases, but tragically they are not. From May 2013 to October 2015, there were 2,116 documented assaults, sexual abuse cases or self-harm attempts. More than half of them applied to children. I say that more than half applied to children; only one fifth of the asylum seekers were actually children. So that is an astonishing humanitarian record for that policy.
I know there is a lot of doorstep politics involved in this, but if this were to happen on our watch, just imagine how the public would respond to serious harm being done to a child nominally in our care. Remember what happened when the Iranian Kurdish child of four was shown drowned on a Greek beach? It would be something like that, but in our own control. I do not want to see any British Government of any persuasion facing that.
Anne McLaughlin
I thank the right hon. Member for everything that he is doing on this. He will be aware of Madeline Gleeson, the Australian lawyer, academic and author of the book “Offshore”, who is an expert on offshoring. She said that, once we commit to something like offshoring, there is no going back, and she asked me to tell any Members who were tempted to vote for it that, even for those in Australia who opposed it, the burden on their consciences is to this day a heavy one. So will the right hon. Member join me in urging those Members tempted to vote in favour of offshoring to search their consciences and not do this to themselves or to those children?
Mr Davis
I think everybody in this House wants to do the right thing by our own country and the right thing by vulnerable people too. I do not except anybody from that. What I am trying to do here is to let people know what will happen, before we are fixed with the system and then find ourselves defending something that may turn out to be indefensible. That is my real concern about this element of the Bill, and in my view, the biggest argument is on humanitarian issues.
Also, as Conservatives, we should think about the cost. By any measure, this will be eye-wateringly expensive. At the moment, we spend £1.4 billion annually on asylum costs. That is about £11,000 per asylum seeker. Australia has spent £4.3 billion on just over 3,000 asylum seekers. That is about £1.38 million per person. As an ex-Public Accounts Committee Chairman, I looked rather askance at that and went through it with a fine-toothed comb, and I can tell the House that it is right. If we applied that cost to our asylum situation, we would be talking about something like £34 billion or £35 billion, which is the size of the Government Department. Let us imagine that we were twice as effective as that: the cost would still be £17 billion. Are we really talking about doing something like that? The reason for this is, of course, that we would effectively have to bribe the country that would take the asylum seekers.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Is my right hon. Friend not overlooking the deterrent effect that this would have?
Mr Davis
I hear lots of cheering. That was the argument with respect to the Australian system, but the real deterrent effect of the Australian system was the pushback. The fact is that nobody got to Australia. That was the main effect.
In the past, we have had an argument within our own party about the hostile environment. Remember the hostile environment policy that we lived with for a long time? It did not work. We tried it and it brought our reputation down, so thank you for that. My hon. Friend is right to talk about the pull effect and the deterrent effect. They are all important, but we have to do this in such a way that we can stand by and be proud of it at the end of the policy. That is why I am saying to the House now: this is what it will look like, come the day, and it is not something that I will be proud of. For that reason, I urge the House to support my amendments.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
I am in favour of a number of amendments, but for the purposes of time I will largely keep my comments to new clauses 12 and 13 in my own name and new clause 14 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Bell Ribeiro-Addy). New clause 12 would provide recourse to public funds to everyone holding a valid UK residence permit. New clause 13 would repeal the sections in the 2014 and 2016 Immigration Acts that restrict undocumented migrants’ access to work and services. New clause 14 seeks to abolish the immigration health surcharge. I am pleased these new clauses have received lots of support from Members across the House.
It will perhaps be obvious to colleagues that these new clauses are about addressing the unjust suffering caused by the Government’s hostile environment, a term used to describe all the policies that make life difficult for migrants living in the UK by explicitly and deliberately treating them as less deserving of dignity and humanity than British citizens.
My new clause 13, in particular, seeks to overturn the denial of basic human rights. Members will know from their constituency casework that the consequences are brutal and wide-reaching. The hostile environment deters people from reporting crime to the police or from calling out unsafe conditions and exploitative practices at work. It undermines trade union rights and pushes people into poor-quality and dangerous accommodation and homelessness. As new clause 14 highlights, the hostile environment even denies access to healthcare by scaring people from going to the doctor for fear of being charged or being reported, detained and deported.
No recourse to public funds, which new clause 12 addresses, abandons some migrants to having no safety net. It leaves children hungry, it pushes families into poverty and unsafe, overcrowded housing, and it means women, in particular, who flee abusive partners are not entitled to access mainstream refuges. It is breathtakingly cruel and unjust.
The disproportionate suffering that has been inflicted on migrants during the pandemic is well known, if apparently forgotten by this Government. Not only does the hostile environment produce a culture of fear that often risks the NHS being unable to do its job, but it puts all our communities in danger. Although such policies try to incentivise us to be suspicious of one another, they are not in the interest of the majority of people. It should be no surprise that the Bill is another horrifying extension of such an approach. It undermines human decency and must be opposed in every way.
The fact this is all in the context of the ongoing tragedy of people drowning in the English channel is chilling. That such people now potentially face jail sentences if they survive such precarious journeys, as well as an even more hostile environment, is catastrophically wrong.
I emphasise the humanity that runs through the amendments I am supporting today. We have to stop the political immigration game of misinformation and cynicism that has such horrendous human cost. There is no doubt that one of the reasons we are seeing scenes of desperate people trying to cross the channel is the lazy but deadly anti-migrant political agenda that closes off safe routes to the UK.
One of the biggest myths perpetuated by politicians is that they are too afraid to talk about migration when, in fact, the opposite is true. The more politicians talk about being tough on migration, the more they just talk about being tough on migration. For decades the rate of lawmaking in this area has exceeded the rate of lawmaking in every other social policy area.
When people repeat half-truths and inaccuracies and attempt to utilise society’s fears, prejudices and anxieties for opportunistic so-called political gain, a climate of acceptance is created for such ideas at all levels of society. The mainstream media must also reflect on the role of their focus on numbers and their use of words such as “flood,” “influx” and “waves.” I am sorry that the hon. Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) used the word “tsunami,” which is a disgrace.
Yet it is simply untrue that Britain takes in more refugees than everywhere else, and research shows that two thirds of asylum seekers crossing the channel in boats, for example, are finally granted asylum by the Government’s own measurements. Yes, we need solutions to the soaring inequality, the suffering and the frightening covid death toll over which this Government have presided, but we do not need suspicion and scapegoats. Wherever we are from, we all need a roof over our head, food to eat, healthcare and basic human kindness and solidarity. Surely the true measure of a civilised society is not in its hostility but in its humanity.
I commended these new clauses to the House.
Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)
I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests in respect of the support I get from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy project. It includes a cross-party group of MPs who, to follow on from the comments made by the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Apsana Begum), absolutely seek to take the toxicity out of this debate, to find consensus, to be careful in the language we use, and to find agreement and, indeed, pragmatic solutions. When it comes to crossing the channel in small boats, we certainly need pragmatic solutions.
Tom Pursglove
My right hon. Friend speaks with great passion on this issue, and I am grateful for the constructive way in which she has gone about raising concerns in this policy area. I wish to emphasise that we will always act in accordance with our international obligations, and to be very clear that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will not be subject to inadmissibility or transferred for offshore processing. It is also important to say that we will not split family units, because that would be contrary to our international obligations.
Caroline Nokes
I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will not mind my instantly picking up on the fact that he very specifically said that “unaccompanied” asylum-seeking children would not be sent offshore, and that we would not split families. I also seek his assurance that we will not send whole families to have their claims decided offshore, and a further assurance that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who have been accepted into the asylum process will not fall out of it again once they turn 18. To me, it is absolutely imperative that if somebody’s claim is to be decided here, it should be decided here, not diverted midway through the process because they pass an arbitrary age.
I have real concerns about the creation of two tiers of asylum seeker. I tend to use this illustration. We saw horrific scenes in Afghanistan when female judges and female Members of Parliament sought to flee that country. We have put in place some schemes—it is important to emphasise that they are not yet up and running—around the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. Let me draw for the House the image of one female judge who comes to this country under that scheme when it is up and running. She is accepted into our country and is promptly given indefinite leave to remain and the right to work. A second female judge arrives on a small boat, but otherwise the circumstances are the same, in that she would be at risk if she returned to Afghanistan. We seek to offshore her. It causes me real concern that we will create a two-tier system in which people with identical claims to safety—at identical risk from the Taliban—are treated very differently.
I wish to raise concerns about where we might send people. I do not presume to know which countries the Home Office is in discussions with, but they might include Albania, which is in mainland Europe and not part of the European Union. There is already a well-established route from Albania to this country in the back of a van. We could be in a situation where we pay a third country a significant amount of money to accept someone into their asylum system—this is different from the model outlined by my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden—but they are then refused. At that point, what is there to stop that person seeking to come back to this country immediately? There could be some sort of circular trade, in which people end up back on our shores, whether in the back of a van or a small boat, and so the cycle goes round and round.
I have some experience as a former Immigration Minister, so I know full well that at this time of year, there is a very popular journey using the return flight to Tirana. [Interruption.] I can see that you want me to hurry up, Madam Deputy Speaker, so I will. There is the question of whether people might see an opportunity to head off to a different country, and then end up back here, whether their claim was accepted or denied in that third country.
We must get the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme up and running, and make it effective. We should also fulfil the commitment we made to vulnerable people when the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and the vulnerable children’s resettlement scheme came to their conclusion. We cannot talk about safe and legal routes unless we actually have some, and it is imperative that we have them.
I am now stretching your patience, Madam Deputy Speaker, but let me finally address the comments of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) about push-back. I was the Immigration Minister who rejected that idea because I thought that it was too dangerous to do in one of the busiest shipping lanes in the country, with vulnerable and overladen boats carrying women and children, in choppy seas. We should think very carefully before going down that route, because no Minister at all wishes to be responsible for more loss of life in the channel.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I will have to implement a three-minute limit; otherwise, we simply will not get people in.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
This Bill is literally inhumane: it dehumanises asylum seekers, puts lives at risk and turns people into criminals for simply attempting to exercise their basic human rights. But the UK Government are not going to let small matters such as fundamental human rights, the rule of law and natural justice get in the way of their hostile environment, and their attempts to exclude practically anyone who is not a tax-dodging billionaire from settling on these shores. We keep hearing, “The asylum system is broken” from those on the Government Benches. Well, how did that happen? The Government have been in power for 10 years, and the environment has only become more hostile. Perhaps a different approach is needed.
It is for that reason that I support the right to work outlined in new clause 45, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North West (Carol Monaghan). The right to work is a human right. It is in the universal declaration of human rights, and although it might be denied, it cannot be taken away. Lots of us heard that last week from people who had travelled from Glasgow and the Maryhill Integration Network to speak to us about the issue. They want to work, contribute and share their skills.
Instead of people being a cost to the system, we should let them contribute to the system. Instead of them receiving meagre, insulting support payments from taxpayer, we should let them become taxpayers, but that is not something that the Government are interested in. I do not know when a Government Minister last had to sit in a constituency surgery and look at a biometric card that says, “No right to work” or “No recourse to public funds”. It is one of the most heartbreaking things that Members of this House have to do, and it is a complete insult, because being able to work is a human right.
I also support new clause 9 on EU certification, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Dame Meg Hillier), because it would correct another historical wrong. I have constituents who have had emails saying, “Congratulations, you have your settled status. By the way, this email is not proof of your settled status.” Quite how they are supposed to prove that status if they do not have the documentation is beyond me, but it is all part of a Home Office agenda that does not want people to make the United Kingdom their home.
The Government want to close borders, shut down routes to citizenship and send a general message that says, “Unless you have lots of money, you’re not really welcome here.” How can the UK ever be the first safe country of arrival? We are surrounded by water. It is simply not possible. That approach would mean that practically everyone turning up here to claim asylum—whether on a ship or small boat or at an airport—would become a criminal. That is rejected by people in Glasgow North and across Scotland. I look forward to the day when we can have an open, generous, accessible pathway to asylum and citizenship, for those who want to take it up, in an independent Scotland.
Sir Christopher Chope
It is not just the asylum system that is broken; it is also the immigration enforcement system. Last year, the Public Accounts Committee reminded us that the immigration enforcement directorate has 5,000 staff and costs £400 million a year to run, but that every year for the last several years, there have been fewer enforced removals and fewer voluntary returns. In 2019—the last year for which figures were available—there were only 55 convictions for all immigration offences, yet we know that there are probably 1.2 million illegal immigrants in this country. I therefore ask the Minister: what is happening to the published aim of the immigration enforcement directorate, which is,
“to reduce the size of the illegal population and the harm it causes”?
The reason why I tabled new clause 18—I much appreciate the support of the 17 colleagues who have signed it—it is that it would make it clear that it is a criminal offence to be in the United Kingdom illegally. Most people find it amazing that it is not already a criminal offence. It is a criminal offence to watch a television without a television licence, but not to be in this country without authority. My new clause would change that and address the issue of all the people who are here unlawfully.
Sky News has suggested that there may be about 87,000 new illegal immigrants coming in each year. Very few of those, relatively speaking, are failed asylum seekers. There is a much bigger problem of clandestines—those arriving without documents—and there is a very large number, estimated to be 66,000, of people who stay beyond any visa entitlement. We have to deal with the wider issue of illegal migrants and enforce it properly.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I will be prioritising people who have tabled amendments.
Dame Meg Hillier (Hackney South and Shoreditch) (Lab/Co-op)
Before I speak to my new clause 9, I want to associate myself fully with the comments of the right hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes). In normal times that might surprise people, but I think she put very eloquently the real challenges and issues of offshoring and pushing back.
New clause 9 calls on the Home Office to fill the gap between the digital-by-default proof of status under the EU settlement scheme and the reality of people’s lives. It is typical of the Home Office to have set up a system that does not understand the interactions that people will have to have while proving their status. I thank the Minister for speaking to me about this, and for his letter of today.
Let me give some facts. I represent over 10,000 EU citizens in Hackney South and Shoreditch; my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) represents many thousands more. In my constituency, they are 8.5% of the population. Some 60% of Roma people are unable to access digital proof, and there are other groups who have real problems with digital access. Let me mention just some of the cases in my case load. An EU citizen living in my constituency who visits France weekly for work is interrogated by Border Force every time she arrives back in the UK. Another constituent has parents in their 70s who struggle to understand the complex process of proving their status digitally. Another case involves a freelancer who has had to prove his identity to every new employer, which can be every five or six weeks. The website is sometimes down, and many employers just do not want to engage, so he has lost money.
Another constituent works for a charity working with the Roma; it gave the figure of 60% of Roma people finding it difficult to access digital proof. I thank the3million, which has written to me since I tabled the new clause and explained many of these situations, which I do not have time to go into, but I reiterate the concerns of my constituents.
I say to the Minister, whose job I did just over a decade ago, that we are not so far apart on this. I, too, support methods that take us away from the old Immigration and Nationality Directorate letters, which many of my constituents still come to surgeries with in their wallets, folded up until they are falling apart. They are not a great way of proving one’s status in the UK. People lose passports. There are gaps in the system. We have seen with the covid app how we can make a difference by combining digital and paper.
Kevin Foster
An app-based solution was helpfully suggested by the3million. Having held my role, the hon. Lady will know the usual sorts of security caveats that we would add, but it is certainly something we will look at.
Dame Meg Hillier
I thank the Minister for that—it is a bit of a breakthrough. It is important that the Home Office remembers that people will lose records. When they are travelling, they will be in places where there is no wi-fi through which they can access information. A time-limited document that they at least have the option to have on paper would be a very welcome move.
On the basis of what the Minister has said—I will watch him like a hawk on this—I will not press my new clause to a vote, but the hon. Members who signed it have a very strong interest in this. We are talking about EU citizens who have made their life in this country, and we need to give them the comfort that they deserve, so that they can go about their ordinary lives easily and effectively.
Richard Graham
I rise to comment on new clause 52. This is important, because in April 2019, I wrote a letter with the former Member for Bridgend, Madeleine Moon, to the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid), and then to his successor a few months afterwards. In that letter, we called for a waiver of fees for Commonwealth servicemen and women. The new clause rightly amends that to all non-UK citizens in the new clause, which is effectively the core of what the new clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer) calls for. It is good to see him in his place this evening and back in the House. I welcome that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
It goes without saying that if colleagues can take less than three minutes, we will get more people in.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
No pressure, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak in support of new clauses 10 and 11 and amendment 8 in my name. I do not say this lightly, but there is a deep wickedness at the heart of this Bill, matched only by its stupidity, because of its reliance on a bogus narrative that we are being—whatever the language used—“swamped” by asylum seekers.
Let us have some facts that might help Back Benchers on the Government Benches. First, 2% of the world’s population lives in the United Kingdom, and 0.65% of the world’s refugees are in the United Kingdom. We are not taking our fair share; we are not overwhelmed. We take fewer the half the number of asylum seekers we did 20 years ago. We are 17th in the league table—lower mid-table—of countries in Europe when it comes to taking asylum seekers per head of population. Germany takes three times more and France takes two and a half times more than we do.
We hear from the Minister that our asylum system is broken. Yes, it is, but not because it is deluged by too many asylum seekers, because evidentially that is not true; it is broken because of incompetence on the part of the Home Office. The Government’s argument is the equivalent of blaming patients for NHS waiting lists. It is unacceptable and it is wrong.
The numbers crossing the channel are tragic and awful, and it is obvious why it is the case. It is because we have seen a clampdown, because of covid and security, on people crossing the channel through other unsafe routes, such as the channel tunnel and ferries. As the narrower routes across the channel have been more heavily policed, what have we seen people doing? We have seen people taking more dangerous routes. The evidence shows us that when a route is closed off, people find further, more unsafe routes, so the Government’s policy will see more people dead in the channel. That is clearly what will happen unless they introduce safe routes. [Interruption.] There is a whole lot of rhetoric about safe routes and no action whatever.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I think all this shouting across the Chamber is not doing anybody any favours.
Tim Farron
Members on the Government Benches can shout, but they are literally voting for something that will see more people dead in the channel. This Bill is a charter for the people traffickers, and the only answer is safe routes. If we offer them the humanitarian visa as a safe route, we offer them the opportunity to do something that is not just morally right, but would actually solve the problem we are seeking to solve. The reality is that we have here a room full of comfortable people creating a two-tier asylum system that will decide between the deserving and undeserving asylum seeker. That is not just morally wrong but against international law. It is undermining Britain’s international standing and weakening our position on a range of issues while doing something morally shameful and undermining everything it is to be British.
Mrs Natalie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)
I rise in support of amendment 150 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash), to which I am a signatory. Before I turn to that, I welcome Government amendments 60 to 63 and pay tribute to the Border Force, coastguard, RNLI and search and rescue organisations operating in Dover and Deal and across east Kent who, day after day, month after month and year after year put their lives on the line to save those at peril on the sea.
It is an uncomfortable truth but a truth all the same—and one on which the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) is wrong—that every person put in peril by the people smugglers is already safe on land in France and in many other countries before France. When we remember the 27 people who recently died, as well as the many other lives lost, we must be united in this place to do whatever it takes to stop more lives being lost in the English channel.
The second uncomfortable truth is that, whatever Opposition Members way wish to say, there are safe and legal routes to come to this country. The Bill shows compassion to those most in need of assistance and prioritises them over people who choose unsafe and illegal routes of entry. Clauses 29 to 37 make it clear that refuge will always be available to people persecuted by reason of their religious, political or other beliefs, their race, their ethnicity or their sexuality. It is right to prioritise protection of those most in need of it.
The third uncomfortable truth is that it is possible to have help for those people in greatest need and to have strong borders. It is possible to have help for those who need it and to ensure that our country has strong and secure protection. It is vital that that is supported in the Bill.
Finally, I turn to the refugee convention, which is now 80 years old and out of date. With some 80 million displaced across the globe, we need a new global compact —a COP26 for the migrant crisis—to ensure that we finally work together globally to put an end to the migrant crisis and the small boat crossing routes that are leading to lost lives in the English channel.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am sorry, but I am going to put a two-minute limit on speeches. I know that will not be popular, but I will not get everyone in anyway. I am sure that our next speaker, who will be the last on three minutes, will try to stick to two.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
I will do my very best, Madam Deputy Speaker. I rise to speak to new clause 44 on safe and legal routes, which is tabled in my name, and new clauses 15 to 17 on a statutory limit on immigration detention, which I tabled with the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller). I pay tribute to him for his work on the issue.
New clause 44 goes to the heart of the Bill’s supposed objectives, which are predicated on stopping irregular arrivals of asylum seekers by encouraging those fleeing war and persecution to access safe and legal routes. However, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme announced as urgent in August is still not operational, the Syrian scheme has closed, the gateway scheme is not operational and the UK resettlement scheme that opened in February with a commitment to resettle 5,000 people in year one has taken just 770 people. It is a cruel deceit to say that the Bill’s measures encourage the use of safe and legal routes if we have no such meaningful routes.
There is much in the Bill to be concerned about, such as differentiation of refugees in contravention of international law, offshoring of processing claims away from protection, pushing back rubber dinghies and risking lives. Importantly, the Government’s own impact assessment says that the evidence base for such measures is “limited” and that they
“could encourage…cohorts to attempt riskier means of entering the UK.”
However, that is all justified in the name of encouraging safe and legal routes. The Government must face up to their responsibility and deliver those routes.
On new clauses 15 to 17, we are seeking to place a statutory limit on immigration detention and to respond to a missed opportunity in this Bill. I was the vice-chair of a cross-party inquiry over eight months in 2014, with parliamentarians from both sides of the House and all main parties—there were more Government Members than there were Opposition Members—as well as a retired Law Lord, a former chief inspector of prisons and, of course, the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire. Our recommendations, which included the limit on detention contained in new clauses 15 to 17, were endorsed by this House in September 2014, so it is disappointing that we are still debating them seven years on.
This is not a particularly controversial proposal. We are unusual in this country in having no limit. During our inquiry, we spoke to a young man who had been trafficked from the Cameroon-Nigeria border. He had been beaten, raped and tortured, and he had made an irregular route to this country on a false passport. He had been detained for three years in contravention of the stated aims of the Home Office that those who have been trafficked should not be detained, that those who have been tortured should not be detained and that detention should be for the shortest possible period. Time and again, we were told that detention was worse than prison, because in prison someone knows when they will get out, but that sense of hopelessness and despair leads to hugely deteriorating mental health.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am sorry, but time is up.
Sir Edward Leigh
The Pope was recently in Greece, and he criticised European Governments for their lack of humanity to migrants. Normally I agree with the Pope, and it is his job to stand up for the poor and the dispossessed of the world, but—leaving aside the fact that if Greece accepted 100 a day, 1,000 would come tomorrow, and that if it accepted 1,000 the next day, 2,000 would come the day after that—there are countries in the world in such an appalling mess, such as Syria, Iraq, Libya and Somalia, that there is no limit to how many people would want to come here.
The people crossing the channel are not the world’s poorest. They are paying £6,000 or £7,000 to get here. They are not the world’s poorest people; they are economic migrants. If we are weak as a Government, we are actually being inhumane. We are putting people’s lives at risk because more and more people will come to our shores and risk the channel. So to be kind, it may be a cliché, but we have to be tough and we have to get rid of the pull factor. There is no point in going on blaming the French. Of course, we would like them to take people back, but they probably will not.
We have to get rid of the pull factor, and that is why I have put forward new clause 23. The only way we are going to stop this is if we put economic migrants who enter this country illegally in secure accommodation. They know that they can vanish in the community, there is a minuscule chance of their being deported, and they have better chances and better job prospects here than in France and elsewhere, so the Government have to get firm and tough on this. By the way, according to the law of the sea, it would be perfectly legal for them to escort economic migrants back to the shores of France with Border Force vessels. I say to the Government: act now, get tough, or people will die.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
I have to say there were a lot of myths and misunderstandings in that last contribution.
I want to speak to amendments 113 and 13 in my name, and to endorse new clauses 10, 11 and 28, of which I am a co-sponsor. Amendment 113 prohibits the UK from acting in breach of the UK’s international obligations. In particular, the notions of pushback and offshoring are the most extreme manifestations of the hostile environment, and there is the scapegoating and dehumanisation of those fleeing war and persecution.
Amendment 13 is on an entirely different issue that has not been touched on in the debate, nor indeed was it much in Committee. It relates to electronic travel authorisations, and in particular what is going to happen about movement on the island of Ireland. These authorisations will be required for all non-Irish visitors who wish to enter the United Kingdom, including via the land border.
While the Government insist that there will be no routine immigration checks on the land border on the island of Ireland, these requirements will nevertheless create new bureaucracy and legal uncertainty for thousands of EU citizens—and, indeed, other non-British and non-Irish residents south of the border—who cross the border often on a daily basis, whether for family visitation, to work, to shop, for healthcare, for education or for leisure. Indeed, there are some circumstances where the straightest route between two points actually involves crossing into Northern Ireland, sometimes on several occasions.
The Government might say that they are committed to no new checks, but people will be placed in legal uncertainty and, if there is any interaction with the UK state, major consequences may flow from that. The potential repercussions could be as severe as people going to prison. This is not practical on the island of Ireland, and I urge the Government to reconsider what they are doing in terms of electronic travel authorisations.
David Simmonds
The UK has a long-standing reputation as a beacon of human rights, but we in the House must recognise that we have enormous discretion under international law, and indeed under domestic law, regarding how we exercise our responsibilities. Many of the controversies around the Bill are about the operations, rather than the legislation itself. Having sat on the Joint Committee on Human Rights as we took evidence on a number of these issues, it is clear that there are matters of opinion about whether pushbacks, for example, which are freely used by Frontex, the European Union border agency in the Mediterranean, are for or against and within international law.
I share the concerns expressed about the methods currently available to science, and I agree we would not wish to see those used at present. I agree, however, that it should be open to the Home Office, should effective scientific methods be developed, to use such methods for the purposes of age assessments. I welcome the engagement of the Minister, and other Ministers, on those issues.
I will conclude with two points. First, I agree strongly with my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mrs Elphicke) on the point about needing a new COP26 on the issue of global migration. The world is changing, and the challenges faced by asylum seekers and the numbers on the move mean we must update the way we respond, in partnership with our allies. Finally, I will comment on some of those international obligations, which are often heavily criticised. The UK is rarely referred to the European Court of Human Rights for any breach of our laws, and we are rarely criticised. Indeed, the findings of that Court are not binding on the United Kingdom. As a champion of human rights we should be proud of the UK’s record in that respect, and we should renew our dedication to being a beacon of human rights in the future.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The asylum system certainly is broken, and this is not the Bill to fix it. On the Afghan resettlement scheme, where is it? How can we trust the Government to deliver any of these programmes, or anything to fix our asylum scheme, if we cannot even come up with that scheme, after many months, and after all of us in the House having received desperate emails from people in Afghanistan who were under threat? I agree with new clause 52, which would waiver visa fees for Commonwealth veterans. We ask them to put their life on the line as members of our country, yet we do not pay their pensions, and we do not allow them and their families visas to say that they are citizens of this country. What more can we ask?
I really want to focus on family reunion. I have stood in the camps of Calais and seen people smugglers wandering around, very maliciously. I have seen the people smugglers about whom so much is made, but it will not be measures in this Bill that sort them out. One missing area is that of family reunion. One of those 27 men, women and children who tragically died in the channel was Harem Pirot. He was fleeing for his life from Iraq, to reach his brother, Anwar, a Sheffield graduate living in Cambridge, who then had to go to Calais to identify his brother’s body. We could cut so many smuggling routes if we were to allow family reunion, yet there is nothing in the Bill about that. Such a measure was promised after the EU Withdrawal Bill, and I talked about it in my maiden speech. It was promised when we discussed the Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020, and it was promised in the new plan for immigration that there would be a safe and legal route for refugees, and for people fleeing for their lives to whom we can offer safe harbour. Family reunion needs to be put back into the Bill for it to work in the way it is intended.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I will now call the Minister, but I am sure he is aware that there may be people who might like to intervene.
Tom Pursglove
I thank hon. Members for their contributions to the debate and for the way in which most of those contributions were expressed. We are dealing with difficult matters, on which Members have strongly and deeply held convictions.
As I have said, it is vital that we do everything in our power to break the business model of evil criminal gangs and reform the broken asylum system. I am conscious of the time constraints, but I will address a number of amendments that have sparked a lot of today’s debate.
Let me start by addressing amendment 150 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Sir William Cash) on removal to safe third countries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (John Redwood) also raised that, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) has been following it. My right hon. and hon. Friends are absolutely right in the sentiments that they have expressed in the amendment. I thank them for their full support on the policy intention, including on third country processing of asylum applications.
There is a recognition that certain existing laws may prevent the Government from achieving our aim to remove those with no legal basis to remain in the country. The legal barriers associated with the removal of failed asylum seekers and foreign national offenders are well known. That is why there is work under way across the Government to look at the further legal barriers to removal.
I therefore reassure my right hon. and hon. Friends, and colleagues more widely, that there are no insurmountable domestic legal barriers to transferring eligible individuals overseas under an asylum processing arrangement. Schedule 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 allows the Secretary of State to remove an individual with a pending asylum claim from the UK to a safe third state if a relevant certificate is issued. The Bill amends section 77 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to make it easier to remove someone to a safe third country without having to issue a certificate.
Obviously, the Bill complies fully with our international obligations, but the Home Secretary fully agrees with the sentiment that is expressed through amendment 150 about the challenges that frustrate the will of the British people in terms of our ability to remove people with no right to be in the UK. I can therefore confirm that the Government have imminent plans to consult on substantial reform of the Human Rights Act, which will be announced imminently in Parliament.
The Home Secretary also recognises my right hon. and hon. Friends’ concerns about aspects of the ECHR and other international agreements. I can therefore confirm that we are committed to reviewing and resolving these issues with the urgency that the situation warrants.
Mr David Jones (Clwyd West) (Con)
I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. He says that the Government are committed to resolving these difficulties. Can he confirm that by “resolving” these difficulties, he means that the Government will be legislating so to do?
Tom Pursglove
I refer my right hon. Friend back to the point that I have already made. We intend to consult on substantial reform of the Human Rights Act and will set out our plans imminently in that regard.
Work is under way to develop a new phase of measures to ensure that the clauses in the Bill are not undermined and that legal processes cannot be instrumentalised to circumvent the will of the British people. As we have said, the Government have imminent plans to consult on reform to the Human Rights Act, which are under consideration as we speak. Likewise, work is under way in relation to resolving the question of retained EU law.
Joanna Cherry
It sounds like the Minister is announcing something a bit more radical than perhaps we had anticipated in relation to the Human Rights Act. Can he confirm that the Government are still committed to remaining a signatory—a full signatory—to the European convention on human rights?
Tom Pursglove
The point that I would make is that the Government will set out their intentions in due course. I think it is right not to pre-empt. It is important to make sure that this House is kept updated as to that work, and we will be very clear in our intentions.
Sir John Hayes
It is extremely encouraging news that the Government are going to—at last, I have to say—consider the Blair legacy of the Human Rights Act, but to substantially reform it will require legislation. That much is implicit, is it not?
Tom Pursglove
As I say, Ministers will come to the House with further details in due course.
Work is under way in relation to resolving the question of retained EU law, led by Lord Frost, with input from the Attorney General and the Ministry of Justice. For these reasons, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to withdraw their amendment 150.
I turn to new clauses 18 and 19 on illegal immigration offences, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and for Kettering (Mr Hollobone). I hope that they and other hon. Friends supporting the new clauses will recognise that, as part of our groundbreaking new plan for immigration, the Government have sought robust changes to the law around illegal entry and similar offences through the very Bill we are discussing today. The Bill, which my hon. Friends seek to amend, already addresses and indeed exceeds the changes proposed in new clause 18.
Let me turn now to new clauses 24 and 52, tabled by the hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Bambos Charalambous) and for Halifax (Holly Lynch), my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), my hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Tom Tugendhat), my right hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis). As both new clauses regard settlement fees for non-UK members of our armed forces, I would like to debate them together. It is a fact that our Government and our nation highly value the service of all members of the armed forces, including Commonwealth nationals and Gurkhas from Nepal.
Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)
I am pleased to hear how valued members of our service community are. This is a good opportunity for the Government to give way on new clause 52, tabled by myself and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer). Can the Minister give an assurance that the Government will support it?
Tom Pursglove
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making his case in the eloquent way the House is so used to. Members will be aware of the measures that the Home Secretary and the Defence Secretary announced in the summer for Gurkhas from Nepal, who have a long and distinguished history of service to the UK, both here and overseas. We also remain extremely grateful for the contribution made by former British Hong Kong service personnel. That is why the Ministry of Defence, together with the Home Office, ran a public consultation between 26 May and 7 July 2021 regarding a policy proposal to waive settlement fees for non-UK service personnel in Her Majesty’s armed forces. A response to that consultation is coming out shortly, but I recognise the strength of the hon. Gentleman’s feelings and those of the Royal British Legion on this issue. To that end, I thank him and other colleagues for raising these matters, and I invite him and the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View to meet Ministers and the legion next week to make sure that the concerns and realities of non-UK service personnel dealing with the immigration system are fully understood. I am under no illusions about how strongly my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View, in particular, feels about this issue, along with colleagues on both sides of the House.
Johnny Mercer
Many Ministers before my hon. Friend—many Defence Secretaries and many Prime Ministers—have said, “We feel”, “We value” and “We are adamant that we are proud of our armed forces.” However, a Fijian family in Plymouth is still being split up because the visa fees have not been sorted out. Tonight is an opportunity to go beyond meetings and words and to actually waive visa fees, which everybody, irrespective of party, knows is the right thing to do. Whether the Government will do that will test their character.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend and note the conviction with which he speaks about these matters, and I reiterate the offer that we have made to meet next week to discuss them. He will appreciate that the consultation has been ongoing and that we would expect to hear more on that in short order.
I would like to pick up on the proposals tabled by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) presented to the House—I would like to say how sorry I was to hear that she will be standing down from the House at the next general election. It is fair to say that the Committee has raised important matters, and I would respond by saying that we have always acted in accordance with our international obligations in relation to matters at sea. On the international convention for the safety of life at sea and search-and-rescue operations, that has consistently been, and will continue to be, the position in the work that we do.
I want to conclude by again thanking hon. Members for their proposals and the lively debate we have had today. Following the tragic events in the channel over the last few weeks, I know that all Members take this debate with the seriousness and concern it deserves. However, the only way we will solve these long-term problems is by delivering a long-term solution. Ultimately, that is exactly what this Bill delivers.
Question put and agreed to.
New clause 20 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
New Clause 50
Advertising assistance for unlawful immigration to the United Kingdom
“(1) It is an offence to advertise by any means, including using social media, services designed to facilitate the commission of an offence under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, to a fine or to both, or
(b) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or to both.”—(Bambos Charalambous.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Wednesday 8th December 2021
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 8 December 2021 - (8 Dec 2021)
14:59 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 236 / Noes: 288 - Question accordingly negatived.
15:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 234 / Noes: 293 - Question accordingly negatived.
15:35 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 231 / Noes: 300 - Question accordingly negatived.
16:00 - The House divided: - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 231 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Dame Diana Johnson (Kingston upon Hull North) (Lab)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 6—Exemption for child victims of modern slavery, exploitation or trafficking—
‘(1) The Secretary of State may not serve a slavery or trafficking information notice on a person in respect of an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.
(2) Section 61 of this Act does not apply in cases where either of the positive reasonable grounds decisions related to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.
(3) Section 62 of this Act does not apply in cases where the positive reasonable grounds decision related to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.
(4) Sections 64(3) and 64(6) of this Act do not apply in cases where the positive conclusive grounds decision related to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.’
This new clause would exempt victims of modern slavery, exploitation or trafficking from many of the provisions in Part 5 of the Bill if they were under 18 when they became a victim.
New clause 30—Victim Navigators—
‘(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the date of Royal Assent to this Act, make provisions for each police force in England and Wales to have one or more Independent Victim Navigators to liaise between the relevant police force and potential victims of slavery or human trafficking and to assist in the procurement of specialist advice for both the police force and the potential victim.
(2) Regulations under this section—
(a) shall be made by statutory instrument, and
(b) may not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.’
This new clause seeks to introduce provisions for Independent Victim Navigators to be in operation on a national level, acting as a liaison between the police and potential victim of slavery or human trafficking in accessing the appropriate support.
New clause 39—Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection—
‘(1) This section applies to the construction and application of Article 13 of the Trafficking Convention.
(2) The competent authority may determine that it is not bound to observe the minimum recovery period under section 60(2) of this Act in respect of a person in relation to whom a positive reasonable grounds decision has been made, if the authority is satisfied that it is prevented from doing so—
(a) as a result of an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order; or
(b) the person is claiming to be a victim of modern slavery improperly.
(3) Any determination made under subsection (2) must only be made—
(a) in exceptional circumstances;
(b) where necessary and proportionate to the threat posed; and
(c) following an assessment of all the circumstances of the case.
(4) A determination made under subsection (2) must not be made where it would breach—
(a) a person’s Human Rights Convention rights;
(b) the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Trafficking Convention; or
(c) the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.
(5) For the purposes of a determination under subsection 2(b), victim status is being claimed improperly if the person knowingly and dishonestly makes a false statement without good reason, and intends by making the false statement to make a gain for themselves.
(6) A good reason for making a false statement includes, but is not limited to, circumstances where—
(a) the false statement is attributable to the person being or having been a victim of modern slavery; or
(b) where any means of trafficking were used to compel the person into making a false statement.
(7) This section does not apply where the person is under 18.
(8) Nothing in this section shall affect the application of section 60(3) of this Act.’
This new clause is an alternative to clause 62. It ensures that the power currently provided for in clause 62 is exercised in line with the UK’s obligations under Article 13 of the Trafficking Convention. This amendment also protects child victims of modern slavery from disqualification from protection.
New clause 43—Civil legal aid under section 9 of LASPO: add-on services in relation to the national referral mechanism—
‘(1) Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (civil legal services qualifying for legal aid) is amended as follows.
(2) After paragraph 32A (Victims of slavery, servitude or forced or compulsory labour) insert—
“Pre-National Referral Mechanism advice
32B (1) Civil legal services provided to an individual in relation to referral into the national referral mechanism and connected immigration advice.
General exclusions
(3) Sub-paragraph (1) is subject to the exclusions in Part 2 of this Schedule.
Specific exclusions
(4) The civil legal services described in sub-paragraph (1) do not include—
(a) advocacy, or
(b) attendance at an interview conducted by the competent authority under the national referral mechanism for the purposes of a reasonable grounds decision or a conclusive grounds decision.
(5) In regulation 5(1) of the Civil Legal Aid (Financial Resources and Payment for Services) Regulations 2013 (S.I. 2013/480) (exceptions from requirement to make a determination in respect of an individual’s financial resources), after paragraph (l), insert—
“(m) civil legal services described in paragraph 32B of Part 1 of Schedule 1 to the Act (Civil legal services provided to an individual in relation to referral into the national referral mechanism).”’
New clause 47—Support and leave to remain for confirmed victims of slavery or human trafficking—
‘This section applies if a positive conclusive grounds decision is made in respect of a person.
(1) This subsection applies if the person has received support under section 50A of the Modern Slavery Act 2015—
(a) assistance and support must be provided for at least 12 months beginning on the day on which support provided under section 50A ends,
(b) where assistance and support is provided to a person under this subsection the Secretary of State must consider whether it is necessary for the victim’s physical, psychological and social recovery or to prevent re-trafficking to provide assistance and support after the end of the period in subsection (2)(a) for as long as they think appropriate,
(c) a decision whether to provide assistance and support in accordance with subsection (2)(b) must be made at least four weeks before the end of the assistance and support provided under subsection (2)(a),
(d) a reference in this subsection to assistance and support has the same meaning as in section 50A(7) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015.
(2) This subsection applies if the person is not a British citizen—
(a) the Secretary of State must give the person leave to remain in the United Kingdom if subsection (2) or (4) or (5) applies,
(b) leave to remain provided under this subsection shall be provided from the day on which the positive conclusive grounds decision is communicated to a person for either—
(i) the amount of time support and assistance will be provided under either subsection (2) or one of the measures listed in subsection (4), or
(ii) at least 12 months if the person meets one or more of the criteria in subsection (5).
(3) This subsection applies if the person receives support and assistance under one of the following—
(a) section 18(9) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015 (c. 2 (N.I.)),
(b) section 9(3)(c) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 (asp 12), or
(c) regulation 3(4)(c) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 (Support for Victims) Regulations 2018 (S.S.I 2018/90).
(4) This subsection applies if the person meets one or more of the following criteria—
(a) leave is necessary due to the person’s circumstances, including but not restricted to—
(i) the needs of that person for safety and protection from harm including protection from re-trafficking,
(ii) the needs of that person for medical and psychological treatment,
(b) the person is participating as a witness in criminal proceedings,
(c) the person is bringing any civil proceedings including pursuing compensation.
(5) Where the person is receiving assistance from a support worker the recommendations of the support worker must be considered in assessing that person’s circumstances under subsection (5)(a).
(6) The Secretary of State must provide for persons granted leave to remain in accordance with this section to have recourse to public funds for the duration of the period of leave.
(7) The Secretary of State must allow a grant of leave to remain under subsection (3) to be extended subject to the requirements of subsection (9).
(8) In determining whether to extend a grant of leave to remain under subsection (8), and the period of time for which such extended leave should be provided, the person’s individual circumstances must be considered, and whether that person—
(a) is receiving on-going support and assistance under the measures set out in either subsection (2) or subsection (4), or
(b) meets one or more of the criteria in subsection (5).
(9) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person is a threat to public order—
(a) the Secretary of State is not required to give the person leave under this section, and
(b) if such leave has already been given to the person, it may be revoked.
(10) In this section, if the person is aged below 18 years of age, the best interests of the child must be taken into consideration in accordance with section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.
(11) In this section—
“positive conclusive grounds decision” means a decision made by a competent authority that a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking;
“threat to public order” has the same meaning as subsections (3) to (7) of section 62.
(12) This section is to be treated for the purposes of section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 as if it were provision made by that Act.’
This new clause would provide new statutory support for victims in England and Wales after a conclusive grounds decisions. It would provide leave to remain for all victims with a positive conclusive grounds decision for at least 12 months to receive support, assist police with their enquiries or seek compensation.
Amendment 127, page 57, line 3 leave out clause 57.
Amendment 128, page 57, line 25 leave out clause 58.
Amendment 5, in clause 58, page 57, line 41, at end insert—
‘(5) The provision of relevant status information identifying a person as a likely victim of human trafficking for sexual services shall constitute a “good reason” for the purposes of this section.’
This amendment would mean that the credibility of victims of human trafficking for sexual services would not be called into question by reason of the late provision of information relating to that fact.
Amendment 6, in clause 58, page 57, line 41, at end insert—
‘(5) Subsection (2) does not apply where the person is a victim of trafficking for the purposes of forced prostitution.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5) the person may be considered a victim of trafficking for the purposes of forced prostitution if there is evidence that the person—
(a) has been transported from one location to another on a daily basis;
(b) bears signs of physical abuse including but not limited to—
(i) branding;
(ii) bruising;
(iii) scarring;
(iv) burns; or
(v) tattoos indicating gang membership;
(c) lacks access to their own earnings, such as by having no bank account in their own name;
(d) has limited to no English language skills, or only such language skills as pertain to sexualised acts;
(e) lives or stays at the same address as person(s) meeting the criteria in paragraphs (a) to (d);
(f) sleeps in the premises in which they work.’
Under this amendment, late provision of relevant status information would not be taken as damaging the credibility of the person providing the information if that person were a victim of trafficking for the purposes of forced prostitution.
Amendment 7, in clause 59, page 58, line 5, at end insert—
‘(za) at the end of paragraph (a) insert—
“(aa) the sorts of things which indicate that a person may be a victim of human trafficking for sexual services;”.’
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to issue specific guidance on the sorts of things which indicate that a person may be a victim of human trafficking for sexual services.
Government amendments 64 to 69.
Amendment 3, page 59, line 39, leave out clause 62.
This amendment would remove clause 62, which excludes potential modern slavery victims from protection in certain circumstances.
Government amendments 70 to 75.
Amendment 149, page 62, line 18, leave out clause 64.
This amendment is consequential on NC47.
Government amendments 78, 76, 77 and 79 to 83.
Amendment 130, page 63, line 26, leave out clause 65.
This amendment is consequential on NC43.
Amendment 131, page 66, line 1, leave out clause 66.
This amendment is contingent on NC43, Clause 66 would no longer be required if NC43 is agreed to.
Amendment 148, page 66, line 33, leave out clause 67.
Government amendment 84.
Amendment 129, in clause 81, page 79, line 15, at end insert—
‘(6) Part 4 (age assessments) and part 5 (modern slavery) only extend to Scotland to the extent that a motion has been approved by the Scottish Parliament, bringing them into force in Scotland.’
Under this amendment, Parts 4 and 5 of the Bill would not enter into force in Scotland until the Scottish Parliament had given its consent.
Government amendments 85 to 90.
Amendment 16, in clause 82, page 80, line 3, at end insert—
‘(5) Sections [Time limit on immigration detention], [Initial detention: criteria and duration] and [Bail hearings] come into force six months after the day on which this Act is passed.’
This amendment would bring NC15-NC17 into force six months after the day on which the Bill is passed.
Dame Diana Johnson
I rise to speak to new clause 3, which would put into law a specific offence for trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. We know that serious organised crime networks are deeply involved in this trade in human misery. I thank Kat Banyard at UK Feminista and Tom Farr at CEASE—the Centre to End All Sexual Exploitation—UK, who have helped to draft new clause 3, and the Humber Modern Slavery Partnership at the Wilberforce Institute in Hull for all its help.
Although the Modern Slavery Act 2015 covers exploitation broadly, the catastrophically high number of women and girls trafficked into the UK for the sex industry means that it merits a specific offence. The latest figures from the national referral mechanism show that 60% of women and girls who were identified as potential victims in the past year were trafficked for purposes including sexual exploitation. In 2020, 94 women and 624 girls were trafficked and sexually exploited. These women need specific and targeted protection.
New clause 3 would ensure that the link between human trafficking and sexual exploitation is acknowledged. It would aid efforts to combat the scourge of human trafficking and broader violence against women and girls by providing a framework that would ensure that the authorities respond to individuals who may have been previously viewed as criminals as though they are, in fact, victims of sexual exploitation.
I also want to speak to amendments 5 to 7, which focus on stopping late disclosure affecting credibility and providing guidance to help the relevant authorities to identify victims. Andrew Smith of the Humber Modern Slavery Partnership, an experienced practitioner, told me:
“We know there are various reasons why we might see late disclosure by victims of sexual exploitation and trafficking. Victims may not identify as victims first and foremost, it can be only when a person is removed from the exploitative environment that they understand they were in fact being abused and exploited.”
And yet, the Bill proposes a time limit on disclosure.
The Modern Slavery Policy Unit, co-led by Justice and Care UK and the Centre for Social Justice, stated:
“Presuming late disclosure of modern slavery damages credibility will create barriers to effective identification and engagement with victims.”
The Bill, as it stands, will make identifying and assisting victims of human trafficking more difficult.
Amendment 5 would stop late disclosure affecting the credibility of a claim of being trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation. The Home Office’s modern slavery statutory guidance states:
“Victims’ early accounts may be affected by the impact of trauma. This can result in delayed disclosure, difficulty recalling facts, or symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. Victims may also be reluctant to self-identify for a number of other reasons that can make understanding their experiences challenging.”
This amendment acknowledges Home Office guidance by ensuring that late disclosure does not damage credibility.
Amendment 6 sets out how a person who makes a late disclosure might be better identified by any relevant authority.
Mrs Theresa May (Maidenhead) (Con)
I am very interested in what the right hon. Lady is saying. If we are to stop modern slavery, we must ensure that we catch the perpetrators, which requires victims to be able to come forward with evidence. She is outlining certain elements of the Bill that she fears will restrict victims’ ability to come forward, and I am concerned that the public order disqualification threshold and the time period on slavery and trafficking information notices will also have that effect. Does she share my concerns about those aspects and hope that the Minister will address them specifically today?
Dame Diana Johnson
I thank the right hon. Lady for that intervention and pay tribute to her for, as Home Secretary, bringing in the Modern Slavery Act. I sat on the Bill Committee for that Act and I remember well the debates that we had. She should be very proud of her work on this issue, and I absolutely agree with her comments on what the Bill will lead to.
To return to amendment 6, I want to make it clear that putting these guiding factors in the Bill would provide a deeper understanding for the authorities of what they should be aware of and how to identify victims.
Amendment 7 would require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the specific factors that may indicate that somebody is a victim of human trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation. That would provide a framework for the relevant authorities to refer to when trying to discern the type of exploitation that has taken place.
The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), argued against these amendments in the Bill Committee, stating that the Government did not want to create a “two-tiered system” based on the exploitation that a victim had faced. I think that is simply wrong. Acknowledging the distinct features of trafficking for the purposes of sexual exploitation, as opposed to, for example, forced labour, would improve the authorities’ response and the ability to prosecute and find the perpetrators. Recognising and identifying difference would not create a hierarchy; rather, it would make the system more effective and accurate. The Minister also stated that delineating between trafficking for sexual exploitation and trafficking for other purposes would motivate individuals to put forward falsified referrals. However, all the evidence shows that victims of trafficking for sexual exploitation need more encouragement to come forward, not less.
Finally, I want to speak in support of new clause 47 and the supporting amendment 149, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). He has worked assiduously on protections for victims of human trafficking and modern slavery for many years. The new clause would provide all victims who receive a conclusive grounds decision with 12 months’ leave to remain to either recover, claim compensation or assist the police. The Government need to do more to protect people who have suffered from these horrendous crimes.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I am grateful to be called so early in the debate. Mr Speaker. I will speak to my new clause 47, which has been signed by Members on both sides of the House. The aims of the new clause, which the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) kindly referred to, are very simple. It is not a soft option, but a decent and reasonable one that does two things.
First, it deals with the issue of giving people who have gone through the national referral mechanism, who are therefore rightly in the system, longer to be able to settle and to be properly helped and supported. That is a humanitarian position, having already decided that such people have suffered as a result of modern-day slavery. That was the purpose of the Modern Slavery Act, which was brought in by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and this proposal will make that even better as we go forward and learn from it.
The second aspect is very important. The police keep telling us that, if they had more time to help those people to give testimony, we would get many more prosecutions and we would, ironically, shut down more of the ghastly criminal channels that are bringing these people in. This is about being strong in both prosecution and humanitarian terms, and that is the purpose of the new clause. I remind everybody that when the Centre for Social Justice wrote the first big paper about modern-day slavery, my right hon. Friend—we were both in Government at the time—was moved and decent enough to be able to push this point in government and put the legislation through, which meant that we were the first country in the world to acknowledge modern-day slavery and legislate for it. We should be proud of that. It is one of those things on which the British Parliament historically will be spotted for having led the way worldwide. Other Parliaments have followed suit—not all of them, but many have—with their own versions of that legislation.
We should be proud that a Parliament can work to do right by people who have too often been abused. I also remind those here today, and others who may or may not be watching, that the National Crime Agency figures now show that between 6,000 and 8,000 modern slavery offenders are in the UK, but there were just 331 prosecutions in 2020 under the Modern Slavery Act and only 49 convictions. Does that not tell us a story? It tells us that, good as we think we are, we are not winning this battle, and the police know it.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
On that point about convictions and the police, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the police need more resources to tackle and eradicate modern slavery?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I agree, in principle, that if we are to get more prosecutions it is vital that those who are pursuing these characters should be well-funded. Although that is not part of this particular new clause, it is certainly within the wider scope of the Bill.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a very strong point. Is it not one of the problems that victims of any kind of slavery are inevitably isolated, frightened and often unable even to leave the property, factory or home where they are working? They do not necessarily know where to go and, if the local police are not attuned to the problem, they get no help there. They are then completely stuck and in a very dangerous and vulnerable situation. Is there not an issue of both police training and convincing local authorities and all other public services that they have to be attuned to the desperation these people face, rather than the danger of prosecution for what could be—
Mr Speaker
Order. All I can say is that I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman, and if he wants to speak I have plenty of room on the list. Save your speech to read shortly, if you want to.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful to you for clarifying, Mr Speaker.
I will just say to the right hon. Gentleman that of course he is right, and it is important for us to understand that this is an issue not of asylum or migration but decency. He will know—even if he does not, I am going to say it to the House—that a significant chunk of those who are now part of the modern-day slavery ghastliness emanate from the UK. It is important that local authorities and others understand that they are looking not just for people who are trafficked in, but for those being trafficked within the UK. That is an important point. I agree with him, and the point of today’s debate is to try to raise that issue.
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
The right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) makes a pertinent point, but is not Justice and Care—and its navigators who help victims of trafficking with the criminal justice system—one of the success stories? We get more prosecutions because of that charity and the work it does.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for signing the new clause, and he is absolutely right. Justice and Care has done a phenomenal amount of work; I am enormously grateful for its guidance and we have worked together on this matter. He is quite right to congratulate the organisation; without it, I suspect this would have been very difficult.
Let me bring in two examples that illustrate the problem. First, a Home Office local authority pilot found that all 62 adult survivors receiving support through the project in 2018-19 supported a criminal investigation, which makes my point that, with the right support, people do the right thing. They lose their fear, they understand that they are protected and they will give evidence. Secondly, Justice and Care found that 89% of victims supported by victim navigator support workers chose subsequently to engage with the police.
I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that it is important that we understand and separate this question out from all the other arguments that go on about migration and asylum. This is ultimately about helping ourselves and helping the victims. The two go together, and that is the important issue.
It is also worth reminding ourselves of the cost of modern slavery right now, without the resolution that we require and that this new clause would bring. The Home Office estimates the cost at £328,000 per modern slavery victim—a total of £32 billion using 2020 estimates of 100,000 victims from the Centre for Social Justice. I will just repeat that figure: £32 billion is the overall cost. That does not include court, prison and probation costs, or the costs of failed or aborted prosecutions due to insufficient evidence. So the case becomes stronger and stronger that this Bill offers the opportunity to do the right thing here.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The right hon. Gentleman is making a very good point, which illustrates the importance of the availability of judicial review. Looking towards what might be coming down the line in this regard, should I make an assumption about having his support on that occasion?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
You would call me out straightaway, Mr Speaker, if I went so far as to enter into another debate. Tempting though the offer is from my right hon. Friend—I call him that because of the time we spent in government together, and because we agree on so many issues—he will, I am sure, forgive me if I say that I am not yet aware of any Bill that is due to come before us. I will leave it there.
The Government have recognised victims’ need for stability and consistency in the support that they receive. That is a good move, and I thank them for it. I welcome the intention to provide a guaranteed 12-month minimum period of tailored support for all confirmed victims; that is particularly important. I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), to bear in mind, when she rises to sum up the debate, that—as I have already said to you, Mr Speaker—I intend to press the new clause to a Division unless the Government make it clear that they have listened very carefully to this and other debates on the subject. The minimum guarantee will serve as a major stabiliser. If the Government are prepared to accept that, and perhaps table an amendment in another place, I shall be prepared to wait and see what happens.
I also welcome the Government’s commitment to considering how best to support victims through the criminal justice process. They need to be serious about that, and I hope to hear a clear statement that modification and improvement are required. There remain concerns about the current restriction of support to
“needs arising from exploitation criteria”,
and the Government will need to deal with that as well.
Let me end by saying that we must separate the concept of modern day slavery from the rows about asylum seeking. Many people come over here with good cause; I personally do not blame those who are fleeing for economic reasons when things are desperate. I accept that we must have rules and restrictions, but I ask the Government to consider those who have been trafficked, those who are being persecuted, and those who are being used for the purpose of sexual or any other exploitation.
When I was at the Department for Work and Pensions, we knew that gangs were getting women in particular over here, giving in their names to claim benefit, and then pushing them into brothels and other places. That is what we want to stop. We want to stamp out the exploitation of women, and men, against their will, both at home and as a result of their being trafficked into the UK. If the Minister can give me, and the House, an assurance that she gets this, and that the Government—my Government—are prepared to make the 12 months a de minimis and to look carefully at how the support can be given and how people can be protected through this process after they go through the NRM, I may feel inclined not to press the new clause.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker.
It is a genuine pleasure to follow the powerful contribution from the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I will come to the merits of his new clause, but let me start by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) not just on the new clause and amendments that she has tabled, but on receiving her damehood at Windsor Castle yesterday. There could be no more fitting tribute in recognition of her services to politics and her community, and I was delighted to see her collect that recognition yesterday.
We have grave concerns about part 5 of the Bill, which would introduce detrimental changes in modern slavery provisions and the national referral mechanism. New clause 3, tabled by my right hon. Friend, has our backing for all the reasons that she outlined. I would struggle to find a more heinous crime than moving another human being across borders, or across the country, in order to force them to have sex and for their abuser to make a profit. Given the utterly depressing rises in this type of criminality and exploitation, my right hon. Friend will have our full support if she is minded to press the new clause to a vote.
Provisions in part 5 will make it harder to identify, safeguard and support victims of modern slavery in securing prosecutions against their abusers. Our new clause 6 will ensure that no child victim of trafficking or modern slavery is denied protection because of those provisions. The new clause follows the many battles that we had in Committee in calling on the Government to hear the pleas of organisations such as The Children’s Society and Every Child Protected Against Trafficking, and those of the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton, and to recognise the vulnerability of child victims of trafficking and modern slavery, something that they have failed to do throughout the Bill’s passage so far.
The Government have sought to suggest that a fear of the national referral mechanism being abused warrants the introduction of barriers to accessing it. I remind them that the Home Office’s own statistics show that, of the 10,613 potential victims of modern slavery referred to the NRM last year, 47% were children. There was a 10% increase in the number of child referrals last year, and the single biggest type of exploitation was criminal exploitation. The Home Office’s own publication states:
“For those exploited as children, an increase in the identification of ‘county lines’ cases has partially driven the rise in the number of cases categorised within the ‘criminal exploitation’ category, with 40% of all child referrals for criminal exploitation being flagged as county lines.”
It is clear that children who are the victims of vicious county lines gangs will be among those most detrimentally affected by these changes. Just this week, we heard that the Government were getting tough on county lines gangs, but if they pass these proposals today unamended, child victims trapped by those gangs will be met with unnecessary barriers to both freedom and justice.
Mr Bone
The hon. Lady is talking about an exceptionally important issue, the trafficking of children. While we in this country probably lead the world in looking after adult victims, we fail our child victims. Do the hon. Lady and her party support a revision of that situation, so we can protect children in the same way that we protect adults?
Holly Lynch
As the Minister will recall, we pushed for that time and again in Committee. The Bill makes no distinction between adults and children who are victims of trafficking and slavery. That failure to recognise the age-related vulnerability of a child constitutes a glaring omission, and I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s support for seeing what else we can do to press the issue during the Bill’s subsequent stages.
If the Government require any further persuading, the legislation in its current form contravenes their own existing statutory guidance, which states:
“Whatever form it takes, modern slavery and child trafficking is child abuse and relevant child protection procedures must be followed if modern slavery or trafficking is suspected.”
The changes introduced in the Bill mean that a child can only access protection from abuse if they disclose details of their trauma, against a Home Office-mandated timeline, or else have their credibility as a victim discredited, and can only access NRM support if they are not deemed to be a threat to public order as outlined in clause 62. The Government’s own guidance rightly says that a child who has been trafficked must be protected—no ifs, no buts, which means no clause 57, no clause 58 and no clause 62. I urge the Government to rethink all the modern slavery provisions, but as a minimum, in order merely to deliver on their own commitment to the general public this week, to adopt our new clause to prevent changes that would leave children more vulnerable to criminals and traffickers.
I want to make clear our support for independent victim navigators, who have already been mentioned by other Members. New clause 30 seeks to build upon the successful pilot programme launched by Justice and Care in 2018, which has now been extended, with eight victim navigators currently in post in five different police forces. I recently had the opportunity to visit the modern slavery team at West Yorkshire police with Justice and Care to gain a better understanding of the incredibly impressive work undertaken by those navigators in providing vital support to victims to rebuild their lives, which is what then facilitates prosecutions. An interim report has shown that, up to June 2021, the programme has provided strategic advice to 392 modern slavery investigations and given intensive support to 202 victims. Significantly, 89% of the victims supported by those navigators have chosen to engage with police investigations, compared with just 33% nationally, and 120 suspected exploiters have been arrested in cases supported by victim navigators. I know this is something we can all celebrate.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
I rise to speak to new clause 39, standing in my name and the names of the Chairs of the Procedure Committee, the International Development Committee and the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee. For a variety of reasons, none of those colleagues can be with us today, and I feel that I am a poor substitute for them in making these points—
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Can I just reassure my hon. Friend that, by the very fact that he is speaking to this new clause, he is more than a substitute and that he is on the side of right?
Richard Fuller
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. One other aspect of this is that it has given me the opportunity to have a fresh look at an area of legislation that I have not been as deeply involved in as he has. I might therefore raise some concerns that the Minister might not get from other quarters, with a keen focus on the legislation dealing with modern-day slavery.
I wish also speak in support of amendment 3, tabled in the name of the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I will be pleased to hear him later expressing his support for my new clause, as I also hope the SNP will. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) for her indication of support. The reason I say that is that my new clause has not been selected for separate Division, and it is therefore important that this House sends a clear and unequivocal cross-party message to the other House, where this issue can perhaps be looked at anew.
Mr Carmichael
I am sure that the House will be on tenterhooks to know, so I can put it out of its misery and tell the hon. Member that I will be more than happy to support his new clause.
Richard Fuller
I am very pleased to be off those tenterhooks, although I am never very sure what tenterhooks are. They do not sound very comfortable.
New clause 39 provides the Government with an opportunity to achieve their objectives but on a more considerably secure legal footing than their current proposals would permit. The new clause has been informed by the concerns raised by the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton. Clause 62 currently seeks to disqualify potential victims of trafficking from the protections afforded under the national referral mechanism. Those protections are important not just as a manifestation of the mercy of our country towards those whose lives have been made wretched by the exploitations of others but to enable more effective prosecution of the perpetrators of such trafficking. Consideration of exclusion from these protections therefore requires careful assessment of the consequences for both those factors. Moreover, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) mentioned, it should be considered in the context of our country’s leading position in international law on human trafficking. That is a position that we should not give up at all lightly.
My first concern with clause 62 as proposed is to ask: where is the evidence? Where is the evidence that access to the national referral mechanism is being abused, and where is the evidence from the Government on the impact of their proposal? My second concern with clause 62 is that it does not appear to address vexatious or unwarranted claims regarding access to the national referral mechanism. That point was also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green when he was speaking to his new clause. This is the wrong piece of legislation to do what the Government hope is the right thing, but which many of us fear will make the situation worse rather than better. In the absence of evidence for why this is a logical measure to adopt, I am perplexed as to why clause 62 has been drafted in this way.
My concern is also that subsections (3)(b) and (3)(f) provide a very low bar for disqualification based on criminal sentencing. For those, like me, who are not familiar with modern slavery, it may sound odd that there is public interest in supporting people who have committed crimes either here or, more likely, overseas that carry a 12-month sentence—that is the bar—but that public interest is the same public interest as we have in trying to reach the main perpetrators in county lines drug gangs or serious fraud cases.
The public interest is in enabling sufficient evidence to be collated to bring successful prosecutions against the co-ordinators of those crimes, which is where I fear this clause falls short in subsections (3)(b) and (3)(f). I see good reasons in the other subsections and paragraphs for why clause 62 makes sense, but subsections (3)(b) and (3)(f) are clearly very different. I am interested in understanding the Minister’s logic.
Although this is an immigration Bill, clause 62 will largely apply to people already here, including British citizens, who currently make up the majority of victims. Because it refers to the national referral mechanism, most British victims will fall foul of this clause. The data suggests that the vast majority of British victims would fail under the Bill’s disqualifying remit, as the majority of cases involving British victims involve criminal exploitation. Even those who fall under labour or sexual exploitation often participate in criminal activities as part of their exploitation and so may end up being “unworthy” of support. I fear that is not what we are trying to do, and it should not be in an immigration Bill.
Another concern that has been raised with me is that there are currently significant difficulties in bringing prosecutions for modern slavery. As previous speakers have mentioned, with approximately 10,000 potential victims of modern slavery identified in the UK last year and only 238 convictions, it is clear that the process is at risk of being overloaded.
How does it help for there to be new additional legal requirements to investigate the criminal history of each and every potential victim who is seeking access to the national referral mechanism? How on earth will that help? Have we not been here before, more than a decade ago? I do not like to refer back to the bad old days of immigration under Labour, but what a complete mess Labour made of it. The lives of many of my former constituents in Bedford, and the constituents of many hon. and right hon. Members here, were ruined by the Home Office’s processes, and those processes are still not where they need to be. With this new provision on access to the national referral mechanism, the Home Office is at it again, making it more complicated, making it more difficult and, ultimately, making a rod for its own back.
New clause 39 would remove children from the scope of clause 62, which is important. We do not want children to fall foul of other rules and regulations, certainly when it comes to their criminal record or otherwise. Will the Minister address that directly?
The new clause preserves the Government’s power to remove individuals from the UK who pose
“an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order”.
We understand the Government want to make these changes, and there may be good reason for doing so, but let us set the bar higher and let us make it more pertinent so that we do not block the whole system and unduly use immigration law to address modern slavery. That seems a sensible change to make.
New clause 39 would change the wording of the Bill so that a person who claims to have been trafficked improperly will not be treated as having acted in bad faith, which is more in line with the trafficking convention. When a Government seek to conflate effective modern slavery legislation a little too much with immigration law, it is important that we refer to the founding principles of that first set of legislation. Let us not be wishy-washy by saying we can make it up as we go along. Let us not import one schedule from one Act and say it will work fine in this Bill, which seems sloppy. It seems much better to place it more firmly and resolutely in international conventions and other aspects of international law.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller).
Yesterday we badly damaged the UK’s reputation for upholding the refugee convention and the rights of refugees, and today’s clauses risk undermining the protection offered to victims of trafficking and modern slavery. That is particularly frustrating because a lot of good work has been undertaken in Stormont, Westminster and Holyrood to put in place legislative frameworks for tackling trafficking and modern slavery.
Just as yesterday’s clauses failed to address the real failings in the asylum system, the clauses we are debating today do not address the real and significant problems we all face in our efforts to tackle trafficking. They will not lay a glove on traffickers and, in some cases, they will give traffickers extra power and ammunition over their victims and will discourage victims from reaching out for support and assisting prosecutions.
The problems we all face include: the fact we almost certainly identify only a small fraction of trafficking victims and prosecute only a small number of traffickers; the massive delays in the national referral mechanism that see victims sitting in limbo for months and years as they wait for a decision; and the failure to give so many people the stability of the decent period of leave to remain that they need to recover. None of that is addressed in part 5. Instead, it reinforces the impression that efforts to protect victims of trafficking play second fiddle to immigration enforcement, just as decent treatment of asylum seekers and refugees played second fiddle yesterday.
On that note, although I absolutely agree that what we are debating today is distinct and separate from what we debated yesterday—in fact, they should be in separate Bills—it is important that we recognise there is an overlap. Importantly, some of the provisions this House approved yesterday will apply to certain victims of trafficking, including the new criminal offences in relation to arrival in the UK and the discriminatory two-tier asylum system that many trafficking victims will now enter. If I correctly recall our debates in Committee, the offence we put into law yesterday of entering or arriving without permission could result in trafficking victims being excluded from protection.
In particular, I spoke yesterday about this place’s awful habit of passing legislation that tells decision makers how to assess the evidence that they will obviously have in front of them but which we do not have in front of us and that we will never know anything about. Instructing decision makers to make adverse credibility findings in relation to trafficking victims because the evidence or information was provided late is especially pernicious and dangerous. As Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, both today and on Second Reading, it takes time for many victims of modern slavery to identify themselves as a victim, let alone to present the evidence required to establish that fact. As we have heard, there are numerous reasons for that: fear of reprisals, shame, instructions or coaching from traffickers, the impact of trauma and mental health issues, as the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) set out earlier. All the clauses that we debated yesterday requiring negative credibility findings to be made will impact on trafficking survivors who enter the asylum system, and clauses 57 and 58, which we are debating today, will impact on all who seek support as trafficking survivors.
As we argued in Committee, such a trafficking notice might serve a useful purpose if it was just that—a notice that information should be provided. Speaking from personal experience, it could focus the mind of solicitors who might be reasonably well practised in making claims on behalf of clients in relation to the refugee convention, or for immigration status, but who might have had significantly less experience of identifying and taking forward trafficking cases. I am sure lots of colleagues in the legal profession would identify with that.
In Committee, we argued to keep the notices but ditch the threat of sanctions. That approach was rejected by the Government, so we have tabled amendments 127 and 128, which would ditch the scheme altogether. In short, we cannot support a statutory scheme that threatens to punish trafficking victims for late provision of information. Most fundamentally, there can be no doubt that with such a scheme, there is a risk that survivors of trafficking who miss a mandatory deadline will simply withdraw from the whole process. The Bill requires that their credibility be treated as damaged, and all the talk of good reasons as an excuse will make a limited difference. In fact, the whole process risks becoming a vicious circle. I could provide evidence that was late because of the trauma of trafficking, but I would not be able to establish that I had been trafficked because my credibility would be damaged by providing that information late. That is a mess of a provision.
Going further, the scope of the provision is also bizarre, covering as it does not just statements made by the trafficking victim but statements made on their behalf. That could include evidence from their doctor, a counsellor or a social worker. Such reports should be considered on their own merits, not automatically discredited by utterly misguided provisions such as those we are discussing. A victim of trafficking could be in a position of needing to submit more evidence to strengthen their case, but by providing that evidence after a deadline set by the Home Office, they risk having their credibility damaged. They can be disbelieved either for providing not enough evidence, or for providing evidence late. What a Hobson’s choice that is for incredibly vulnerable people. The shadow Minister posed practical questions about the timing. We say, “Let’s take out the punishment through amendment 128,” or, at the very least, support the shadow Minister’s bid to disapply these dangerous provisions to children.
Our third amendment is 148, which probes the Government on the vague and broad provisions in clause 67 to disapply retained EU law deriving from the trafficking directive. In their modern slavery strategy of 2014, the then Conservative Government said that opting into that directive
“demonstrated our commitment to working with other countries in Europe to drive up standards across the continent in tackling trafficking”
and showed
“the UK’s commitment to tackling human trafficking and providing support to victims.”
The Government said that the directive
“paves the way for further engagement with EU-wide organisations and governments to share our prosecution and investigation expertise.”
Clause 67 disapplies that directive, in so far as it would be incompatible with the Bill and any subordinate legislation made under it. Given that the directive is so crucial to prevention, victim identification, protection and support, this proposal is concerning. We should be fully implementing the directive, not moving away from it.
Nothing is said about that provision in the equality impact assessment or the human rights memorandum, so we have no information about which parts of the directive the Home Office considers to be incompatible with this Bill, or which parts would cease to apply. How are anti-trafficking organisations and those who provide support and advice to survivors supposed to know what the law is? Can the Minister spell some of that out today? What other provisions of the directive might the Government want to ditch through subordinate legislation?
Before I address our last amendment, let me express support for amendment 3, which was tabled by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), to remove the disqualification provisions of clause 62. As all Opposition Members argued in Committee, those provisions are far too wide. For the same reasons, we support the alternative new clause 39, in the name of the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire, to secure compliance with the trafficking convention and protect children from disqualification. Rather than fixing the clause, the Government seem intent on making it worse through amendment 71, meaning that survivors who are identified as needing leave to remain to seek compensation, or to co-operate with investigations and prosecutions, will not get it.
We give our support to new clause 47, tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), and in particular to the provisions requiring a grant of leave for 12 months, or longer if required because of personal circumstances.
Tommy Sheppard (Edinburgh East) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is making an excellent humanitarian case against aspects of the Bill. Does he agree that when the Government reject that argument, it will fuel the case for Scotland to become a politically independent country so that it can build a different immigration system on the basis of fairness and international solidarity, rather than prejudice and paranoia?
Stuart C. McDonald
I fully endorse what my hon. Friend says. We will continue to make the case against this Bill, although we all know that that case will be rejected. People who are watching will see our alternative proposals, and they are a strong argument for independence indeed.
In addition to saying yes to new clause 47, we support new clause 3 from the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North. I mentioned at the start of my speech that Stormont, Westminster and Holyrood had all passed important legislation in this area, and that brings me to the key point that we have just touched on. Large parts of this issue are a devolved matter, and that is only partially recognised in the Bill. The same is true of the age assessment provisions in part 4. There are very good arguments for saying that legislative consent motions should be required from the Scottish Parliament for various provisions in parts 4 and 5, and that is why we have tabled amendment 129.
The whole disreputable scheme of trafficking notices, plus most law in relation to the recovery period, is surely within devolved competence, but clause 49 also sees the Secretary of State interfering in how local authorities go about discharging their duties in relation to devolved children’s legislation. I would be happy to share with the Minister a legal opinion by Christine O’Neill QC that has been published by the Scottish Refugee Council and JustRight Scotland, and that makes similar points. I am sure that devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland and Wales will also want to look closely at these points.
Our view is that this is a disaster of a Bill and, as the shadow Minister said, the whole legislative process leading up to it has been a disaster as well. The consequences for many vulnerable people will also be disastrous. That is as true of the provisions in relation to trafficking survivors as it is for asylum seekers and refugees. Although we have tried to ameliorate the worst aspects of the Bill, the whole rotten lot of it needs to be canned.
Mr Bone
It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). He supports new clause 74, which is the main thrust of what I want to talk about today.
Across the House, we have seen support for measures to fight modern-day slavery and human trafficking, but I think we should start at the beginning. Only a few years ago, this House did not even recognise human trafficking. I can remember when I came into the House and Tony Blair was Prime Minister, the great Anthony Steen tried every week from the Opposition Benches to persuade the Government that human trafficking existed. The Council of Europe brought forward proposals about human trafficking, and, to the great credit of former Prime Ministers David Cameron and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), we produced Europe’s leading anti-slavery legislation.
We should start by congratulating the Government on doing that, but we are here today to see how we can improve on that legislation. I will briefly mention my dissatisfaction with the way child victims of human trafficking are dealt with. As I have said on many occasions, we should follow the methods that we use for adults; we should not just put children into the care of local government, where they are routinely re-trafficked. That is not particularly to do with the clauses that we are debating today, but it is something that we need to look at.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made the very fair point that we are not talking about asylum, and we are not talking about economic migrants. With economic migrants—people coming here who should not be—the victim is this country. Human trafficking victims are people who have been tricked or coerced into coming to this country, mainly with the thought that they will get a job or a career.
Let me give an example. Somebody from Hungary came into this country thinking they were going to get a job in Belfast. Instead, they were locked up in a terraced house in Belfast. The locks were on the outside of the bedroom and that girl was repeatedly raped. She was rescued by the police and looked after. That is human trafficking, and it is completely different from people coming across the channel in small boats.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
While we are talking about Tatiana—she has been phenomenal in bringing cases forward and I pay tribute to her—it is worth reminding the House that she cannot be with us at the moment because she is about to give birth. We congratulate her on that.
Mr Bone
I can give the House an update: birth has not yet occurred and she is watching today’s proceedings. I wish her very well with the new baby.
Let me go back to the national referral mechanism. One thing that people misunderstand about new clause 47 is that they think it refers to when people go into the NRN, but it does not. It would apply for people who have “conclusive grounds”—people the Government agree are real victims of human trafficking. The difference between me and the Government is about what happens next. We have always looked after victims of human trafficking—it has been a really sensible process, with overall control given to the Salvation Army and then distributed through all the different charities and voluntary and religious groups that help to look after victims. But I want there not to be any victims in the first place. I want these evil gangs stopped. By the way, this is organised crime: they are ruthless and horrible and they do not care about people. They are quite happy to murder people. If we can shut them down, we will not have the victims, which is why the prosecution of these gangs is so important.
When we have discussed the failure to secure prosecutions in the past, it was argued, “Well, we prosecute on lesser offences so that we get convictions,” but these people are put away for only a small amount of time. We want to nail the people at the top and put them away for a very long time, to make it a dangerous thing to be involved in. If it is dangerous and they are likely to get caught and put away for a long time, they will not carry out this evil trade and will try something else.
The difference between me and the Government in respect of leave to remain, which is the crux of new clause 47, is that I think it should be given as a right to people who are confirmed as victims of trafficking if their immigration status is irregular. I say that for two reasons: first, they are much more likely to help to prosecute the evil gangs if they know that their immigration status is secure for a year; and secondly, if we do it not that way but on a piecemeal basis, there is a possibility, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green referred, that the lawyers will go to the court and say, “The only reason why this person is saying that is because it is the only way she could have got leave to remain,” whereas if it is a right, they cannot use that argument at all.
I will listen with great interest to what the Minister says in response to the debate. If my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green pushes new clause 47 to a Division, I will indeed support it. I know that the Minister and the Government share my desire to get these evil gangs; we just have a little difference on this point. Why doesn’t the Minister accept the new clause and perhaps add a sunset clause in the other place? Put two years on it, and if in two years nobody extra is prosecuted, we were clearly wrong. But if a lot more people are prosecuted, as I believe they would be, the Government could renew the sunset clause.
Everybody is trying to do the right thing here; we are just discussing the best way forward. I go back to the start and say well done to Anthony Steen and to all the Governments who have moved forward and made our country the best place to prosecute modern-day slavery. But we can do better, and we can and must do better with children. New clause 47 would help us to prosecute more evil gangs, so I very much support it and hope that the Government will accept at least its principle.
Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)
Numerous constituents have written to me with their concerns about the Bill. They fear that it will harm refugees and victims of trafficking and slavery and that it undermines our international commitment to human rights and the right to asylum. I share their concerns.
The Children’s Society has said that it is
“concerned that the provisions of the bill will have a significant impact on all child victims of trafficking”.
Notably, the charity has expressed support for Labour’s new clause 6, which would exempt victims of modern slavery, exploitation or trafficking from many of the provisions in part 5 of the Bill if they were under 18 when they became a victim. Statistics show that 3,140 potential victims of modern slavery were referred to the Home Office in the second quarter of 2021—the second highest number of referrals since the national referral mechanism began in 2009—and 43% of them claimed exploitation as children.
Serious concerns have also been raised about, and many Members have referred to, the proposals in the Bill to allow the Secretary of State to serve trafficking information notices on potential victims of modern slavery and expect a response within a fixed timescale. Dame Sara Thornton, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, has said that
“will make it harder to identify those who have been exploited… Traumatised victims cannot disclose their suffering to order—it takes time to build trust and confidence.”
That is absolutely right.
The Government’s own statutory guidance on modern slavery states:
“Victims’ early accounts may be affected by the impact of trauma. This can result in delayed disclosure, difficulty recalling facts, or symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder.”
Why do the provisions in the Bill run contrary to the evidence in the Government’s own guidance? This point relates to amendments 5, 6 and 7, which were tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) and have cross-party support. I also support my right hon. Friend’s incredibly important new clause 3, which would create an offence for arranging or facilitating the travel of another person with a view to that person being sexually exploited in the UK.
We debate the Bill less than two weeks after the tragic loss of 27 lives in the English channel, yet the Government are intent on pushing ahead with their cruel pushbacks plan, despite Border Force officials saying privately that it is dangerous and unworkable, and despite the Joint Committee on Human Rights having said that pushbacks would
“create a situation where state actors were actively placing individuals in situations that would increase the risk”
On behalf of my constituent, who has more than 10 years’ experience in maritime rescue, I ask the Minister how the Government expect Her Majesty’s Coastguard to operate in a situation that it deems to be search and rescue but that the Home Office considers to be a pushback situation? He wants to know who will have the veto authority in such situations?
As Families Together has pointed out:
“No one chooses to cross the channel…unless they have no other option.”
Amnesty International has said that the Bill
“will cost not save lives. It will enable and empower ruthless criminal gangs not break them. It closes safe routes and opens none. It will harm women and girls along with the men seeking asylum, to whom Ministers appear to take such exception”.
I urge members from all parties to vote against the Bill on Third Reading.
Mr Carmichael
I am grateful for the opportunity to make a few remarks about the amendments and new clause tabled in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends and others. I put on the record my support for the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), by the hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), by the official Opposition, by the Scottish National party, and by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith). I think you can take it from that selection, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the view of many of us here is that part 5 of the Bill requires some fairly urgent and radical surgery. In general terms, that is something to be regretted.
The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) was absolutely right to remind us of the history in relation to human trafficking in this House. He mentioned Anthony Steen, who ploughed a lonely furrow in the early days but was dogged in pursuit of that. I fear that it may not always be what he is remembered for, but ultimately he did a great deal of good in relation to this matter.
I also pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), who, as Home Secretary, drove this with an unquestionable commitment—I saw that for myself in government. The fact that we now find the salami slicer starting to work and that, piece by piece, the provisions and protections that we have brought into operation to protect the victims of modern slavery are being taken away is, I think, a matter of regret.
I do not often tell tales from outside the Chamber, but I went up in the lift in Portcullis House with the right hon. Member for Maidenhead yesterday—I hope that she will not mind me referencing this—and apropos the House’s consideration of the Bill yesterday, she asked what sort of a debate it had been. I replied, “Suffice it to say that I don’t think anybody would refer to it as being the House at its best.” It is to be welcomed that the temperature of debate today is perhaps a bit more measured. It also illustrates that, on a matter such as this, if one looks around the Chamber and sees the range of interests that have brought forward amendments, it is very easy still to build a consensus around this. The fact that the Government show no inclination or enthusiasm for building or maintaining that consensus is a matter of deep regret.
The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) referred to the credibility provisions. He is absolutely right. The idea that legislation should interfere with the assessment of something around credibility is fundamentally obnoxious. If any right hon. and hon. Members have ever spent any time in the Appeal Court, they will have seen advocates being pulled up occasionally for trying to reopen questions of credibility. The Appeal Court always says, “We are not interested. That was heard by the judge at first instance, and he or she alone can be the judge of these matters.” Trying to set out parameters around credibility in the way that is sought here is dangerous to say the very least.
I will touch on the matters that stand in my name. Amendment 3 seeks to leave out clause 62. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire made an excellent dissection of the effect of clause 62. He said that it was the wrong measure in the wrong place, and he is absolutely right. What we have brought here is more of a scalpel to the Bill, to remove the clause completely. It does sit with other measures in clause 5 in restricting the protections that are available to victims of modern slavery. In our view, this breaks our obligations to support the victims of human trafficking and undermines the fight against slavery and human trafficking. It will make victims less likely to come forward and to co-operate with law enforcement. Ultimately, the effect of it will be to strengthen the hand of the slavers.
Clause 62 works to exclude potential victims of slavery or human trafficking from protections on the grounds that they are a threat to public order or have claimed to be a victim in bad faith. I can put the concerns about this clause no better than Dame Sara Thornton, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, who, in a letter to the Home Secretary, warned:
“I have grave concerns about this clause because it casts a wide net with the potential to prevent a considerable number of potential victims of modern slavery from being able to access the recovery and reflection period granted through the NRM. Without such support prosecution witnesses will be unable to provide witness evidence and this will severely limit our ability to convict perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups.”
Those are the concerns of the Government’s own Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner. We have to wonder why we have people in such positions if their advice is to be disregarded in this way.
In promoting new clause 43 and amendments 130 and 131, I fully declare that I am something of a cipher for the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association—a declaration I make with absolutely no shame or embarrassment. ILPA has a long and distinguished record in this area and it comprises people whose views should be listened to.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I rise to support the amendments in the name of my colleagues. I also speak in my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on immigration detention. We have many concerns about the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) mentioned, there is a degree of overlap between what I wish to say today and some of the measures that we addressed yesterday.
The UK Government propose a quasi-detention system for new arrivals. The all-party parliamentary group on immigration detention has taken a great deal of evidence on the harm that such facilities cause. We looked at Napier and Penally barracks, and others such as Tinsley House and Yarl’s wood, which were used for quasi-detention. We found, very much so, that these facilities undermined the health of vulnerable people, dehumanised them and also made vulnerable those who did not consider themselves that vulnerable to begin with.
Those facilities featured: physical and social isolation; prison-like conditions with people feeling under surveillance 24/7; and shared facilities, meaning a lack of dignity and privacy, and, of course, during the period of covid, the risk of covid, which the Government failed to take into account, basically facilitating an outbreak among those unlucky enough to be living there. Due to their very nature, the facilities also ended up being targeted by the far right, further making those who happened to be living there very, very vulnerable.
The evidence that we received in our inquiry found a lack of safeguarding, healthcare and access to legal advice. The Home Office equality impact assessment on the facilities set out that people seeking asylum were not analogous to British citizens and other permanent residents in need of welfare assistance. As we heard yesterday, facilities such as these and offshoring facilities were tried, and failed, in Australia.
The implication of what we are discussing today was discovered by the Jesuit Refugee Service, which in the course of its work encountered residents at Napier barracks whose asylum screening interviews had revealed clear indications of trafficking, yet individuals had been transferred to those sites when they should never have been there in the first place. This happened initially, which could perhaps be accepted as a mistake or oversight, but also as late as June 2021, when such issues should not still have been going on, and people should have been identified as victims of trafficking. Solicitors engaged in the site found similar circumstances, where people who had been trafficked ended up in this inappropriate accommodation.
The provisions are concerning in a number of ways, because such facilities are difficult for people to be in. I had a conversation with somebody earlier in the week who suggested that the UK Government and the Home Office have not thought this through. I disagree with that in some respects, because to me this is a very deliberate policy of removing people from legal support—their opportunity to make the best case of putting themselves before the immigration system—and from communities, where they could build links, settle in, make friends and engage with people who had perhaps come from their own countries. It is a deliberate policy of removing people from the healthcare and support they need to get well and recover from trauma. All those things make it easier for the Government to send these people away—and that is not done in the name of my constituents or my party. We do not agree with the proposals and this ideological pandering to the lowest common denominator, because the people we are speaking about are very vulnerable.
I fully support amendment 6 on late disclosure, because the provisions place people, such as those who ended up in this quasi-detention system, in a trap. I see people in my surgeries week in, week out who are already disbelieved by the Home Office. It puts people at risk to say that if they do not disclose everything at the point where they are being told that they must disclose, the case will be stacked against them.
Chris Stephens (Glasgow South West) (SNP)
Is this provision not of huge concern to constituents in Glasgow South West and Glasgow Central—women, in particular, who have been subjected to sexual violence and would not necessarily disclose that at the first interview?
Alison Thewliss
Indeed; they may take a long time, and may not have the language, to disclose that very traumatic experience. Those who were held in this quasi-detention system were not necessarily even provided with notice of their substantive interview. It was sprung on them, in many cases with very little notice. Let us imagine someone being woken up in the morning by somebody saying, “Today’s the big day—your substantive interview. Spill your guts”, and their not having the capacity to explain what happened to them, having not processed the trauma that they have been through, yet if they do not do so there and then, their case may fall apart completely. That is a brutal system, but not only do the Government have that system just now, they want to roll it out yet further.
David Linden (Glasgow East) (SNP)
I am grateful to my constituency neighbour for giving way. She is absolutely right, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), to place on record the fact that many women, for example, who have experienced sexual violence, will not feel comfortable declaring that in the first interview. Does she agree—we see this in our cases in Glasgow—that one of the common concerns that we get from constituents is that quite often when they go to these interviews, the person interviewing them does not have any qualifications or knowledge on these matters, and that therefore these constituents of ours, who she is right to say are incredibly vulnerable, pick up very quickly that even if they try to explain the situation to somebody, that person will not actually understand?
Alison Thewliss
Yes. I am sure that like me my hon. Friend has read through the transcripts of people’s substantive interviews, including some of the ludicrous questions that people have been asked by Home Office officials. There is just a lack of understanding of the trauma that people have been through. There is no way by which people are understood; rather, the Home Office is trying to catch people out at every turn. It is a game that people are not equipped to participate in.
The Government are failing victims of trafficking, both male and female. As difficult as it is for many women to explain how they have been trafficked, men who have been trafficked for sexual purposes will also find that very difficult to explain, particularly those who have been housed in mass accommodation such as Napier barracks; they will find it difficult to live among other men and to deal with that trauma there as well.
There was no privacy in Napier, Penally and the other facilities. Those men were asked to give their substantive interview and to speak to their lawyers without any privacy whatever, in common spaces such as kitchens. To explain their cases in earshot of other people, without having the privacy and the dignity that they should have, retraumatises people all over again. The Government should be ashamed of treating people this way. It is inhumane.
I want briefly to mention the work of the Trafficking Awareness Raising Alliance, based in my constituency in Glasgow, which does amazing work to support women who have been trafficked. In my experience, the Home Office is not doing its bit. A woman came to speak to me at a surgery in 2017. She had limited English and had clearly been through traumatic experiences. She had first been encountered by the police in 2014, three years prior to coming to me, but did not receive her substantive interview until 2017, and my office was still working on her case two years after that. How is somebody supposed to get on with their lives, heal, move on and make a new life for themselves away from trauma, when they are reminded of that trauma every day when they wake up in the morning—if they manage to wake up in the morning, because many also suffer lack of sleep and other symptoms of trauma?
The Home Office is not doing its bit. Although people should not be rushed into making disclosures, once they have done so and the case is under way, the Home Office should ensure that it is not delayed by petty bureaucracy. A lot of the bureaucracy in the case that I mentioned was as simple as getting the woman’s name and date of birth right, but we were going back and forth for months. The Home Office comes to lecture all of us on the asylum system being broken in this country, and I agree that it is certainly broken, but what the Government are proposing is certainly not the way to fix it.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I call Jeremy Corbyn, although just before the right hon. Gentleman rises, let me say that I know that he is usually very brief, but it seemed like we had a lot of time for this business and we are now running out of time, so would people just be a bit sharper? It is not a general conversation, but a debate. Let us just get on with it.
Jeremy Corbyn
Sharpness is the order of the day; I will be very brief and very sharp.
This Bill is appalling in so many ways. I will come to that in just a moment. In this set of amendments, we are dealing with people who are suffering the most grotesque exploitation of almost anyone in the world—people who have been trafficked into sexual slavery, and into working illegally in factories and agriculture, and who have no recourse to any support anywhere. They are living in dangerous conditions. They are often isolated and have no one to turn to. While I appreciate that all the amendments are trying to provide better support and better protection for them, these people are the victims of slavery in every form imaginable.
Although I support the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), I do not quite understand why he limits the right to remain to 12 months, because if, at the end of that 12-month period, the person concerned is then faced with deportation, I would ask: deportation to where and under what circumstances? Would they not then be in danger in the country they have originally come from, or from the very gangs that have been called out, because of their seeking safety in this country?
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
For clarification, we argued for the period as a de minimis, to give greater scope and time for the person’s case to be resolved fairly and reasonably. That was all. We could go further and further, but it is a compromise. I fully accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point, but I simply say to my colleagues that it is a minimum that they can take further and extend further, and they should be encouraged to do so if they wish.
Jeremy Corbyn
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that explanation. Clearly his amendment is better than no amendment, but I would want us to go a lot further, because if we do not give support to people who are complete victims, they will suffer in the most abominable circumstances. I therefore hope that the Bill can be strengthened.
This Bill is an appalling piece of legislation. It does not bring safety or humanity to people around the world. It will result in more people being put in danger. It will create a more draconian attitude towards refugees. There are 70 million refugees around the world. They are victims of war, human rights abuse and poverty. Some of them are victims of wars that we ourselves have been involved in. We need to reset the dial and work globally towards reducing the need for people to seek refuge or asylum by dealing with the issues at source. That is a more positive method than the incredibly draconian measures included in the Bill.
There are many victims around the world in refugee camps and many other places. Having met many people in refugee camps and those who are victims of trafficking and modern slavery, I know they have a thirst to live a life and make a contribution to our world and our society. This Bill does not give them those chances. It further criminalises people who, out of desperation, put themselves in the most terrible danger. Sadly, 27 died in the channel, while thousands have died in the Mediterranean, and many more around the world. We need a global call for humanity, not repression.
David Linden
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I remarked to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin) at the beginning of the debate that it was significant that both a former Leader of the Opposition and a former Prime Minister were still in the Chamber. We owe them a huge amount of respect for sticking around and informing the debate, even if our politics often differ from theirs and we do not agree with absolutely everything they say.
The Bill is hostile towards refugees, flies in the face of the refugee convention, and goes against the advice of the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, non-governmental organisations and human rights lawyers. Put simply, the Bill takes some of the most vulnerable people in the world and exacerbates their risk of poverty, exploitation, and family separation. In speaking to this group of amendments and new clauses, I wish to offer my support for amendment 128, which would remove clause 58, and a number of other amendments and new clauses, but in the interests of brevity I will focus on part 5 of the Bill, which deals with modem slavery.
Slavery is not yet a thing of the past. For so many people, slavery does not exist simply in the history books but is the horrific reality they face every day. From human trafficking victims to those undertaking involuntary labour and those in forced marriage, modern slavery impacts countless lives, and it is a sad but inescapable reality that it happens in many of our constituencies. Its scale is unknown, but the International Labour Organisation has estimated that more than 40 million people worldwide are victims of modern slavery.
I pay tribute to Restore Glasgow in my constituency and the great work that it does to raise awareness of human trafficking, particularly teaching people to spot the signs of trafficking. Many of us wrongly assume that human trafficking and slavery occurs behind closed doors, but in some cases—indeed, far too many—it is hiding in plain sight on our high streets and in our shop fronts. I want to particularly raise this form of exploitation and highlight the forced labour of people who work in industries that are less regulated, such as car washes and nail bars. Many of us will walk past these shops every day and think nothing of the low prices or the long hours worked. I am asking not just hon. Members in this House but everyone watching this debate to really consider their purchasing power. We need to stop and think about that £5 car wash and that £10 set of nails. Bluntly, if four or five guys in flip-flops are washing your car for a few quid, then the alarm bells should be ringing loud and clear.
There should be greater regulation in these industries to help prevent cases of human trafficking and slavery occurring in the first place, and that is where I would challenge governments both local and national, and all across these islands, to go further. In 2020, the chief executive of the British Beauty Council, Millie Kendall, said of the nail salon industry that
“we are very under regulated and that’s a real problem for us.”
Ms Kendall asked the British Government to move to license the industry. As far as I can see, there is very little provision in legislation to deal with that aspect of modern slavery. The situation for so many victims and survivors is desperate, which only makes the Government’s failure on this worse. Figures released in 2020 highlight that any efforts to crack down on slavery have been weak and slow, with only 42 convictions on slavery and human trafficking in 2018, down from 59 in 2017 and 69 in 2016.
I have outlined aspects of modern slavery that I feel need to be further addressed, and I hope that the Minister will address some of those points in the wind-ups. However, I also ask the Minister and the Home Office to reflect on the fact that at least four Members representing the seven seats in the city of Glasgow have taken part in this debate. We so often hear from Conservative Members about their views on immigration and asylum. However, I would be willing to wager a safe amount of money that the amount of cases that I, my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) have ongoing at the moment is probably more than every single Conservative Member has dealt with in the course of this year. That is because, as MPs who rightly welcome people to our city and take up asylum casework, we far too often see the significant failings of an asylum and immigration system that is utterly broken, making it so difficult for those we represent.
This Bill and much of what it represents is not what Scotland wants or voted for. Scotland is a welcoming country to refugees and asylum seekers. They are part of the rich tartan tapestry that makes up our communities. Indeed, they are our friends and our families with whom we break bread at community meals in places such as my native Cranhill. Earlier this year, my home city united and sent a clear message to the Home Office with the Kenmure Street protest, proving that once again all people, including refugees and asylum seekers, make Glasgow. Glasgow rejects this Bill and looks forward to a day when Westminster’s right-wing immigration policies and dangerous anti-refugee rhetoric has no territorial application on our citizens, and instead we can form borders and nationality policy that is based on dignity, not on dog-whistle politics.
Anne McLaughlin (Glasgow North East) (SNP)
It is an absolute pleasure to follow my hon. Friend, and neighbour, the Member for Glasgow East (David Linden).
I have said repeatedly how disgusted I am with this Bill in its entirety, so I will not go over that again, and I am sure, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you would not let me. It is hard not to do it, but it is all on the record. In any case, whatever I say today is unlikely to change anybody’s vote, and that is what is so depressing about this. Today I will focus on what you want me to focus on, Madam Deputy Speaker, which is modern slavery and human trafficking. I will highlight two aspects of the many that I find greatly disturbing.
First, there is late disclosure. I am deeply concerned by the measures in the Bill that aim to damage the credibility of victims of modern slavery or human trafficking. Using late disclosure as a reason to damage their credibility only serves to create barriers to effective and vital identification and engagement with those victims. The Government, of course, in their usual, cynical way, believe that claimants are abusing the system and attempting to frustrate removal. They point to the rise in the number of trafficking claims, but that is down to a range of factors, including greater awareness of modern slavery among detention workers and others and an improved ability to recognise vulnerability, as a leading Hibiscus report highlighted. All the awareness-raising campaigns, supported by all the Governments on these islands, including this Government, were always going to increase those numbers—that is what we were looking for, surely. To use that increase as a reason to now cynically attack people is just despicable.
Mr Bone
The hon. Lady seems to be welcoming what Governments have done against slavery, and she says that raising awareness and encouraging people to report has created more victims. Does she support what this Government and previous Governments have done to make this country the leader in the fight against modern-day slavery?
Anne McLaughlin
I support any attempts to help people who are victims of modern slavery, of course I do. Some good measures have been taken—of course they have—but it depresses me that this Government continually assume that anyone displaying signs of vulnerability, who for a number of reasons might not be able to come forward and present their story to the authorities immediately, is somehow acting in bad faith or gaming the system. There is a distinct lack of compassion and understanding in equal measure regarding the severe trauma suffered by some victims and its impact on their testimony.
There are reasons why people are late in coming forward. I want to read something from the guidance for this Parliament’s Modern Slavery Act 2015. It states:
“Victims’ early accounts may be affected by the impact of trauma. This can result in delayed disclosure”—
the thing that we are now saying damages their credibility—
“difficulty recalling facts, or symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder…Victims may also be reluctant to self identify for a number of other reasons that can make understanding their experiences challenging”.
Who wrote that? This Government did, so they know, yet they seek to punish victims by accusing anyone who fails to recount their traumatic experiences in time.
To state that someone has experienced exploitation is in many ways similar to domestic violence in terms of how complicated it is. Exploitation is often committed by someone the victim knows or is close to, and it can happen very gradually over a long time. Some victims of exploitation are unaware there is even a crime being committed against them until it is too late, which this Bill will only prove to exacerbate.
Some victims might not want to admit they have been exploited, particularly in cases of sexual abuse, where cultural sensitivities could mean a victim feels ashamed—shame that they should not feel, but do feel anyway. As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central (Alison Thewliss) pointed out, men who are exploited may feel ashamed or degraded by their lack of agency. Let us not forget that a lot of victims are terrified that if they reveal information, they or their family, here or wherever they have come from, might be punished by the traffickers. That is how they get them. The Met police said recently that it takes two years on average to get a west African victim of juju-induced slavery to reveal what happened to them.
Then there are those who simply block it out. They do not consciously block it out; their unconscious mind cannot cope with it any longer. I had a friend many years ago who I used to visit every six months or so. One time I went to stay with her for the weekend. She worked as a cleaner in a local primary school. She had a normal life. She built a life for herself. She had a family and everything and this job. She was cleaning, and suddenly she had a flashback—for anyone who does not know, a flashback is not a memory; it is reliving the moment—to when she was eight years old and her stepfather was raping her. It was the most terrifying thing, clearly, but she was then in her 40s, and she only remembered it all those years later. She had the courage to speak to her siblings, one of whom had remembered it and had not told anybody. Sometimes it is simply that it is gone from someone’s memory, but it can come back, and we should not be punishing people in those cases.
These measures will not prevent false claims. Instead, they will create an even deeper mistrust and suspicion of the authorities, and the only people who will gain from that are, as others have said, those who are seeking to exploit and extort these vulnerable victims. Traffickers use the fear of the authorities as a means of control, and this Bill will just give them, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) said, a broader set of tools. I cannot work out whether those supporting these measures do not realise that, or just do not care. It is increasingly looking like the latter, particularly over the past couple of days and throughout Committee.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
It is at the hon. Lady’s discretion, but I think everyone wants the Minister to answer the questions that have been asked this afternoon. If the hon. Lady goes on for very much longer, there will not be an opportunity for that. I am not stopping her, but I hope she will not take too much longer.
Anne McLaughlin
I will take your advice on that, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I am little unsure whether we will get answers, because we have not any other time we have been asking for them.
Any disqualification from protection must be reserved for the most serious of offenders—those who pose a serious risk to the public or to national security. A public order disqualification for victims with prior convictions of 12 months or more is too wide, as others have said. There is a real danger that genuine victims who could give vital evidence against slavery networks, and who pose absolutely no risk to the public, will be excluded from that support.
The actual figures for referrals of offenders in immigration detention to the NRM are low, as was said earlier, and the Government have published no data to back up the sensationalist claims made in support of these measures. It is another theme running through every part of this Bill. There is nothing to back up their scaremongering claims. The hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) was also asking for evidence. I very much doubt the Minister is going to give us any, but let us wait and see.
I will move on, finally, to say that I fail to see why all of this is part of an immigration Bill. We are not talking about immigrants; we are talking about victims of criminal offences. In 2016, I sat on the Immigration Bill Committee, and a Government Member, who is not present and whose name I will not reveal, told me, “If people do not want to be trafficked, they should simply say no.” That demonstrated a crass misunderstanding of what trafficking is. These are people who are not trying to migrate to this country; they are simply caught up in exploitation and they end up here.
I will end by saying that I would love to hear what the Minister has to say. I have zero faith that we will hear anything. I have never ever been so ashamed as I am today, because I know that Members will vote for this Bill that will damage, exploit and kill vulnerable people, who they claim to care about. It is absolutely a disgrace.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Rachel Maclean)
We have had an excellent debate. Despite some of the comments I have just heard from the previous speaker, the hon. Member for Glasgow North East (Anne McLaughlin), there is more agreement across the House on the seriousness of these crimes and our determination to tackle them than there is disagreement.
The aims of the modern slavery elements of the Bill are twofold: to provide clarity on victims’ rights and entitlements, supporting effective recovery from this awful crime, and to increase prosecutions of perpetrators of the despicable crime of modern slavery. That is why we make clear for the first time in legislation that where a public authority, such as the police, is pursuing an investigation or criminal proceeding, confirmed victims who are co-operating and need to remain in the UK to do so will be granted temporary leave to remain. Our core principle is that the entitlements provided to victims are based on their needs, delivering a firm but fair approach. The Nationality and Borders Bill will go further than ever before in putting modern slavery victims’ rights into law. At the same time, we will put in place safeguards to ensure that these important protections are provided to those who most need them.
I will begin by addressing the Government amendments. I will attempt to come on to the Opposition amendments, but I do not have very much time. Government amendments 64, 71 and 73 to 75, which will make changes to clauses 60 to 63, are technical amendments that seek to provide greater clarity on the protections provided to possible victims through the recovery period and on when those rights can be withheld, and to ensure that we have flexibility in decision making. Specifically, they enable the conclusive grounds decision to be made in the recovery period, while still providing for a minimum recovery period of 30 days, which is effectively 45 days in guidance. The second part makes clear our position that, in specific circumstances, as set out in clauses 61 and 62, we can withhold the recovery period and the protection from removal that it provides. Those changes allow us to respond to modern slavery as an evolving crime.
On Government amendments 72 and 76 to 83, which all relate to modern slavery specific temporary leave to remain for confirmed victims of modern slavery, the aim is to clarify our international obligations with regard to the provision of temporary leave to remain for confirmed victims. Government amendments 78 and 81 to 83 are minor technical drafting amendments that provide consistency with similar provisions on the statute book. Similarly, Government amendment 79 updates the wording of the clause to reflect amendment 56, which we considered yesterday.
Government amendments 76 and 77 remove the wording “social well-being” from subsection (2)(a) of clause 64 on the temporary leave to remain. That phrase was an over-broad concept that lacked clarity and left the eligibility criteria for a grant of leave under the clause unclear for victims and decision makers, which undermined the aim of the clause.
I reassure hon. Members that we remain in line with our international obligations. We will continue to support, via a grant of temporary leave to remain, those who have a need to be in the UK to recover from physical and psychological harm caused by their exploitation. In the same vein, Government amendment 72 amends the wording in clause 63 from “social well-being” to “social harm”. I reassure hon. Members that the clause will be underpinned by the immigration rules, which will provide more guidance on the issue for decision makers.
Government amendment 80 extends the current policy in the Bill that temporary leave will be provided where needs cannot be met in another country of which the individual is a national or citizen, another Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings signatory country, or any country with which we have an appropriate bilateral agreement. Decision makers will assess potential returns on a case-by-case basis following an individualised assessment in line with guidance and available country information.
Rachel Maclean
If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have a huge amount to put on the record. I may take interventions later in my speech, but I have a number of things that I need to address.
I commend the Government amendments to the House and turn to the non-Government amendments. I will attempt to address the points of the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). As I have said, the Government are committed to tackling the heinous crime of modern slavery. I will first turn to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) and the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson).
I thank the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North and the organisations that she works with for meeting me. I commend her for her extensive work on this important point. I say again that we are committed to tackling all forms of modern slavery. We recognise the specific and horrific circumstances that victims of sexual exploitation have gone through. We believe that we have the right tools and a compassionate approach to those traumatised victims. Our people are fully trained to take a trauma-informed approach to advocate for them with compassion to help them to rebuild their lives and to reintegrate in their communities.
The hon. Member for Halifax referenced the issue of child victims of modern slavery. I repeat to her and other hon. Members who raised the issue that safeguards are built into the measures and that decisions will be made on a case-by-case basis with appropriate levels of care. It is the clear duty of the Government to safeguard and protect child victims of that appalling exploitation.
The people who are dealing with those victims are professionals who will use their discretion and, again, a trauma-informed approach. They fully understand and appreciate the experience of those children—those vulnerable victims—and will ensure that they get the right support and approach to rebuild their lives. I have much more to say about all the work that we are doing with regard to that, victim navigators and independent child trafficking guardians, and some of the other work that we are doing across police forces, but I am afraid that time will not allow me to expand on those issues.
New clause 47, which was tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and signed by several other hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), relates to support and leave to remain for confirmed victims. It is clear that we share common aims of bringing the perpetrators of that horrendous crime to justice and of supporting victims to rebuild their lives.
I put on record my appreciation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough and many other hon. Members who have advocated for many years to ensure that we support the victims of that awful crime. A number of organisations, such as the Centre for Social Justice, have been instrumental in that; I want to continue to work with them. We are absolutely committed to ensuring that those victims of modern slavery have the support that they need to assist their recovery and the support that they need when they are engaging with the police and through the criminal justice process.
It is a priority to increase prosecutions of perpetrators of modern slavery. My hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough is absolutely right that we do not want to see any victims in the system, which is why we are making it clear for the first time that, where a public authority such as the police is pursuing an investigation, those victims who are co-operating and need to remain will be granted temporary leave to remain. Our legislation also makes it clear that leave will be granted where it is necessary to assist an individual in their recovery from any physical or psychological harm arising from the relevant exploitation or where it is necessary to seek compensation from their perpetrators. It is right that leave is granted to those who need it—that is firm but fair.
That is but one element of our work to strengthen the criminal justice response to modern slavery. Since 2016, we have invested £15 million to support the police’s response to modern slavery, led by the modern slavery and organised immigration crime programme. Through that programme, the Home Office has provided funding for specialist training for police victim liaison officers, who build trust with victims to facilitate engagement with the process using a victim-centred approach.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green spoke about the critical role that victim navigators play to help those traumatised individuals to engage with the system to ensure that we bring those despicable criminals to justice. To reflect the need for that specialist expertise, the Home Office funding provides a bespoke modern slavery intelligence hub with regional analysts, operational co-ordinators and improved training to support police forces and increase prosecutions. We are constantly ramping up that work so that we can best get to the source of those awful crimes.
I assure my right hon. Friend that all those who receive a positive conclusive grounds decision and are in need of tailored support will receive appropriate individualised support for a minimum of 12 months. We will set out further details in relevant guidance.
I add a note of appreciation for the hon. Member for Glasgow East (David Linden), who raised the issue of us all being aware of where modern slavery may be happening under our noses. I fully agree with those words and bring them to the attention of everybody in the House.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful that my hon. Friend has given the commitment to 12 months, but there are other elements in the new clause. It is not my intention to press it to a vote but, if such amendments are not tabled in the other place, others will table an amendment and we will bring it back to this House for a vote.
Rachel Maclean
I thank my right hon. Friend for his words. We will of course watch the progress of the Bill through the other place with interest, and I am happy to work with him and any others as we do so.
Amendments 127 and 128, to which a number of Members have referred, seek to remove clauses 57 and 58 on the one-stop process as it relates to information relevant to modern slavery. These clauses are crucial to the Bill to enable us to appropriately identify victims at the earliest opportunity and make sure that they get support to rebuild their lives.
Finally, on new clause 39 and amendment 3, I appreciate the concerns about clause 62, but it is right that we should be able to withhold protection from serious criminals and those who pose a national security threat to the UK. I would like to reassure hon. Members such as my hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) that our approach is not to have a blanket disqualification based on public order, but to take a case-by-case approach to decisions and consider the individual’s circumstances.
I would like to restate that our approach is to stamp out this evil and inhuman trade. The Bill is firm and fair, and it is in line with the overall objectives of our new plan for immigration. For those reasons, I hope that hon. Members will be content not to press their amendments.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Would the Serjeant at Arms please investigate the delay in the Aye Lobby? This is not acceptable: this Division should have been concluded by now. There is a lot of business to be done this afternoon, and taking too long to vote is taking time out of the next item of business.
The House continued to divide.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. There is an unacceptable delay in the Aye Lobby. It is simply wrong if people are taking too long to vote, deliberately obstructing the Tellers when coming through and remaining in the Lobby when there is no need for them to be remaining in the Lobby in order to stop other business taking place in this House this afternoon. That is unacceptable. There is deliberate action occurring in the Aye Lobby, and it is unacceptable.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
This Division will be conducted in a timely fashion. I will not have it obstructed deliberately.
New Clause 6
Exemption for child victims of modern slavery, exploitation or trafficking
(1) The Secretary of State may not serve a slavery or trafficking information
notice on a person in respect of an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.
(2) Section 61 of this Act does not apply in cases where either of the positive reasonable grounds decisions related to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.
(3) Section 62 of this Act does not apply in cases where the positive reasonable grounds decision related to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.
(4) Sections 64(3) and 64(6) of this Act do not apply in cases where the positive conclusive grounds decision related to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.—[Holly Lynch.]
Brought up,
Question put, That the clause be added Bill.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate, once again, the delay in the Lobbies. This is an anti-democratic practice. It may not be obvious to the House, or to those who observe our proceedings, that the effect of delaying these Divisions is to deprive the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary of the ability to speak on Third Reading of the Bill. That is unacceptable. It is right that this House should hear from the Home Secretary, the shadow Home Secretary, and others on Third Reading. The delaying tactics, if one can use that term, that appear to be being used are unacceptable and contrary to good democratic practice.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Then I can accept the right hon. Gentleman’s point of order.
Mr Davis
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. In view of the anti-democratic nature of the obstruction, is it possible to name the people who are causing it?
Madam Deputy Speaker
The right hon. Gentleman asks a perfectly reasonable question. I am considering the answer. At present, I have no proof of the identity of those who are obstructing these Divisions. I will endeavour to obtain that information, and then I will consider what to do with it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
New clause 47 has been selected for a separate decision. I call Sir Iain Duncan Smith to move the new clause formally.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
Not moved.
Clause 58
Late compliance with slavery or trafficking information notice: damage to credibility
Amendment proposed: 128, page 57, line 25, leave out clause 58.—(Stuart C. McDonald.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The House proceeded to a Division.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Will the Serjeant at Arms please go and clear the Lobby?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Does the hon. Gentleman’s point of order relate to the Division?
David Linden
It does, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that it is taking quite a lot of time to get through the votes, I wonder whether it might be possible to investigate the idea of introducing this thing called electronic voting, which would speed things up a little bit.
Madam Deputy Speaker
If the hon. Gentleman had been behaving properly, I might have taken his point of order seriously. I have to say to him and to the House that a very serious piece of legislation is going through the House today. There has been genuine debate and disagreement about it, but it is legislation that will affect a lot of people in this country and it deserves to be properly considered. The antics that have been reported to me—the way in which certain Members have behaved, very obviously delaying and lengthening the time that the Divisions are taking—are, as I said a few moments ago, contrary to good democratic practice. I deplore the actions of those people who have delayed the Divisions, and who indeed are doing so now. Will they please cast their votes, come back into the Chamber and allow the Third Reading to take place?
Stephen Flynn (Aberdeen South) (SNP)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
I am not taking your point of order. Sit down—[Interruption.] Sit down! I am not taking any points of order—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Sit down! I am not taking a point of order. It would have to be about the Division that we have just had—[Interruption.] Sit down!
Clause 60
Identified potential victims of slavery or human trafficking: recovery period
Amendments made: 64, page 59, line 1, leave out subsection (2).
This amendment removes the requirement that there must be at least 30 days between the making of a positive reasonable grounds decision in relation to an identified potential victim of slavery or human trafficking and the making of a conclusive grounds decision.
Amendment 65, page 59, line 4, at beginning insert “Subject to section 62(2),”.
This is a drafting amendment to make it clear that the prohibition on removal of an identified potential victim does not apply where they are disqualified from protection under clause 62 as a threat to public order or for having acted in bad faith.
Amendment 66, page 59, line 10, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) ending with whichever of the following is the later—
(i) the day on which the conclusive grounds decision is made in relation to the identified potential victim;
(ii) the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day mentioned in paragraph (a).”—(Rachel Maclean.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 64. It ensures that an identified potential victim is entitled to a recovery period (giving protection from removal) of at least 30 days even where a conclusive grounds decision is made within 30 days of the positive reasonable grounds decision.
Clause 61
No entitlement to additional recovery period etc
Amendments made: 67, page 59, line 17, after “person” insert
“, in a case where the reasonable grounds for believing that the person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking arise from things done wholly before the first RG decision was made”.
This amendment corrects a drafting error in the definition of “further RG decision”.
Amendment 68, page 59, line 18, leave out paragraph (c).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 67.
Amendment 69, page 59, line 21, leave out subsections (2) to (4) and insert—
“(2) If the competent authority considers it appropriate in the circumstances of a particular case, the authority may determine that the person may not be removed from, or required to leave, the United Kingdom during the period—
(a) beginning with the day on which the further RG decision is made, and
(b) ending with whichever of the following is the later—
(i) the day on which the conclusive grounds decision is made in relation to the further RG decision;
(ii) the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day mentioned in paragraph (a).
This is subject to section 62(2).”—(Rachel Maclean.)
This amendment removes the disapplication of a requirement to make a conclusive grounds decision following a “further RG decision” and instead provides that, although an identified potential victim is not automatically entitled to protection from removal following a further RG decision, the competent authority may decide that it is appropriate to give them that protection.
Clause 62
Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection
Amendments made: 70, page 60, line 1, leave out paragraph (a).
This amendment is consequential on Amendments 64 and 69.
Amendment 71, page 60, line 4, at end insert “, and
(c) any requirement under section 64 to grant the person limited leave to remain in the United Kingdom.”—(Rachel Maclean.)
This amendment provides that if an identified potential victim is disqualified from protection (on the grounds of public order or acting in bad faith) but goes on to receive a positive conclusive grounds decision, any requirement to grant them leave to remain in the United Kingdom that would otherwise arise under clause 64 ceases to apply.
Clause 63
Identified potential victims etc in England and Wales: assistance and support
Amendments made: 72, page 61, line 28, leave out from “any” to “arising” in line 29 and insert
“physical, psychological or social harm”.
This amendment changes the reference to “social well-being” to “social harm” to follow more closely the language of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.
Amendment 73, page 61, line 35, leave out paragraph (b).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 69.
Amendment 74, page 61, line 43, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) ending with whichever of the following is the later—
(i) the day on which the conclusive grounds decision is made in relation to the further RG decision;
(ii) the end of the period of 30 days beginning with the day mentioned in paragraph (a).”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 64.
Amendment 75, page 61, line 45, leave out subsection (5).—(Rachel Maclean.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 73.
Clause 64
Leave to remain for victims of slavery or human trafficking
Amendments made: 78, page 62, line 23, leave out “give” and insert “grant”.
This amendment and Amendments 81 to 83 make minor drafting changes for consistency with related provisions on the statute book.
Amendment 76, page 62, line 26, after “any” insert “physical or psychological”.
This amendment removes assisting a victim of slavery or human trafficking in their recovery from harm to their social well-being from the list of purposes for which the Secretary of State is required to give a victim limited leave to remain the United Kingdom.
Amendment 77, page 62, line 27, leave out from “exploitation” to end of line 28.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 76.
Amendment 79, page 62, line 33, at end insert—
“(2A) Subsection (2) is subject to section 62(2).”
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 71.
Amendment 80, page 63, line 3, leave out “as” and insert
“which may be, but does not need to be, an agreement”.
This amendment makes it clear that a trafficking victim may be removed to a country which is not a signatory to the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, if the UK has made an agreement with that country.
Amendment 81, page 63, line 9, leave out “give” and insert “grant”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 78.
Amendment 82, page 63, line 11, leave out “given” and insert “granted”.
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 78.
Amendment 83, page 63, line 12, leave out “given” and insert “granted”.—(Rachel Maclean.)
See the explanatory statement for Amendment 78.
Clause 81
Extent
Amendment made: 84, page 79, line 4, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
“(4) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any of the provisions of this Act to extend, with or without modifications, to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man.
(5) A power under any provision listed in subsection (6) may be exercised so as to extend (with or without modification) to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man any amendment or repeal made by or under this Act of any part of an Act to which the provision listed in subsection (6) relates.
(6) Those provisions are—
(a) section 36 of the Immigration Act 1971,
(b) section 15(1) of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993,
(c) section 13(5) of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996,
(d) section 9(3) of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997,
(e) section 170(7) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999,
(f) section 163(4) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002,
(g) section 338 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003,
(h) section 49(3) of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants etc) Act 2004,
(i) section 63(3) of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006,
(j) section 60(4) of the UK Borders Act 2007,
(k) section 57(5) of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009,
(l) section 76(6) of the Immigration Act 2014,
(m) section 60(6) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015,
(n) section 95(5) of the Immigration Act 2016, and
(o) section 8(2) of the Immigration and Social Security (EU Withdrawal) Act 2020”.—(Rachel Maclean.)
This amendment will enable the provisions of the Bill to be extended, by Order in Council, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
Clause 82
Commencement
Amendments made: 85, page 79, line 21, leave out “This Part and”.
This amendment, and Amendment 86, make minor drafting changes needed as a result of Amendment 87.
Amendment 86, page 79, line 25, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
“(b) this Part.”
See statement for Amendment 85.
Amendment 87, page 79, line 26, at end insert—
“(3A) The following provisions come into force on the day on which this Act is passed for the purposes of making (and, where required, consulting on) regulations—
(a) section 13 (requirement to make asylum claim at “designated place”);
(b) section 26 (accelerated detained appeals);
(c) section 41 and Schedule 4 (penalty for failure to secure goods vehicle etc);
(d) section 42 (working in United Kingdom waters: arrival and entry);
(e) section 49 (persons subject to immigration control: referral or age assessment by local authority);
(f) section 51 (regulations about use of scientific methods in age assessments);
(g) section 52 (regulations about age assessments);
(h) section 68 (interpretation of Part 5);
(i) section 77 (pre-consolidation amendments of immigration legislation).”
This amendment brings powers in the Bill to make regulations into force on Royal Assent, so that the regulations can be prepared in advance of the substantive provisions being commenced. The regulations themselves will not be commenced for at least two months after Royal Assent.
Amendment 88, page 79, line 38, leave out paragraph (g).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87.
Amendment 89, page 79, line 42, leave out paragraphs (j) and (k).
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87.
Amendment 90, page 80, line 3, leave out paragraph (n).—(Rachel Maclean.)
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 87.
Third Reading
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Priti Patel)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I echo your remarks—
Priti Patel
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I echo your remarks—[Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. If the hon. Gentleman rises again, I will require him to leave the Chamber.
Priti Patel
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is appalling that we have seen these delaying tactics today.
This Bill introduces the most significant overhaul of our asylum system in over two decades, and it is a shame that Members of this House have brought in these delaying tactics today to prevent this debate. Our Bill will bring in a new, comprehensive, fair but firm long-term plan that seeks to address the challenge of illegal migration head on. Illegal immigration is facilitated by serious organised criminals exploiting people and profiting from human misery.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
I am sure my right hon. Friend will agree that this is the most important piece of legislation to be passed since I was elected in 2019. Does she also agree that the disgraceful tactic of hiding in the toilets used by the rabble opposite to delay democracy is an attack on democracy? You should be ashamed, the lot of you!
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We will now hear the Home Secretary and the shadow Home Secretary.
Priti Patel
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will not give way further, so that the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) can have some time. The Back Benchers have debated this Bill already.
Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)
Will the Minister give way?
Priti Patel
No I will not, because I want to give the right hon. Lady a chance to speak in the debate and quite frankly, other Members on the Opposition Benches have already delayed the debate.
Illegal immigration is facilitated by serious organised criminals exploiting people and profiting from human misery. Illegal migration is counter to our national interests, because those criminal gangs and networks are also responsible for other illicit activity including those involving drugs, firearms and serious violence. If left unchecked, it is a risk to our country and our national interests. Illegal migration is counter to our moral interests, because it means that people are put into the hands of ruthless criminals, which we want to stop because it endangers lives. By facilitating illegal entry via unsafe means such as boats, lorries and sealed shipping containers—
Priti Patel
I will not give way, because I want to leave some time for the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford. The hon. Gentleman would have had time to contribute from the Back Benches during the debate on Report.
Families and young children have lost their lives at sea and in lorries and containers because they put their trust in the people traffickers. The challenge is not unique to the United Kingdom, but we as a Government are seeking to address these issues in a responsible way, because they have been neglected for far too long. Let us not forget that the British public are angered by what they see. The British people are fair and generous when it comes to helping those in need—[Interruption.]
If I may, hon. Members have had hours to debate this Bill. They are screaming and using delaying tactics because they lack the solutions to these problems, and we are going to put fundamental reforms into statute.
The reality is that the system is broken. It has been open to gaming and criminal exploitation, and we are compelled to act with the simple principle of fairness. We are the only Government who will bring forward a balanced Bill. We are bringing forward a legislative framework that is firm and fair, prioritising those in genuine need. We will have powers to stop illegal entry and to break the business model of the evil people smugglers, who will face life in prison, which is something all Opposition Members have opposed completely.
We will bring in tough new sentences—maximum life sentences—for people smugglers and facilitators. There will be new rules to stop unscrupulous people posing as children, and there will be stronger enforcement powers for Border Force. Importantly, those who travel through a safe country should claim asylum in that safe country, rather than asylum shopping in the way we see right now.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Sit down. The Home Secretary does not have time to take interventions, neither will the shadow Home Secretary, because time has been wasted by the Members on the SNP Benches. Stay in your seat.
Priti Patel
They do not like hearing the fact that this Government will seek to rapidly remove those with no legal right to be in the UK. We are establishing a fast-track appeal process and streamlining the appeal system, making it quicker to remove failed asylum seekers and dangerous foreign criminals, the very people they would like to keep in this country. We will tackle the practice of meritless last-minute claims and appeals that clog up the courts, which is a fundamental unfairness that, by the way, even the legal profession says has been frustrating it for too long because the justice system has been gamed. We will protect the rights of modern-day slavery victims, too.
On that basis, we will bring in a fundamental change. The Opposition have had a chance to back the Bill, and they have chosen not to back the Bill. They want open borders, and they would encourage more people smuggling and more dangerous crossings that would compromise our national interest and our public safety. Our opponents have no answers to this Bill, and we are the ones who want to control illegal migration. We want to take back control of our borders. Many Opposition Members have written letters opposing the deportation of murderers and rapists. [Interruption.] They can say they have not, but they have.
This Bill will bring in fundamental reform, and I commend it to the House.
Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)
Unfortunately, what we have just had is a lot of rhetoric and slogans, not solutions, on such a serious issue. Two years ago, the Home Secretary promised she had a plan to halve within three months the number of boats crossing the channel. Instead, the number has gone up tenfold since then, as criminal gangs have switched to using flimsy boats instead. She said she was confident that her plan would lead to a considerable reduction in illegal activity. Instead, those smugglers and traffickers are making more and more profit as lives are being lost.
Far from cracking down on the criminal gangs and the smugglers, this Bill makes things worse. The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and former top police chief, Sara Thornton, has warned the Government repeatedly that the policies in this Bill will severely limit our ability to convict perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups. I can tell the Home Secretary that the Labour party will not support letting vile people traffickers and criminal gangs off the hook in the way that she is prepared to do.
In November, 27 people died in the cold English channel. We need solutions and co-operation to try to tackle the smuggler gangs who are making a profit from people losing their lives. We need the safe and legal routes that the Home Secretary has promised and not delivered. The Afghan soldier who worked with our armed forces and arrived by boat with his family just a few weeks ago to claim asylum should never have ended up in a dinghy on the channel. The security co-operation just is not happening. The Home Secretary has failed to go to the heart of the criminal gangs’ business model, which is all around social media, and she has failed to back the measures that we proposed yesterday.
Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Thursday 9th December 2021
(2 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 8 December 2021 - (8 Dec 2021)
Nationality and Borders Bill
Wednesday 5th January 2022
(2 years, 3 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 8 December 2021 - (8 Dec 2021)
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
That the Bill be now read a second time.
Relevant documents: 7th and 9th Reports from the Joint Committee on Human Rights
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, the United Kingdom has a long history of being open to the world. That includes providing sanctuary to people fleeing conflict, tyranny and oppression. There are countless historical examples of this country extending the hand of friendship to men, women and children in their hour of need and several Members of your Lordships’ House are alive today only because of that.
However, I will not delay the House with a history lesson, not least because this is not only a matter of history; it is also about what we are doing right now. Since 2015, we have resettled more than 25,000 people, half of whom were children, and our family reunion scheme has seen a further 39,000 people settle in the UK. Over 88,000 British national (overseas) status holders and their family members have chosen to apply for the BNO route, with over 76,000 granted so far.
Some 15,000 people were airlifted out of Afghanistan to the UK from mid-August under Operation Pitting, over and above the earlier transfers of around 2,000 locally employed staff and their families under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. Our Afghan citizens resettlement scheme aims to welcome a total of 20,000 people.
Against that background, and right at the outset, I want to make two important points. First, providing sanctuary and refuge is not inconsistent with a fair asylum and immigration system; such humanitarian measures are possible only if we have a fair asylum and immigration system, capable of providing both welcome and integration. Secondly, an approach to immigration which refuses admission to anyone under any circumstances is obviously inhumane. However, the corollary must also be rejected. Being humane does not mean allowing everyone in, and I remind the House that there are some 80 million displaced people around the world today.
I will start with a basic reality: the current system is not working. It is not working for those people who genuinely need protection and refuge. Those in genuine need and in places of conflict should be our priority, not those who are already in safe countries such as France, Belgium and the Netherlands. Nor is the current system working for the people of this country—so the status quo is not a viable option.
That is hardly surprising, as there have been radical changes since the current system was put together. The prevailing legal framework was not designed to cope with the type—and certainly not the scale—of the mass migration we have seen in recent years. But some things have not changed: the British public remain generous and kind and there is no question about that.
However, that generosity and kindness does not mean that they are willing to accept uncontrolled immigration—and nor should we expect them to. The truth is that we cannot hope to properly control our borders unless we address illegal entry. That requires comprehensive reform of the asylum system and this Bill is fundamental to delivering the change that is so badly needed.
Some people—and I respect their honesty, although I think they are profoundly misguided—are opposed to any form of immigration control whatever. That position is intellectually coherent, albeit pragmatically incoherent. But for everyone else, who recognises that we have to control our borders, we must also recognise the reality that this means addressing, tackling and reducing illegal entry.
Too many people profess a desire to control our borders but then, when it comes to putting that professed desire into practice, oppose any and every measure designed to do so. That is what one might call a Marxist approach to the problem—not Karl, but Groucho:
“Whatever it is, I’m against it.”
Because, if you will the ends, you cannot oppose all the means, all the time. So I look forward to contributions to this debate which, if they disagree with the Government’s proposals, set out precisely what steps should be taken to achieve the objective of controlled immigration that many profess to support.
When we talk about illegal entry, the illegality does not begin—and certainly does not end—with the migrants themselves, who have often been exploited by criminal gangs. These days, illegal entry is a business. It is run by criminals, who exploit vulnerable people and profit—in the form of hard cash—from human misery. It is a growing business. There were more than 25,000 irregular arrivals in 2021—a fivefold increase over 2018.
Your Lordships have seen the TV pictures. We know all too well that these crossings are often dangerous and sometimes fatal. The loss of those 27 lives in the Channel in November laid bare in devastating fashion why we must do everything possible to make this route unviable. We must reduce the pull factors which lead people to leave other safe countries and risk drowning.
But beyond this, the system is under strain in terms of numbers, time and cost. In the year to March 2021, the UK received more than 33,000 asylum applications, which is more than at the height of the European migration crisis in 2015-16. Because of Covid, efforts to move people through the system, and to remove them from the country, have both been slower.
As a result, waiting times are on the rise. At the end of June last year, there were more than 120,000 cases categorised as “works in progress” in the asylum system, including cases awaiting appeal decisions and some 40,000 failed asylum seekers who are subject to removal from the UK but have not yet left or been removed. This includes foreign national offenders who have been found guilty of serious crimes such as murder, rape and child sex offences. The cost is also considerable. The asylum system now costs more than £1 billion a year to run. So, on any reasonable analysis, the status quo is not sustainable. An overhaul is long overdue. Inaction is simply not a responsible option.
This Bill has three key objectives: first, to increase both the fairness and the efficiency of our system; secondly, to deter illegal entry to the UK; and, thirdly, to remove more easily from the UK those with no right to be here. I shall speak to each of these objectives in turn.
First, it is high time we took action to make our immigration and asylum system fairer and more efficient. Again, fairness and efficiency are not inconsistent. An inefficient immigration and asylum system is fair to nobody. So we will introduce a new form of temporary permission to stay in the UK for those who do not come directly to the UK or claim asylum without delay once here, but who have none the less been recognised as requiring protection. This status will afford only basic entitlements, while still meeting our international treaty obligations.
We will establish accommodation centres for both asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers who require support, so that they have simple, safe and secure accommodation to stay in while their claims and returns are processed.
A new and expanded one-stop process will ensure that asylum and any other protection matters are made and considered together, ahead of any appeal hearing. This will prevent repeated, last-minute claims that are often devoid of legal merit but are designed to frustrate proper removal, with the result that people with no right to be here are still here months and even years later.
At the same time, we will expand provision of legal aid to support individuals who have been served with priority removal notices, so that all relevant issues can be raised at one time. We will also set out in primary legislation for the first time the circumstances in which confirmed victims of modern slavery will receive temporary leave to remain. This will give them, for the first time in domestic primary legislation, clarity on their entitlements.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way for just a moment. On the important matter of accommodation centres, who will be responsible for assigning a particular place or centre to an immigrant or failed immigrant? Will it be possible for the applicant or failed immigrant to leave an accommodation centre, or will he or she essentially be forced to remain in that centre?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord. I am setting out the general principles. I have heard his question and my noble friend Lady Williams will deal with both those points in her wind-up speech.
I said that confirmed victims of modern slavery will receive temporary leave to remain. We will be clear through the Immigration Rules and guidance what “temporary” means in this context. Temporary leave to remain will be provided for any length of time necessary to enable victims to engage with authorities to help bring their exploiters to justice. Taken together, these measures will ensure protection for those in need, while weeding out those who seek to abuse this route. We will also bring in a range of age assessment tools, in line with many countries around the world, to ensure that we protect children in need of support, while rooting out adults who masquerade as children under 18. We will also reform nationality law to make it fairer and to address some historic anomalies.
Secondly, as well as making the system fairer and more efficient, we need to send a message that illegal entry will not be tolerated. In the Bill, criminals who engage in people smuggling will face new life sentences. The maximum penalty for entering the country illegally will rise from six months to four years in prison.
We are also providing Border Force with additional powers: to stop and divert vessels suspected of carrying illegal migrants to the UK and return them to where their sea journey to the UK began; to search unaccompanied containers located within ports for the presence of illegal migrants using them to enter the UK; and to seize and dispose of vessels that are intercepted. We will also crack down on other dangerous routes. Drivers will face a fine for every illegal entrant concealed in their vehicle, regardless of the steps that they have taken to secure that vehicle. We will use the electronic travel authorisation scheme, similar to what many noble Lords will recognise—the USA’s ESTA scheme—to stop the entry of those who present a threat to the UK. We will make it possible to remove someone to a safe third country, where their asylum claim will be processed.
Thirdly, failed asylum seekers and foreign criminals cannot be allowed to stay here indefinitely. Such an approach would rightly be unacceptable to the public. It would also undermine confidence in our immigration system. Ultimately, the system depends on the public’s confidence in it. When someone has no right to be in the UK, it is entirely appropriate for the Government to seek their removal. So the Bill contains a number of measures designed to strengthen our ability to do that.
We will confirm that the UK may remove people, including foreign criminals, to a safe third country. Expedited processes will enable the rapid removal of those with no right to be here, while visa penalties could be imposed on countries that do not co-operate on removals. We will also ensure that failure to comply with the asylum or removal process without good reason must be considered in deciding whether to grant immigration bail. We will widen the window in which foreign national offenders can be removed from prison under the early removal scheme for the purposes of removal from the UK.
We will also make a change to the long-standing power—and it is of long standing—to deprive someone of British citizenship in the most serious incidences of terrorism, war crimes or fraud to ensure that the power can still be used when, because of exceptional circumstances, it is not possible to notify the person of that decision. But that is not a policy change: the grounds on which that decision can be taken and the statutory right of appeal from it remain unchanged.
Before I finish, I want to emphasise a point that that should need no emphasis but I am going to emphasise it anyway. We remain fully committed to our international treaty and other obligations, including the refugee convention, the European Convention on Human Rights and international maritime law.
The principle behind this Bill and the New Plan for Immigration is simple. It is based on fairness—first and foremost to those fleeing persecution, of course, but fairness also to the British public, on whose support the legitimacy of the system ultimately relies. Access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need, not on the ability to pay people smugglers, and no one should be able to jump the queue and place themselves in front of people who really need our help. There is no overnight fix. These are long-term problems, but the need for reform could not be clearer. The public are not prepared to accept the current situation, and neither are the Government. Through this Bill, we will deliver a system that works in the interests of the UK. We will keep our doors open to the highly skilled and to people in genuine need, and we will break the business model—because that is what it is—of the evil people-smuggling gangs.
I end on a more personal note. I need no persuasion as to the importance of asylum or the benefits of immigration. There are some in this House who can trace their family’s presence in this country back many centuries; in some cases to a date even before this House first met. Many others, like me, are descended from, or are, more recent arrivals. I hope that my family and others like us have contributed to, as well as benefited from, this country. I want to live in a country where others, yet to arrive, can similarly contribute positively to the UK. My background makes me all the more aware of the importance of providing sanctuary and refuge. I want others to have the opportunities that my family has had, and from which others in the Chamber today have also benefited, but that will not happen, at least not in any fair and proper manner, unless and until we reform the current broken system.
I end where I began. Providing sanctuary and refuge are not only not inconsistent with a fair asylum and immigration system; they are only possible under a fair asylum and immigration system. For those reasons, I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, one of this Government’s favourite slogans has just been repeated, that our asylum system is broken, followed by a claim that a Johnson Government will fix it. Two years ago, the Home Secretary said that her then plan would halve the number of boats crossing the channel in three months and make them infrequent in six months. Needless to say, since then they have increased tenfold. In response, the Home Secretary and the Government have introduced this Bill, which contains no new safe and legal routes, nothing to target ruthless criminal gangs and smugglers, and a number of empty and unworkable solutions.
If we want to know why the asylum system is broken, we need look no further than this Government and the Home Office. The number of initial asylum decisions being made by the Home Office each year has dropped by more than 40% over the last five years. That is why the backlog has increased. Some 67,000—some say it is even more—are still waiting for an initial decision on their asylum claim. Relationships, with France in particular, have reached rock bottom, and there appears to be a general lack of trust within the EU. International development aid has been cut back, contrary to an election commitment. Reducing levels of support will do nothing to prevent people having to leave their home to seek asylum.
This Government continue to be a Government of slogans. A Government of workable solutions they certainly are not, as this Bill all too clearly shows. The Government say that they are motivated by a desire to crack down on the criminal smuggler gangs but then produce a Bill with measures directed at the victims of those smugglers rather than at the gangs themselves. Despite promising safe legal routes as an alternative to dangerous journeys, the Government have cut safe legal routes for family reunion, refugees and asylum seekers in Europe, and have included no safe legal routes in this Bill.
The Government claim that the Bill will stop boats arriving and return people who travel in them. The reality though is that this Government have failed to get in place a single returns agreement with EU countries, and nothing in the Bill changes that. Just five people were returned last year. The Government claim that the Bill will mean pushbacks at sea, even though Border Force officials have said it is dangerous and unworkable. France has refused to agree to receive boats safely back, and so these pushbacks simply cannot happen in practice.
The Government claim that the Bill will mean offshore processing, even though no country has agreed and the cost to the taxpayer would be huge. The Government claim the Bill will fix the asylum system, even though it will add even longer delays to asylum cases being assessed.
The Government claim the Bill will stop trafficking gangs, even though they are cutting protection for modern slavery. In pursuit of the Government’s stated aim of preventing people using a defence of being a victim of modern slavery against deportation, the Bill removes a number of key protections for victims of human trafficking and modern slavery, rowing back on crucial protections created under the Modern Slavery Act 2015. It will make the identification and protection of modern slavery victims more difficult.
Former top police officer and now anti-slavery commissioner, Sara Thornton, has raised concerns about the potential consequences the Bill may have on the ability to prosecute offenders. She said that watering down protection for modern slavery victims, including UK-resident children caught up in criminal exploitation and county lines, will
“severely limit our ability to convict perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups.”
Mistakes are often made when people are ruled not to be victims of human trafficking or modern slavery. The Home Office’s own data shows that four out of five rejected human trafficking claims challenged in the UK last year were overturned. Out of 325 claims in the Home Office-run national referral mechanism scheme that were appealed, 255 were reversed.
The modern slavery provisions are particularly alarming for the impact they will have on children, including significant numbers of British children who are trafficked and exploited in the UK. Despite that, the Bill does not provide safeguards for children, does not recognise that children need different provisions and protections from adults, and does not make policy that acts in the best interests of the child.
Since 2014 the Government have spent more than £200 million on numerous deals with French authorities—equal to around half a million pounds per week of taxpayers’ money—yet the crossings are increasing as the Government proclaim that Brexit has given us control of our borders. The Government’s mood fluctuates between, on the one hand, denouncing the French for not doing enough to stop the crossings and, on the other, telling us how many such crossings have been stopped by the French authorities as a result of the deals we have done with them. What we do know though, is that the Government’s various deals with the French did not prevent the tragic loss of 27 lives when an inflatable dinghy capsized some six weeks ago, in late November last year.
We need new agreements on joint policing and asylum with France and other EU countries to prevent more of these deadly crossings, and covering all aspects of security co-operation, including exchange of information on tackling criminal smuggler gangs and facilitating safe legal routes and safe returns.
If this Government are serious about cracking down on the criminal smuggler gangs that profit from putting desperate people in flimsy dinghies, neither can they ignore the ways that these gangs lure in vulnerable people online. The Government have not put forward anything to address this, even though it is a huge part of the problem. We should criminalise those who advertise and glamourise deadly crossings online. The Government are continually playing catch-up, as organised criminal networks find new ways to exploit vulnerable people online. We also cannot keep waiting for the Government’s long overdue, much delayed online harms legislation to crack down on social media companies that fail to take down the accounts of those who promote these dangerous journeys on their platforms.
What we got, during the passage of this slogan-driven and ill-thought-through Bill, were 80 government amendments tabled three days before Report stage in the Commons, and an admission from the Government that they had managed to produce a Bill that would criminalise RNLI volunteers for their courageous, life-saving work. The effect of that was to increase public support for, and donations to, the RNLI, as a snub to this Government’s original intentions against the RNLI, from which they have now been forced to retreat. However, the Bill still appears to break international maritime law and the duty for a ship to attempt to rescue persons in danger at sea by requiring passing boats or vessels to ignore people in distress or face criminalisation.
The Bill criminalises someone arriving in the UK to claim asylum, changes the immigration offence of how someone enters the UK and specifies the mode of entry as either legal or illegal. The Bill also makes provision for differential treatment of refugees based on how they arrive into the UK and the point at which they present themselves to the authorities, with those who travel via a third country, do not have documents or do not claim asylum immediately being designated “group 2” refugees. Yet the refugee convention contains a single unitary definition of refugee, solely related according to their need for protection.
The Red Cross has said that this differentiated treatment will not deter dangerous journeys. It points out that, even where people have a choice in their mode of travel, it is rare for a person fleeing to have any idea of their rights or the complexities of the asylum law where they arrive. The Red Cross suggests that removing family reunion rights will increase the number of particularly women and children using illegal routes and will actually shore up the business model of the criminal gangs and smugglers.
The Bill enables the prosecution of individuals intercepted in UK territorial seas and brought into this country who arrive in but do not technically “enter” the UK. The new offence will carry a maximum sentence of four years.
There is no visa or entry clearance application for someone to make to come to the UK to claim asylum. Under this Bill, someone with a well-founded fear of persecution arriving in the UK intending to claim asylum will be committing a criminal offence. Article 31 of the refugee convention provides that states
“shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees … where their life or freedom was threatened … they present themselves without delay … and … show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”
The courts have recognised that it would be hollow if asylum seekers could not rely on this international law protection. If all countries were to take this approach of criminalising those who enter illegally for the purposes of claiming asylum, the entire international system for refugee protection would fall apart.
When we left the European Union, we also left the schemes which gave the UK the ability to return those seeking asylum to safe countries via the Dublin III system. This allowed those seeking asylum who entered the UK to be returned if they had first registered in another country in the European Union. At the moment, not one agreement has been struck between this Government and the 27 member states of the EU, therefore restricting the ability to return individuals who registered elsewhere first. Under the Dublin III regulation, the UK safely returned hundreds of asylum seekers to European countries. Since the Dublin regulation stopped applying to the UK at the beginning of last year, the UK has returned, as I said, just five asylum seekers to European countries, at a time when channel crossings have significantly increased.
The Bill provides for asylum seekers to be removed from the UK while their claims are being processed, opening the door to offshore processing. The Government have previously stated that, among other places, they would use such powers to process claims in Africa and Ascension Island, and on disused ferries and abandoned oil rigs. The reality is that such a system would be ineffective, inhumane and very expensive for the taxpayer. Offshore processing in Australia cost an estimated 1 billion Australian dollars a year to deal with 300 migrants.
Last year, some 28,500 people made the dangerous channel crossing. Research by the Refugee Council suggests that around two-thirds who crossed the channel via small boats and claimed asylum were granted humanitarian protection. Over 70% of people arriving via small boats come from just five countries, namely Iran, Sudan, Syria, Iraq and Vietnam, and Afghanistan was seventh, behind Eritrea—hardly countries free from strife and persecution. Neither has the number of asylum applications suddenly reached an all-time peak. In 2002, the number of such applications was over 84,000.
Looking at international comparisons, we do not seem to be faced with more applications than anywhere else. In 2020 there were around six asylum applications for every 10,000 people living in the UK. Across the EU, there were 11 asylum applications for every 10,000 people. Compared with EU 27 countries, the UK ranks 17th for asylum applications per head of population.
I know that much reference will be made today to Clause 9, which was added in haste and without proper scrutiny in the Commons. Powers to deprive someone of British citizenship have existed since 1914. This Bill, though, also gives the Home Office sweeping new powers to deprive a person of their British citizenship without any notice. This is not acceptable and is causing intense concern among people with dual nationality. In the shadow of Windrush, warm words from the Government about how fairly and responsibly they will use the power just will not suffice.
Children, including unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, can make up almost 25% of those seeking asylum in the UK. Where is the replacement for the Dubs scheme, which this Government closed before it had reached anywhere near its potential to protect children? Where is the provision for a safe resettlement scheme for Afghanistan, which has been promised but not yet delivered?
The Bill will not solve the problem of dangerous boat crossings that are putting lives at risk. Instead, it proposes unworkable solutions that will cost the taxpayer dear and undermine international humanitarian conventions and agreements at a time when co-operation is needed more than ever. The Bill does not improve security co-operation and will not secure returns agreements or create the safe, legal routes the Government have promised. Instead, it will increase the asylum backlog, keeping more people in limbo in accommodation. The Bill will not stop trafficking gangs, as the Government are cutting protection from modern slavery and thus making it harder to prosecute and convict people traffickers.
At heart, the Bill is about a Government and a Home Secretary who know that their policies to date are failing and who, in a bid to attract more favourable headlines, are concentrating their fire even more on the victims of people traffickers and deadly channel crossings, rather than setting out sensible plans to deal with the criminal gangs involved based on co-operation, not insularity. In short, this Bill is a sham.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, happy new year. I hope all noble Lords on all sides of the House have a better year than last year.
I listened carefully to what the Minister said in his opening. It was reassuring to hear that the Bill really is as appalling as it looks. It is understandable that immigration is a cause for concern for many people, particularly with the misleading information published by the Government and echoed by the media.
The UK is home to approximately 68 million people. Based on the most recent figures, net immigration is about 300,000 a year, or 0.4% of the existing population, of which claims for asylum in 2019 were 36,000, or just one application for every 2,000 people in the UK. As I fly often into Heathrow, I am struck by how much of the UK, even the south-east, is still rural. We are not a tiny island with little space. Net migration is at a low level per head of population, and only a fraction of those coming here to live are asylum seekers. As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, said, 84,132 people sought asylum in the UK in 2002. In 2019 it was 35,737, less than half than it was 17 years earlier.
There are more common misconceptions, such as that there is a danger of immigrants taking British people’s jobs. The most common reason for people coming to the UK is to study, not to work. In fact, currently there is a shortage of workers, not a shortage of jobs. Another misconception is that there are too many immigrants in the UK. London has the highest concentration of immigrants in the UK, over a third of the total, and Londoners are the least concerned about immigration.
Another misconception is that there are record numbers of migrants crossing the channel. No, there are record numbers of migrants crossing the channel in small boats, because the UK has been effective in stopping channel crossings by most other means—for example, stowing away in lorries or on trains. Also, no safe and legal routes for asylum seekers to get to the UK are currently in operation, and you can only claim asylum on UK soil, so what are they supposed to do? Numbers were significantly lower last year because of Covid lockdowns and they are significantly higher this year because of the resulting pent-up demand.
We are not being overwhelmed by asylum seekers. We have fewer applications for asylum per head of population than almost every other European country, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has said. The EU average is 11 claims per 10,000, compared to the UK’s figure of only 6. With the UK’s claim rate being almost half the EU’s, what prospect does the Minister think we have of persuading EU countries to take back migrants in the absence of the previous agreement, the Dublin III regulations, which obliged EU states to do so?
So, what is the problem—or should I say, what are the problems? The evidence points to the Home Office being ineffective and inefficient in dealing with asylum applications, not that there is a problem with the legislation. Twenty years ago, the UK had more than double the number of applications for asylum but less than half the number of cases awaiting a decision. In 2021, 57,000 cases were awaiting an initial decision—nothing to do with appeals. Covid may have impacted the Home Office’s ability to process claims, but the number of asylum seekers fell greatly at the same time for the same reason.
The Government say there are record waits for asylum application appeals, but those delays are nothing compared to the delays in criminal trials at Crown Courts. The Government’s proposed solution is to reduce the number of asylum cases to speed up the process. Is the Government’s answer to the backlog in the criminal courts to make it more difficult for the police to arrest criminals, for the Crown Prosecution Service to charge fewer people, to give those accused of crime only a limited number of hours of legal aid and to place time limits on when defendants can present their defence, in order to take pressure off the system? So why does this Bill propose to cut the numbers able to claim asylum and to introduce fast-track systems that place limits on legal advice and the time taken to present evidence?
The evidence also suggests that the Home Office is inefficient and ineffective at removing those who should not be in the UK. In 2013 there were 14,900 removals and in 2020 there were less than 8,000. If it was possible to remove almost double the number of illegal immigrants from the UK using existing legislation in 2013, surely the problem is not with the legislation but with the Home Office. The Government say this is due to “various contributing factors”. Can the Minister explain to the House what the various contributing factors are, and what impact each of these has on the ability of the Home Office to remove people?
As the Minister has said, there are 10,000 foreign national offenders in the community together with 42,000 failed asylum seekers, all of whom should not be in the UK. Why is that, if not because of Home Office ineffectiveness? The National Audit Office estimates that there are between 600,000 and 1.2 million illegal immigrants in the UK. The hostile environment that tries to turn landlords, employers and bankers into Immigration Enforcement officers, is clearly not working.
Instead of “taking back control” of our borders, those arriving from 10 more countries can now use the ePassport gates at the UK border—in addition to all EU countries, which can continue to use them—whereas before they had to prove they were coming to the UK for a legitimate reason, had somewhere to live and had enough money to fund their stay. Now, there is no way to ensure that they leave again or that we know where to find them.
When we were in the European Union, we had access to the European Criminal Records Information System and the Schengen Information System, so we could check that those arriving in the UK were not criminals or a threat to national security, and we had the power to bar them, despite free movement. This is to be replaced by an electronic travel authority, where those travelling to the UK will be asked to “voluntarily declare” their convictions, which is arguably better than nothing—what we have now—but nothing like as secure as when we were in the EU.
Previously, limits were placed on the numbers allowed to come to the UK from the rest of the world to work. This has been replaced by a points-based system with no limit on the number of the “brightest and the best”—as the Government like to call them—foreign nationals being employed in the UK.
When the Government say that they want a “high-skill, high-wage economy”, what they do not tell people is that there are no longer any limits on how many foreign nationals can take those “high-skill, high-wage” jobs; the only opportunities reserved for UK nationals are in low-skill, low-wage jobs.
The epitome of this Bill, which addresses all the wrong issues while doing nothing to address the right issues and to solve the real problems of the immigration system, is the tightening of the rules around modern slavery, where conclusive grounds of modern slavery are established in almost 90% of cases.
Other noble Lords will take issue with keeping asylum seekers in camps; preventing their integration into society; not allowing them to work; preventing them from making a positive contribution to society; treating those with a valid asylum claim as illegitimate; and depriving British nationals of their citizenship without even notifying them. If ever a Bill deserved not to be given a Second Reading, this is it—which is saying something as we still wrestle with the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill.
We on these Benches accept that there needs to be grip and focus on illegal immigration, but this Bill is a distraction, and a very dangerous one. Rather than tackling the real issues, it diverts attention away from them and harms the most vulnerable in the process. We oppose almost all of it.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I want to draw attention to the damaging and disproportionate impact which some of the measures in the Bill would have on refugee women, particularly those who are fleeing from sexual violence. The Government have an admirable track record in highlighting the need to combat sexual violence across the world, so I very much hope they will think again about the unnecessary additional pressures on refugee women that would result from the Bill. I am grateful to the organisation Women for Refugee Women for its analysis of the potential harms of the Bill and note that it has sent an open letter to the Home Secretary signed by no fewer than 52 national and community-based organisations which have a wealth of practical experience of working with refugees and asylum seekers and a detailed understanding from individual casework of the particular challenges and trauma facing women who have fled sexual violence.
Will the Minister in her reply comment on three specific ways in which the Bill would exacerbate this trauma? First, women and girls may have good reasons for not claiming asylum via a regular route. They are less likely to enjoy the socioeconomic conditions or political or civil support in their country of origin which could enable them to organise to leave via a regular route, and so are more likely to face a penalty for claiming asylum under the arrangements set out in Clause 11. A safe third country where, under the new rules a refugee woman would be expected to remain and claim asylum, may well not be thought safe by her, especially if she is under the control of a trafficker and still vulnerable to further sexual violence or exploitation.
Secondly, I am very concerned that Clause 25 instructs the authorities deciding an asylum claim or appeal to give minimal weight to evidence provided late by the claimant, unless there is good reason. Existing Home Office guidance recognises that there are many reasons why women fleeing sexual or gender-based violence will not share relevant evidence at an early stage. This may be because of trauma, guilt or shame, or fear of family members or traffickers. There may also be issues connected with language and interpreting; if a woman in such a situation is provided with a male interpreter or an interpreter who has not had specific training in the sensitivities and vocabulary of sexual violence, the asylum-seeking woman is unlikely to be able or willing to describe what she has suffered.
The Home Office guidance makes it quite clear that late disclosure should not count against a woman’s credibility, and acknowledges that those who have been sexually assaulted or victims of trafficking may suffer trauma that can impact on memory and the ability to recall information. The provisions in this Bill on late evidence will only exacerbate those obstacles, so I ask the Minister to confirm the continuing status of the Home Office guidance and make it absolutely clear, if necessary by a simple amendment to the Bill, that late evidence relating to sexual violence will always be treated as being late for a good reason and will not disadvantage a woman’s asylum claim or appeal.
Thirdly, the experience of caseworkers on the ground suggests that it would be a huge and harmful mistake to concentrate asylum seekers in large accommodation centres. Holding women in isolated centres where they cannot access community support would be especially damaging for survivors of sexual and gender-based violence. Will Her Majesty’s Government comply with UNHCR guidelines on the protection of refugee women, which recognise that asylum-seeking women and girls have special protection needs against manipulation, sexual and physical abuse and exploitation, and against discrimination in the delivery of goods and services? This obligation must surely apply to accommodation and is reinforced by Article 60 of the Istanbul convention on reception procedures and support services for asylum-seeking women. They must not be expected or allowed to continue living in fear of sexual violence within accommodation centres, either through fear of men living in very close quarters or by being isolated in an environment that forces them to relive traumatic memories of the confinement or abuse from which they sought refuge in the first place. I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me on all three concerns.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I declare my interests as a member of the RAMP Project and a trustee of Reset, as laid out in the register. This Bill will raise strong views across the Chamber, as already illustrated by the three Front-Bench introductions, for which I thank all three, because I believe that they have served the House well in all three cases. I hope that we can have a debate that is reasoned and evidence-based, ever mindful of the individual humanity of each asylum seeker and refugee of whom we speak.
This Bill needs to be assessed against the Home Office’s own values of being compassionate, respectful, courageous and collaborative. Other values are important, too: the value of every human being as one made in the image of, and loved by, God, the value that we place on the rights of the child both through the United Nations and the Children Act 1989—and then there are the values relating to the right to family life.
This Bill has the stated intention to stop criminal gangs and to increase the fairness of the asylum system. These aims are good; we do not want to see any more people losing their lives so tragically in the channel, as we saw last year. However, in its current form, the Bill is unlikely to achieve either of these goals. It will make the asylum system more complicated and cumbersome, be less fair, provide fewer safe routes and be more expensive.
The differential treatment of refugees according to their mode of arrival is central to the Bill and causes me very deep concern. The Government’s underlying premise in this approach is that the harder we make it for asylum seekers in the UK, the less they will come. We have seen no evidence to support this approach. Indeed, if making conditions harder for asylum seekers had the desired effect, we would not be faced with this Bill today. We have an asylum system which is set up to establish the veracity of an asylum claim. Let us rely on that, not on the method of entry.
We are part of a global system, underpinned by the refugee convention, which enables distribution of those requiring protection to a range of countries. An approach of “first safe country” sends a dangerous message to countries with far larger refugee populations, legitimising the avoidance of international responsibilities. It suggests that support for refugees should fall on only a small number of poorer countries. This is highly concerning, as it undermines who we are as a nation. It does not demonstrate being collaborative with or respectful of other nations.
Despite safe routes being central to the premise of the Bill, we see no detail of them. We will not put criminal gangs out of business without expanding safe alternative routes. I am proud that the UK has been a global leader in refugee resettlement since 2015; however, sadly, this is no longer the case. Only 1,163 people resettled to the UK in the first nine months of 2021, compared with the 28,000 people arriving across the channel. We must build on our proud history of resettlement for the future. We need an ambitious yet deliverable target of at least 10,000 places per year.
Refugee family reunion is a vital safe route, enabling mainly women and children to reunite with their husbands and fathers, which is so important for families being together and for integration. However, in this Bill family reunion will be, in effect, non-existent as group 2 refugees will no longer qualify. This does not demonstrate compassionate values. We must also explore humanitarian visas much more for those with the basis of a strong claim from certain countries or for those with family in the UK. The Home Office should explore this as a way of collaborating with both near neighbours and those further away.
Children are rarely talked about in the Bill. If the aim is to make the immigration system fairer, it needs to begin by putting in place protections for those who need it most, especially children.
The Bill should be an opportunity to create a fair, compassionate and effective asylum system that works for the taxpayer, communities and those seeking asylum. Sadly, on many counts I fear that it does not work. We on these Benches will work with others to propose a range of amendments. I fear that the Bill fails the Home Office’s own values; it certainly fails to uphold the UN Convention on Refugees and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I support the purpose of this Bill, which is important. It relates to three key responsibilities of any Government: the protection and defence of the nation, the maintenance and enhancement of the standard of living of their citizens, and their national obligation to world peace and prosperity.
First, I turn to national security. The greatest terrorist threat to the UK remains Islamist jihadists. In the 20 years since 9/11, those who keep a tally suggest that there have been more than 40,000 fatal attacks worldwide. The Times of 11 September 2021 concluded that
“America’s wars helped to radicalise a generation of Islamists, whose poisonous ideology has spread across the Middle East to Africa, from where new terrorist franchises plot fresh attacks on the West.”
The Economist of 20 November reported on how
“jihadists aligned to al-Qaeda and Islamic State”
in the Sahel
“have taken aim at Western countries, bombing their embassies and kidnapping or killing their citizens.”
It concluded:
“If the jihadists are given havens and time, they will surely launch attacks on European or American soil, too.”
The UK has already given haven to jihadists who have been involved in several attacks, the most recent being the Liverpool bomber, who went as far as masking himself as a Christian in an attempt to obtain asylum.
So, however much we may wish to, and should, give hospitality to many of those who seek to come here—whether as refugees, asylum seekers or, indeed, migrants —we must be far more vigilant in the screening process. The unmet challenge of screening 28,000 people who arrived in England by small boats during 2021 must not recur in 2022.
I was puzzled when my noble friend Lady Williams— I thank her for that useful letter today—said in a Written Answer on 16 December that identity checks, including fingerprints and other biometrics, taken from migrants on arrival cannot be compared against the EU system which the UK has access to because
“use of those systems is only permitted for law enforcement, not immigration purposes.”
I can think of few more obvious law enforcement purposes than the detection of possible terrorists. I hope my noble friend will be able to assure us that the Bill will be changed to overrule that absurdity.
Secondly, on the responsibility of maintaining and enhancing our domestic living standards, there are now, as we have heard, several million individuals who need or would like to live in the UK; the great majority are economic migrants. The hard fact is that incentives to migrate will diminish only when the standard of living in the country they want to reach is no longer sufficiently greater than that from which they seek to depart to make the costs and risks of the journey worth while.
Three crucial components in quality of life are healthcare, education and housing. In the case of the UK, as everyone is all too aware, spare capacity in both medical and educational services hardly exists, and there are long lines of people waiting to buy or rent houses. The political constraint on any moral imperative to share these scarce resources with migrants is the consequent reduction in the standards available in the UK, and it is set by what the population—which in a democracy means the electorate—will accept. That is why most of our help must continue to be made through international aid programmes, where there is no direct dilution of UK living standards.
The third responsibility is to have an ordered travel system to replace the present chaos. We are already making special provision for economic migrants who can fill crucial shortages in the supply of certain skills; for example, in the medical and care sectors. Would it be possible to open these opportunities more widely? In my view, there is nothing wrong with discriminating in favour of particular groups, such as those suffering religious persecution in their own land. I am thinking of Christians in Afghanistan, Pakistan and—
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that there is a Back-Bench speaking limit of five minutes? Thank you.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot do justice in five minutes to what needs to be said, suffice it to commend the excellent speech of my noble friend Lord Rosser from the Front Bench, and the first five speakers, who covered the challenge comprehensively. I have been here 20 years ago—as has been mentioned several times—in examining overseas processing. I have been here on accommodation processing internally. I have been here in getting rid of those who have committed crimes. I have been here in reducing unwarranted asylum by two-thirds by the time I left the Home Office.
It is really important to understand what has happened previously and to learn from it. Signalling without solutions is virtue signalling while misleading the public. Anyone who believes that this Bill will be successful in implementation is delusional. When it fails, the Government will presumably blame somebody else rather than themselves. A two-tier asylum system will fail. Withdrawal of citizenship without notification or explanation will be immoral. As has already been described, breach of international conventions, including Article 31, is totally unacceptable for a democratic nation.
Promising resettlement programmes that have actually been curtailed is also a delusion which will come home to bite. If you promise that there will be other resettlement routes—other than for Hong Kong and those who are eventually resettled from Afghanistan—when, as has already been said, you have withdrawn the routes in respect of family reunion and not put alternatives in place, you will end up with what happened last year, with not a single person resettled from Yemen as their country of origin and only one from Iran. Please, if we are going to preach morality, let us at least be honest about it.
In the time I have, I want to ask the Minister to clarify, via her officials in the Box, whether—seeing as we are talking about morality and the intentions of this Bill—the Home Secretary said, as was reported extensively on 17 November from her visit to Washington, when speaking to journalists about migrants:
“These people have come to our country and abused British values, abused the values of the fabric of our country and our society. And as a result of that, there’s a whole industry that thinks it’s right to defend these individuals that cause the most appalling crimes against British citizens, devastating their lives, blighting communities”.
I want the Minister to come back this evening and tell me what was incorrect in those newspaper quotes.
It takes me back to WH Auden who, in his 1939 poem “Refugee Blues”, talks about the endeavour to be able to get into a country without documentation. The consul’s words are:
“‘If you’ve got no passport, you’re officially dead’”
and the answer from the migrant is:
“But we are still alive, my dear, but we are still alive.”
Today, he might have written that the manifest demanded it, the border official commanded it, but in the refugee camp they removed it—my identity, my sanctuary, my everything.
Removing the right to come here unless you have a passport and visa is fraudulent. It creates a two-tier system which says that if you get here legally and have the right to be here, we will deny you asylum, because of course you do not warrant it. However, if you do not have the documentation and arrive here illegally, we will imprison you for four years. What sort of Government, what sort of nation, what sort of opportunity are we talking about this afternoon?
Lord Dholakia (LD)
My Lords, I value the valuable contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, particularly his time as Home Secretary in a previous Government.
Between 1949 and to date, nationality, immigration and asylum laws in the United Kingdom have come full circle, from complete freedom for all British subjects to enter and live in this country to a strict limitation of that right to British citizens and a small number of people with a residual claim arising from past commitments. I was privileged to enter Britain in 1956 and have witnessed all the changes that have taken place since then. The questions I have asked each time are: are all these changes necessary, and are they governed by political expediency or the reality of the situation we face?
Despite the nature and effect of legislation, the circumstances surrounding it remain contentious. One main reason for this is that despite a series of reports from the House of Commons Select Committees and other authoritative sources, it is still not widely known that large-scale immigration to the United Kingdom is a thing of the past. Immigration has been a prominent issue during the past few general elections. We have seen prominent politicians dealing positively with it in areas where migrants have settled, only to find the same politicians adopting a different stance in areas of predominantly white settlement. Such double talk does more damage to good race relations in the country.
A little while ago, writing in the Guardian, Jonathan Freedland noted
“a kind of drumbeat of hysteria in which both politicians and media have turned again and again on a … small minority, first prodding them, then pounding them as if they represented the single biggest problem in national life.”
This is a difficult time to have a calm and reasoned discussion about migrants, which political leaders claim to want.
Let us look at the figures that were bandied about during the Brexit referendum— stirring up emotions at this crucial time was a good way to make political gains. We need to examine changing patterns within all our communities. We need to take into account post-war migration and the process of globalisation which crosses the geographical boundaries of all nations. Where is the leadership pronouncement on such issues? Where do we speak up for our NHS, our transport system or the contributions of minorities to our economy? Instead, we continue to harp on about the numbers in this complex game. We hear about the harshness surrounding migrants entering the country through the English Channel. We blame France for its inability to control the flow of migrants to UK.
Every piece of legislation since 1962 indicates that there is no such thing as total protection of our borders. We must find a different way for migrants to apply for asylum. The present method of returning them to French shores does not work. It is time for a rethink.
The rot set in in the 1950s and has continued ever since. As early as then, the Government set up an interdepartmental committee to consider legislative and administrative methods to deal with migrants. This continues even to the present time within the Home Office. So preoccupied were Ministers in the 1950s with the numbers entering the UK that the welfare and integration of newcomers was not even discussed. In fact, the key recommendation was:
“Any solution depending on apparent or concealed test would be so invidious as to be impossible for adoption.”
What did they recommend? They continued:
“Nevertheless, the use of any powers taken to restrict the free entry of British subjects to this country would, as a general rule, be more or less confined to coloured persons.
Each piece of legislation since 1962 will confirm this.
Almost 70 years ago, the steamship “Empire Windrush” docked at Tilbury, carrying with it the hopes and dreams of hundreds of young black men and women from the Caribbean. Nothing like this had happened before. Ever since then, if you look at the independence of Commonwealth countries and the end of the master and servant relationship that Britain had enjoyed, a new way of thinking of ourselves had to evolve and is still in process. The current debate is not new: there was little consideration of a genuine migration policy and the settlement of new arrivals.
The present legislation is described as “Priti hostile” in many quarters. Following the scathing criticism by Wendy Williams, we still have not resolved the Windrush issue. We are now proceeding with harsher issues which will have substantial impact on those who wish to settle in this country.
Following the correspondence with my noble friend Lady Hamwee, I have studied the response from Victoria Atkins MP on Afghan refugees. While I welcome her comments, I am still concerned about the way we left Afghanistan. Over 400 lives were lost—
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I remind everybody again that it is a five-minute Back-Bench speaking limit.
Lord Dholakia (LD)
We are now working to deprive people of their British citizenship, thus creating a community of refugees with nowhere to go. We are paying scant regard to the 1951 convention on refugees and we are involved in not giving due regard to the rights of children. Overall, we are succumbing to political expediency rather than having a genuine desire to help.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, but I wish to raise another issue. Home Office Ministers will be familiar with the concerns of Members of both Houses, including myself, about the long-outstanding applications for right of abode and British citizenship which have been raised by some Armed Forces veterans who served in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces in Hong Kong. Unlike some other colleagues in the Hong Kong Military Service Corps, they were not selected to retain their full British citizenship after 1997. They had been recruited in Hong Kong and were employed in Her Majesty’s Armed Forces, not by the local Hong Kong Administration. They paid full United Kingdom taxes and had sworn allegiance to the Crown. Some served in Her Majesty’s ships overseas and others undertook training and operational tours outside Hong Kong. Those who were recruited on a single-tour basis, sometimes for less than four years, as was the practice in the Royal Navy Hong Kong squadron, should also be considered.
This nationality Bill before the House ranges widely but not, I trust, to exclude from consideration this unique and yet to be resolved case affecting veterans of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces. Can the Minister when winding up confirm that the Home Secretary has recently identified a possible option that will enable the Government to treat these British Hong Kong veterans in a similar way to other non-UK service personnel who are veterans of Her Majesty’s Armed Forces? Is that the case? Has this change of view been prompted by the MoD passing this long-standing case to be resolved by the Home Office? If so, I hope that the MoD will exercise its acknowledged duty of care under the military covenant for these veterans. I hope that the Minister expects the MoD to monitor and press these veterans’ case for resolution.
I understand that it may take some time to scope the impacts of such a welcome change of policy and the practicalities of its delivery. However, when will this work be complete? I urge the Minister when winding up to give an indication of when a decision about these practicalities will be announced or, if that is not convenient, to write to me. These loyal veterans deserve to learn when they will be able to apply for this welcome new arrangement.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, there has been great public frustration and concern about the seeming inability of the British state to control its own borders, so I sympathise with what the Bill aims to do. However, I have concerns that in an attempt to talk tough, important freedoms and principles —in fact, core British values—may be compromised. I have been interested in the speeches we have heard so far. However, I worry when opponents of the Bill, particularly outside this House, whose arguments on some issues I sympathise with, suggest that wanting effective border control equates with hostility to refugees and migration. This easily becomes an insulting caricature of British voters’ motives and itself undermines other important principles—that is, those of sovereignty and democracy.
Meanwhile, supporters and opponents of the Bill quibble over whether it is compatible with international law. Instead, we should concentrate on getting UK law sorted out, which might mean reconsidering our relationship with the 1951 UN refugee convention, the EHCR or other transnational instruments if they deny UK border sovereignty. Surely we need arrangements that are fit for purpose to protect and welcome genuine refugees, and to offer new legal migrants every opportunity to settle in the UK and embrace becoming UK citizens in their new home, because at the heart of this whole issue is the demarcating out of citizenship. It is via borders that the word “citizen” gains real political bite, by affording particular political rights organised within the bounds of a nation state. There has to be a distinction between citizens and non-citizens for citizenship to be meaningful. That is what the public get frustrated about—if they feel that citizenship is being undermined. Citizens have specific rights, but also responsibilities and duties, and the electoral franchise that allows democracy to function.
The Government clarifying, with public mandate, who is and is not a citizen—which requires that we know who lives in the UK, on what basis they are entering the UK and who is overstaying—seems crucial for democracy. But if the Bill is at least partly an attempt to bolster what it means to be a British citizen and confirm the boundaries of citizenship, then the controversial Clause 9, which enhances the Home Secretary’s power to strip British nationals of their citizenship, seems counterproductive. I do not want to add to the climate of moral panic about Clause 9. When the New Statesman reported in December that Clause 9 threatens the citizenship of nearly 6 million British people, half of all British Asians and 39% of black Britons, those bald figures went viral. Many are and were understandably frightened that Priti Patel was about to turf thousands of people out of the UK; you have only to see my email inbox to see that this is a very real fear. However, the Government must understand that handing even more powers over to the Home Secretary to remove someone’s citizenship in secret, without notification, effectively making appeals impossible and statelessness a real possibility, is a concern to British citizens and that Clause 9 is a problem.
I am not satisfied that this will be used only in extremis in dealing with the likes of Shamima Begum, “Jihadi Jack” Letts or others who joined the barbaric and murderous ISIS fighters. At the moment, too many are dubbed “extremists” and I want to know who defines that. I also note that whenever a power is argued for to be used in only extreme cases, it inevitably expands and is used more widely. The power to remove citizenship was brought to the fore in 2005 by Tony Blair’s Labour Government, and was then used increasingly and with broader provisions, especially by Theresa May when Home Secretary—the same Theresa May whose respect for British citizens was rather exposed by the Windrush scandal, which disgracefully still rumbles on and is a situation in which British citizens in all but the paperwork were stripped of their rights, deported and so on. Mea culpas and sections of this Bill do not reassure me, especially if they carry on sitting with Clause 9.
What really worries me is the Home Office’s response to all this on Clause 9. It is constantly quoted as saying:
“British citizenship is a privilege, not a right.”
Excuse me? Actually, British citizenship is a right for all British citizens. It worries me that the Home Office considers it its gift to hand down or snatch away. It suggests a two-tier citizenship atmosphere. Frances Webber, vice-chair of the Institute of Race Relations, spells out the consequences when she says that it
“sends the message that certain citizens, despite being born and brought up in the UK, and having no other home, remain migrants in this country. Their citizenship, and therefore all their rights, are precarious and contingent.”
If this Government want to encourage new migrants to integrate into British society and make them feel welcome, they should drop Clause 9.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I will focus my remarks on Part 5. I have been advocating for the measures in Clauses 63 and 64 for some time now. For those, I commend the Government. However, they do not go far enough.
Clause 63 will put support for victims of modern slavery in England and Wales on a statutory basis while the person is being assessed through the national referral mechanism. I welcome this statutory support, which was not included in the Modern Slavery Act but has been provided for in Northern Ireland and Scotland since 2015. However, I am disappointed that the Bill is not currently providing long-term support for confirmed victims after the NRM.
On Report in another place, the Government gave a welcome assurance that confirmed victims would receive 12 months’ long-term support, with further details to be set out in guidance. This is encouraging, but support must be statutory to give victims the certainty they need to begin to rebuild their lives following exploitation. Lack of long-term support leaves victims at risk of homelessness, destitution and retrafficking. It impacts on the victim’s ability to work with the police and on bringing perpetrators to justice.
I will watch closely to see whether the Government table an amendment to make good their commitment. If not, I will press forward with amendments based on my Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill, so that the 12 months’ support is in the Bill. I hope the Minister will today be able to expand on the commitment, with more details on how they intend to provide support for 12 months, who will qualify, how it will be funded and future amendments.
Of course, for confirmed victims of modern slavery to access support services, they must have leave to remain in the UK; the two go hand in hand. While I welcome that Clause 64 will put current discretionary leave provisions on a statutory footing, the criteria are much narrower than the current guidance, which is extremely disappointing, with no guaranteed length of time. Yesterday the Guardian noted that only 7% of victims had been granted leave to remain. All confirmed victims should be given 12 months’ leave to remain to access the support that the Government committed to and to be able to support police investigations.
The Government say in their New Plan for Immigration that it is a priority to increase prosecutions for modern slavery and that:
“For some victims, certainty over their immigration status is a crucial enabler to their recovery and to assisting the police in prosecuting their exploiters.”
Clause 64 does not do enough to achieve that certainty and, in turn, the Government’s aim to break up trafficking gangs.
Modern slavery remains a high-profit, low-risk crime; we must change that. Some might argue that temporary leave to remain to access long-term support opens the door for abuse. I hope your Lordships will acknowledge that the eligible individuals will be people whom the Government themselves have confirmed as victims through the NRM—people who deserve our support for their recovery. With amendments to the Bill, we will be in a position to give confirmed victims of modern slavery a fresh start from exploitation.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I cannot discuss matters of nationality and borders without confessing that this is extremely personal territory for me, as I know it is for others in your Lordships’ House. It is personal territory because I am the daughter of migrants to this country—hard-working people no longer with me and yet with me always. They came, as so many like them did, at the invitation of the late first Earl of Stockton when he was Prime Minister.
In my working life as a human rights lawyer, first in the home department and subsequently outside it, I have seen time and again the manner in which Governments and politicians of all stripes have eroded the hard-won rights of refugees in particular, and how dog-whistle politics around immigration has toxified race relations and undermined race equality, even to the detriment of British people whose migration stories go multiple generations back. So these are issues as much of equality and common decency as of nationality and borders.
The Bill has a patriotic title. The use of the word “borders” is surprisingly colourful for parliamentary counsel: it could have been taken directly from a campaigning slogan. I have no objection to nationality or borders, but I must observe that neither Covid nor climate catastrophe respects either very much. A truly global Britain would cherish the refugee convention as a central pillar of the post-war international settlement once promoted by Britain and would not seek to dilute it. The Dunkirk spirit is about saving people in little boats, not turning them around. So soon after the still incompletely resolved Windrush scandal, we would be wise indeed to give the most anxious scrutiny to any two-tier system of rights to refuge or nationality.
Clause 9 has rightly caused outrage in civil society—if not sufficient media coverage or even debating time in the other place. To deprive a national of that status without notice should be beyond the contemplation of any civilised society that cares about rights and freedoms in general and due process in particular. A nation’s citizens are its responsibility and are not to be dumped like waste, even or especially on the vague and subjective grounds of security, diplomatic relations or
“otherwise in the public interest.”
That the Government are bound by international law not to render people stateless ensures that this provision must inevitably be applied in a racist fashion, with the Executive determining without public scrutiny, judicial involvement or even notice to the individual concerned that they are of a category of British citizen who may potentially qualify for nationality somewhere else, regardless of whether such nationality has even been applied for, let alone granted. No wonder this provision has inspired fear and loathing in our minority communities in particular.
Even the subject heading of Clause 11 sends a chill to the bones, with its “Differential treatment of refugees”. To penalise and even criminalise desperate people in any way for the manner in which they make their escape from persecution to the UK is to violate the letter and the spirit of the refugee convention, which was in no small part the world’s apology for some of the darkest moments in the history of the last century. The Bill attempts to redefine Article 31, thereby ripping up years of interpretation by specialist judges so as to grant only second-class protection to the majority of refugees.
These are but two of the myriad objections to this measure. I say that as an advance apology to noble Lords opposite for the many long nights and longer nightmares to come.
Baroness Jolly (LD)
My Lords, my remarks concern maritime enforcement, as proposed in Schedule 6.
The United Kingdom has a long and proud maritime tradition and has been at the forefront of promoting safety at sea. Indeed, the International Maritime Organization, responsible for the Safety of Life at Sea convention, is based on the other side of the river, just a few hundred yards upstream. We are rightly proud of all our mariners who, on a near-daily basis, rescue those in danger at sea. Of particular note, with respect to the Bill, are the volunteers of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and Border Force, who saved the lives of many thousands of desperate people crossing the channel in inadequate boats and found themselves in extreme peril. I pay tribute to their professionalism, humanity, skill and dedication and condemn the unwarranted criticism they have received in the darker reaches of our media.
No one doubts that there is a problem with people crossing the channel by inadequate means. Desperate people seeking a safer or better life are preyed upon by boat traffickers. This sordid trade must be stopped, but this Bill will be ineffective and encourage even more dangerous choices by migrants.
It may be the policy of this Government to control asylum by making an already hostile environment even more dangerous, as proposed in the Bill. But to do so will be unnecessary, disproportionate, and possibly even unlawful. International law requires the master of every vessel to go to the aid of those in danger of being lost at sea. This duty is embedded, and has been for centuries, in every mariner’s psyche. Critical to the success of any maritime rescue operation is an early, rapid and determined response to a signal of distress. The Bill makes it an offence to provide assistance to those seeking asylum, including those at sea. It should be amended to make it clear that responding to a distress signal at sea, as required by international law, will never risk prosecution. The sovereignty of the United Kingdom extends to the territorial sea and the Government have the right to prevent passage which is not innocent. However, this right can be exercised only in accordance with international law. I am concerned that the duty not to endanger the safe navigation of any vessel during enforcement operations is being disregarded.
I shall explore in Committee just what is the “reasonable force” authorised to be used in the typical circumstances of an overloaded rubber boat crossing the channel. If the Government argue that euphemistically labelled “pushback tactics” on civilian vessels will be limited to those of a particular size or seaworthiness, will it not then inevitably lead to migrants deliberately choosing smaller, more dangerous vessels in which to make their crossing? When “reasonable force” is being used to remove a migrant vessel from territorial waters, what duty of care does the enforcement vessel have to the persons removed? I believe the Government have misjudged the practical consequences of this removal policy. Only when the master of an enforcement vessel is satisfied that there is no danger to the safe navigation of the target vessel can any forced removal be contemplated. Perhaps a statutory code of conduct for maritime enforcement needs to be added to the Bill. I wonder whether the Minister would agree. I am sure we could create an extra schedule for it.
Finally, the Bill provides extensive powers of enforcement over foreign ships in foreign and international waters. I am sure that we will explore in Committee the basis of this extension of jurisdiction in the framework of long-established international laws of the sea. The truly dreadful situation in the channel, with asylum seekers and other migrants being forced to cross by inadequate means, needs to be discouraged and stopped altogether. The Government’s current policy is to bully those seeking to cross the channel into even more dangerous situations than they already are in. As it stands, the Government’s policy will fail and damage our reputation for safeguarding life at sea. This policy for maritime enforcement would put a stop to dangerous channel crossings in a humane and compassionate manner. It would save lives, preserve our maritime heritage and respect international law.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in today’s debate there have been echoes of the consideration we gave in another place in 1981 to the British Nationality Act, when I raised concerns about its impact on what it might mean to be a British citizen, the importance of ensuring that we did not exclude legitimate claims to citizenship—especially those of children—and our failure to treat equitably citizens in overseas territories such as the Falklands and Hong Kong. I worried, in terms, that the 1981 provision would cause suffering and confusion, have damaging effects on good race relations and lead to challenges in the courts.
Last year, in a High Court case involving the rights of citizenship derived from the 1981 Act, I gave a witness statement. I look forward to hearing today from the Minister why the Government have pursued their appeal to the Supreme Court rather than accepting that £1,012 for a child to register as a British citizen is, as Sajid Javid has rightly said,
“a huge amount of money to ask children to pay”.
Why are we doing that? This Bill is an opportunity to right that wrong.
In 1981, I also challenged the failure to honour our relationship with the people of Hong Kong. I said that they were now third-class citizens or, more crudely, as suggested by commentators in Hong Kong and elsewhere, sheep, goats and more goats. Some 40 years later—and I here declare an interest as a patron of Hong Kong Watch and vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong—we have seen the destruction of Hong Kong’s freedoms.
I welcome what the Government have done for BNO holders, but I hope that they will use this Bill to do two other things. First, I hope they will address the right to full citizenship of Hong Kong ex-servicemen, raised during the Armed Forces Bill by my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley and myself, and raised again by him today. It was also raised in the Commons on an amendment by Andrew Rosindell MP. Secondly, I hope the Government will tell us how they intend to take forward the proposals of Damian Green MP to address the position of young Hong Kongers born after 1997, who are not eligible for the BNO scheme unless they apply together with their BNO-status parents. As the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, said last week:
“Many of Beijing’s administration in Hong Kong, for example, the Chief Executive and the Chief Secretary, have ensured that members of their own families have British citizenship. It would be an appalling irony if we allow the families of representatives of the Beijing regime in Hong Kong the right of abode in Britain, while not allowing the right of abode for those persecuted by self-serving United Front activists whose record will drown in infamy.”
This too is a wrong that needs to be put right.
My third concern—and I declare an interest as a trustee of the charity Arise—is about Part 5 of the Bill and its impact on combating modern slavery. I agree with what the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord McColl, and others have said in the debate. Some 15 NGOs have called on the Government to remove Part 5 from the Bill. Others, including the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, ECPAT, the Children’s Society, senior police officers and prosecutors, have also expressed alarm that these new provisions will create a fertile environment for those responsible for trafficking and enslavement, consolidating what the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, called the “business model”.
Issues concerning modern slavery should not have been put in a Bill primarily about immigration, a point reinforced by the House of Commons Work and Pensions Committee report on modern slavery. The Minister will have read the speech of Sir Iain Duncan Smith and the intervention of Theresa May, the architect of this world-class legislation. Theresa May told the Commons:
“If we are to stop modern slavery, we must ensure that we catch the perpetrators, which requires victims to be able to come forward with evidence.”—[Official Report, Commons, 8/12/21; col. 396.]
She identified that the public order disqualification threshold and the time period on slavery and trafficking information notices will have that effect. Does the noble Baroness the Minister agree with her? Sir Iain did not press his amendment, but said that we might well do so in the Lords, and asked the Government to offer progress to avoid that. Perhaps the Minister will tell us how they will take that forward.
This House cannot simply give a green light to a Bill that has been found to be defective by our Joint Committee on Human Rights and by the UNHCR, which warned that the Bill would deny “recognised refugees” the rights that are guaranteed to them under the refugee convention and international law, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, pointed out a few moments ago, in the way that we have dealt with the dehumanising of refugees, the position of children, the banning of asylum seekers from working, the use of embassies to process asylum claims of vulnerable people, and many other breaches that have been referred to during the debate. It is the duty of this House to scrutinise legislation and I agree with the noble Baroness that there will be many long nights and many amendments, and it will be our duty to bring them forward.
Lord Desai (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, who has done so much in this cause. There is nothing good that one can say about this Bill: let me say that to begin with. I will make two points, first on the idea that British citizenship is very valuable, if not a gift, or whatever it is. What people forget is that, throughout the period of the British Empire, people from around the world gave their lives for the protection of the empire, especially in the First and Second World Wars. They came from all over the world to defend this country and this territory, and it is shameful to forget that they did that—completely shameful.
The people of Hong Kong, the Gurkhas and the people who came on “Windrush” did not come here because they did not know about this country. They and their ancestors had given their blood for this country. It is shameful now to pretend that we are a great island and we are not going to have anything to do with anybody else who is not here.
That said, the Glasgow meeting of COP 26 had one clear message: there is going to be a lot of global warming and climate change, and a lot of island people are going to seek asylum all over the world. They will come here, have no doubt about it. This is a country that people want to come to because it is a good country—that is why I am here. We have to prepare ourselves to welcome them and not reject them. They may or may not come with papers, but they will come because there is a real climate emergency. These people more or less gave notice at Glasgow that the decision made especially on coal will exacerbate their problems. That is being said now, so we should not be surprised if these people come. Some of them were part of the British Empire previously.
One thing—I would not say it is a hopeful sign—the Government could do to improve the Bill a little is to do offshore processing somewhere under the control of the British Government. I do not know how to do it because I am not a very practical person, but they could park a huge warship, for example, in the channel, on which people could be processed, so that the traffic can be intercepted in the channel. Something could be done—like Radio Caroline, or whatever—to stop people in the channel, process them and then decide whether they have a case.
Something has to be done. We do not want lots of people drowning because we cannot sort out our system. We cannot let people die because we are inefficient. Do not blame the situation on the people who run the business of getting migrants—I am sorry but that is how the market works. We really ought to do something to save those people. Some form of offshore processing would be very helpful.
Lord Balfe (Con)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Desai. I have been listening to him since 1967 and have never failed to be amused, entertained and even educated by what he has to say.
In common with probably all noble Lords, I have had a huge number of emails about this debate and Bill. Much has been made of the problems and there has been much analysis, but no solutions. That is because the Bill looks at a very small area, but it is a very big, worldwide problem. I have received very good briefings from the TUC and from UNISON. The UNISON briefing makes the very good point that many of its members are dealing with the refugees and migrants as they land in Britain, many of whom then go on to work in the basic industries in this country.
One of the things we have to come to terms with is that we have a long-term labour need. Part of the question we have to answer is, how are we going to deal with it? How are we going to get the people into the country we need to be here to do the jobs that are necessary in the economy? In short, there is a need for migrant labour.
We also have to get over this “trafficked” business. Most of the migrants who come not only to Britain but to all the countries of Europe are looking for a better life. If we stop them on the beach, put them in a nice little private area and say, “We are sorry you have been trafficked. There is a plane and we will fly you back home club class. Is that what you would like?”, most of them would say no, because they have spent a lot of their money to get here. We have to start with that very realistic thing.
I will not deal with the Bill in detail—that will come later. However, one of my worries about Clause 9 and the ability of the Home Secretary to revoke citizenship is that it becomes rather like the right of the Attorney-General to appeal against sentences. The papers will come up with campaigns against particular migrants who do particular things, and we will have a politicisation of the removal of citizenship. That would be totally wrong and it is one reason why we need to look very carefully at the proposals in the Bill which give the Home Secretary powers. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, who is not in his place, was an excellent Home Secretary, but I would not like to give any single individual the power or responsibility of being on the end of that sort of campaign.
This is the difficulty that Home Secretaries 70 years ago had with the death penalty. They were personally involved and were personally lobbied. I do not know of any Home Secretary who said on record that they really enjoyed their role as the arbiter of life and death. Please be careful of what power we give to any Home Secretary.
My noble friend Lord Wolfson made a very good point in asking, “What do we want to do?” As I said, there were few solutions in the emails I got. First, we should raise within the United Nations the fact that these conventions are dreadfully out of date. I have been in international European politics for 25 years, and it is almost impossible to get agreement on a particular set of proposals. I remember the law of the sea and how difficult that was. It is absolutely impossible to get them amended, but we have to try it.
Secondly, I suggest that we try to get together a conference of like-minded Governments in Europe who wish to look at how we can solve this problem and come up with some constructive solutions, instead of every single country looking around for different solutions and getting nowhere because they have no support. Those are my two suggestions.
Lord Reid of Cardowan (Lab)
My Lords, may I courteously suggest to Ministers that, if I have judged the flavour of the opinions in the House correctly, they could quite easily convey to the Home Secretary the feelings of the House when they tell her that there was absolute concord of views between not only my noble friend Lord Rosser and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but my noble friends Lady Chakrabarti and Lord Blunkett and myself? I have never known any other subject on which that could have been said.
When the Home Secretary said that the asylum system was broken, I confess that I felt a frisson of déjà vu. Like my noble friend Lord Blunkett, when I began to hear the suggested proposals to remedy the situation, I had a faint echo in my mind of suggestions many years ago from civil servants which seemed to bear a faint resemblance to some of the ideas that are now being put forward. My Minister at the time, my noble friend Lord Coaker, is nodding in agreement. We rejected them because they were wrong, either morally, politically or internationally, in terms of creating an international alliance, or simply because they would not work. So in all sincerity I ask the Minister to please convey this back, because I will give the reason for it at the end.
Like other noble Lords, of course I am concerned. As we have heard, the Bill was published before any formal response to the consultation. The UNHCR disagrees with the Home Secretary’s statement that it complies with our obligations under the 1951 Act. It would allow the Government to create offshore camps. It will not work. It has not worked anywhere. Every time I see one of these headlines coming out of the Home Office, I wonder how extraordinary the next one will be. I was waiting for somebody to suggest St Helena or Elba, which have been used in the past against intransigent foreigners such as Napoleon. Every proposal like this that is put forward must be sustainable and realisable, otherwise people will recognise that it is a political debate of headlines that is going on and nothing is changing in terms of making the system better.
These and other points concern me, but my greatest worry about this piece of legislation, as well as the other things that have been brought forward on this subject by the Government, is that they always address themselves to the symptoms of the problem and never the underlying causes. The reality is that for 40 years, ever since the Iron Curtain was raised, or at least fell apart, there have been accelerating drivers of emigration. When I was Home Secretary, 200 million people got up every year and moved somewhere else, not just to visit but to stay. War, persecution, famine and climate change, which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and others, have driven unprecedented numbers of refugees around the world, probably about 80 million. At present, the globalisation of media and communications has made it plain that there is a better world somewhere else that I can go to if I am suffering in that fashion. We have internationalised travel: the EU’s external borders are porous and the EU’s determination to provide limitless internal travel throughout Europe through the Schengen process offers ample opportunities for anyone coming in from their external borders.
I will make this point. The Government will not solve this problem by trying to put a stopper in the distance between Dover and Calais. This is a much deeper strategic problem that will be solved only by international co-operation, international concord and international plans. That is why it is a tragedy that we have had cuts in the aid budget—which are hardly calculated to address the underlying problems—and the abolition of the Department for International Development. Likewise, leaving the EU reduces our ability. A mad spat between the Prime Minister and the President of France and name calling are hardly calculated to do it—but it is only at that level that we would do it, and it would be better and wiser under those circumstances to underpromise and overdeliver, rather than overpromise and fail to deliver, and I am afraid that once again that is what this Bill will do.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Reid, and to follow on the case for international co-operation. Like many in this Chamber, I find this Bill objectionable, degrading and inhumane. It fails to treat people with the dignity which they deserve. However, I recognise that I must put this to one side for a moment, because the Government have displayed a tin ear to all these arguments, so I will spend a little of my limited time examining some key areas where the Bill is unworkable.
My principal question to the Government is: do they genuinely believe that they will be able to sustain these proposals in the light of the inevitable challenges that they will receive in the courts and in international bodies? The excoriating report from the UNHCR and the legal opinion provided from London chambers, which lists the areas where this Bill breaches international laws and obligations, will surely provide an impetus for such challenges.
Stating baldly that other countries must take these migrants is bound to have a negative effect. It will change the perception of this country from one where we are a people who will stick to our word and keep our international bonds to a country that sets aside its international obligations. It will certainly not resonate with those countries, particularly countries such as Greece and Italy, which have taken a much larger share of asylum seekers, especially judged against the comparatively small number arriving on our shores.
A fundamental flaw in this Bill is the belief that the UK can make laws for itself with an expectation that other countries in the world which are supporters of the refugee convention will follow the UK’s direction.
“People should claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in”
is the quote that I am talking to. The 95-page opinion on breaches in the Bill to international laws and obligations states:
“Requiring refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach would undermine the global, humanitarian, and cooperative principles”
on which refugee protection is founded. This is what we should be trying to do and these principles were affirmed by the United Nations General Assembly and by the United Kingdom in the Global Compact on Refugees in 2018, just a short time ago. Despite a global search, it appears that no one is prepared to take on the Government’s offshoring proposal either. It was interesting to see the backward steps that the Government of Albania took when their name was broadcast all over the newspapers as being a likely candidate. We must also remind ourselves that the Australian points-based system resulted in even more applications from the most vulnerable: that is, from women and children.
This Bill creates two classes of refugees, which the UNHCR believes has no basis in international law and is outwith the refugee convention. It says that the convention has nothing within it which defines a refugee by reason of their route of travel or choice of country for asylum, or the timing of any claim. Furthermore, it claims that the Bill undermines the obligations under international law which the UK has made under Articles 23, 32 and 34 of the refugee convention—and to that we must add a large number of other clauses, including Clause 31.
Essentially, this Bill seems to say that if we treat people badly enough, this will deter others from wanting to come here, while the failure to provide safe routes adds to the conclusion that these proposals are unworkable. For example, what would happen to someone who has been imprisoned in Belarus, someone who has spoken up for democracy and gets imprisoned for 12 months or more—we know that there are very long sentences—and who then, after the sentence is complete, escapes from the country and seeks asylum here, breaching one of the Government’s rules about people who have been in prison? The human cost to these individuals is clear but, more importantly, it is the deliberate intention of this Government to treat people this way—so on what basis do the Government believe that they can win a legal challenge to these proposals?
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I shall concentrate on the subject that I know best because I reviewed it for the Home Office in 2016: the deprivation of citizenship, covered in that late addition to the Bill, Clause 9. The phrase has a Cold War feel to it: we think of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, deprived of his citizenship by the USSR. But it is really a version of the ancient practice of banishment—likened by Voltaire, himself exiled to England as a young man, to
“throwing into a neighbour’s field the stones that incommode us in our own.”
The tightly drawn powers to remove citizenship under the British Nationality Acts, including for disloyalty or disaffection towards Her Majesty, were not used in the 30 years prior to the war on terror, but thresholds were reduced in 2003 and 2006 to the point where today, Ministers need be satisfied not that someone is a terrorist or a traitor but only that their removal would be
“conducive to the public good”.
In 2014, a further power was taken to render naturalised British citizens stateless, if the Home Secretary was additionally satisfied both that their conduct was seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the United Kingdom and—a concession made in response to concerns expressed in your Lordships’ House—that they were eligible for citizenship elsewhere.
Removal of citizenship is now relatively common. The factsheet for the Bill on this matter tells us that the power to deprive people of their citizenship on “conducive to the public good” grounds was exercised around 170 times between 2010 and 2018. Clause 9 does not alter the criteria for removal of citizenship but effectively makes it optional, rather than mandatory, to notify the subject of their change in status. A more limited attempt to achieve this, which deemed notice to have been given by the entry of a note on the subject’s Home Office file, was made in a statutory instrument of 2018 that passed unremarked through Parliament but was held last July in the case of D4 to be ultra vires of the Act. At least this time around we have a power of amendment.
With Committee stage in mind, I ask the Minister six questions which I would be happy to have answered in writing. First, why is such a power needed at all? The existing rules allow subjects or their parents to be notified by post or email at their last known address, at home or abroad. Have there been cases—and if so, how many—in which even this basic information is not known?
Secondly, if it is necessary to remove citizenship without notice, why is the prior permission of a judge not required—the safeguard that applies to more transient measures such as TPIMs and, formerly, control orders?
Thirdly, why are the circumstances in which notice may be dispensed with so extraordinarily broad, even by comparison with the rules that were struck down in July? Clause 9 allows notice to be withheld even when up-to-date contact details are available, when it is practicable to give notice, and when no considerations arise of national security or foreign relations. The Secretary of State does not even have to try to give notice: she must only believe that dispensing with notice is “in the public interest”. Hints of future ministerial restraint of the sort that the Home Office has been energetically tweeting during this debate have no basis in this clause and are no substitute for properly defined laws.
Fourthly, where is the provision to require notification after the event? What reason could there possibly be for not informing somebody within days, weeks or months of such a potentially cataclysmic event as the removal of their citizenship—especially when it is their only citizenship?
Fifthly, when does the time to appeal begin to run? You cannot appeal a decision you have not been told of, but once you do find out, is your appeal said to be time-barred?
Sixthly, why are courts restrained, retrospectively, from treating a deprivation order as invalid for failure to comply with such notification requirements as still remain?
There is already apprehension, especially and understandably among people of mixed heritage, about this country’s unusually far-reaching powers to remove citizenship. The proposal to allow the use of those largely unmonitored powers to be kept secret, even from a subject who could perfectly easily be told, has predictably compounded those fears.
Clause 9 has been insufficiently thought through; at least, I hope that is the explanation. We can, and must, do much better.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, on an issue that we all care about. This Bill is absolutely atrocious. It is important that we remember in this debate that the impact of this law will be on some of the most vulnerable, damaged, endangered and downtrodden people in the entire world. We are talking about refugees fleeing their bombed-out homes or fields that cannot support crops anymore because of climate change, and people seeking asylum from oppressive governments—human beings who have been enslaved by callous criminals. At a time when the world feels more dangerous than ever, and while the UK continues to fuel global conflict by acting as one of the world’s largest arms dealers, history will judge our Parliament and our Government harshly for this legislation.
The Government speak warm words about making things safer for refugees and asylum seekers, but the Bill offers no solutions for genuine safe passage. It shuts the door on people and criminalises their desperation. It is knee-jerk legislation which appeals to the basest instincts of the Tory vote. It is appeasement to right-wing extremists and a continuation of the Conservative Party’s decades-long obsession with immigration. At the moment, the UK birth rate is about 1.5 children per woman, and we need 2.8 children per woman for replacement, so we need immigrants; we are an ageing and falling population.
There is also the problem that I do not think this legislation will work. Creating a two-tier system for refugees, divided on how they arrived in the UK, is unlikely to make any difference. It assumes that these people are taking legal advice and making calculated strategies, rather than desperately doing whatever they can to survive. The UNHCR has stated in no uncertain terms that this is discriminatory and in violation of the 1951 Refugee Convention.
There is the undermining of access to justice, fiddling with legal process, and curtailing rights to appeal, all of which significantly increase the risks of deporting people with valid claims, putting them at risk of further enslavement, torture or death. It is unclear how, under Clause 39, asylum seekers are supposed to enter the UK legally and without committing a criminal offence. Some 90% of people granted asylum in the UK are from countries whose nationals must obtain an entry clearance visa to enter the UK.
Turning to the deprivation of citizenship provisions in Clause 9, a lot of people will be surprised to learn that the Government already can—and do—remove people’s right to British citizenship. That is not new, but it means there is a two-tier system of British citizenship. The change is that the Government will now be able to remove people’s citizenship without any notice or warning whatever. The term
“otherwise in the public interest”
is so broad a discretion as to be almost meaningless. The Secretary of State can basically choose not to give notice on a whim. Of course, because citizenship will have been revoked without any notice, any judicial review or other legal challenge will only be able to be brought retrospectively.
In summary, the Bill is a continuation of the trend by this Government to remove individuals’ rights, undermine legal safeguards and view the legal profession as the enemy within. Rather than bring constructive solutions to these complex problems, the Government invoke criminal penalties and a legal quagmire. The end result is that injustices will go unresolved, genuine claims for asylum will be denied, and a great many people will be condemned to misery and suffering who ought to have been allowed to start life afresh on these islands. In words that might resonate with the Benches opposite, this Bill is a stain on British values.
As somebody who comes from Celtic stock—my lineage was here after the previous ice age—I welcome immigrants; I feel that they add life and vitality to what is sometimes a rather dull population. I will vote against the Bill and I very much hope that other Members of this House will as well.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, what a great pleasure it is to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb.
I understand and appreciate the intentions behind the Bill and, in particular, I recognise the challenges it seeks to address. The Bill has many aspects that I would wish to comment on in the time allowed, but I will confine myself to what has led to the need for this legislation—the issues created by unscrupulous organised gangs of criminals who prey on vulnerable people of all ages by illegally facilitating their entry into the UK by crossing the channel from France to England. Let us not forget that these are people at risk who are in the main seeking refuge from a variety of issues, be it conflicts, persecution or aggression in their own country. It is, of course, only humanly right that as a nation the UK shows compassion to those in their hour of need and provides the necessary sanctuary to those properly seeking our help. Of that there is no doubt at all, but, of course, this brings me to the heart of the matter.
The question arises as to why these migrants, having arrived in a safe country within the European Union, put all at risk in order to cross one of the busiest shipping channels in the world, having paid what is usually an extortionate sum of money to travel in what amounts in many cases to no more than a rubber dinghy with paddles. Maybe French hospitality is not quite what it is made out to be, but it is clear that these migrants would not be able to make their voyages across the channel without organised criminals facilitating their passage. The Bill seeks to address the issue of refugees arriving illegally, distinguishing between those who arrive directly from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened and those who do not.
My real concern—I take the opportunity of Second Reading to express it—lies with the marked lack of effectiveness of those tasked with combating cross-channel illegal immigration. It might well be said that if our law agencies were more effective in countering these gangs, parts of this Bill would be superfluous. What troubles me most is an apparent lack of cohesion between the agencies with regard to the use of intelligence. From previous experience, I am more than aware that knowledge is power, and, as a consequence, organisations, including law enforcement, are often drawn into intelligence silos.
As it stands at the moment, from what I am given to understand there is every reason to believe that this is the case in relation to the agencies tasked with countering cross-channel illegal immigration. Whether it be the National Crime Agency, the various police forces, Border Force, HM Customs or any other interested agency, there is a clear failure to have any effect whatever on the numbers crossing the channel. So I am not convinced. As robust as the Bill might seem, whether it will have any influence on the numbers crossing the channel is doubtful. After all is said and done, that should be the goal in order to prevent some of the most horrible drownings that we have witnessed in recent times.
I can see that the Bill is a step forward, a brave attempt indeed, in the battle to deter immigrants from entering illegally by streamlining what in reality amounts to a very difficult process. August 2020 saw the appointment of a Royal Marine, Dan O’Mahoney, as the Clandestine Channel Threat Commander. We were given to understand that in this new role Mr O’Mahoney would be leading the UK’s response to tackling illegal attempts to reach the UK. He would have the primary responsibility for making the channel route unviable for small boat crossings. He would collaborate closely with the French to build on the joint work already under way, urgently exploring tougher action in France, including stronger enforcement measures, adopting interceptions at sea and the direct return of boats. The Home Secretary said:
“Dan’s appointment is vital to cutting this route by bringing together all operational partners in the UK and in France”.
It does not seem to be the case. It is now reported that the number of people who crossed the English Channel in small boats last year was treble the number in 2020. According to the BBC, it shows that at least 28,431 migrants made the journey in 2021, despite huge UK hard-earned taxpayer contributions being invested in France to prevent crossings.
Last November, just over 1,000 people reached British shores aboard 33 boats. This wholeheartedly supports my theory of a lack of co-ordination with regard to intelligence and, in particular, the apparent lack of collaboration with French counterparts by Mr O’Mahoney and others. I strongly maintain that until there is proper intelligence co-ordination, particularly with the French—where that is possible, post Brexit—no amount of legislation will solve the illegal immigration problem in respect of the channel crossings, in my humble opinion.
To conclude, the fact remains that, as vigorous as the Bill is in dealing with those who have arrived illegally in the UK, the primary objective of any law enforcement agency must be the prevention of crime at whatever level. In that, I fear, we are being failed at all levels by those entrusted with that task.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I have had the privilege of serving on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has produced some interesting and critical comments about the Bill. I have also had a close association with the Refugee Council, Safe Passage and a number of other NGOs working with refugees. Having visited some refugee camps, whether in the Calais area or on the Greek islands, I have been impressed by the quality and determination of the volunteers, mainly from this country, who have gone to work with refugees and are dedicated to helping the most vulnerable of their fellow human beings.
We should be judged as a country by how we handle this issue, and I fear that we will come out of this badly in the eyes of other countries that have always thought that we take the lead in human rights and respect for the rule of law. If there is one sentence that sums up my criticism of the Bill, it is this. If there are no legal routes to safety, the traffickers have a field day. We are giving the traffickers far too much of an opportunity. That is what the traffickers want. How do they get their business except by there being no legal routes to safety?
We were all shocked and dismayed by the tragic drowning of people in the channel, not least the 27 people just recently. Our relations with France have to improve. We cannot deal with the issue of traffickers working in northern France unless we establish a good relationship with France as a country. It seems to me that shouting at the French and blaming them is not going to get us any further.
People say to me, “Why don’t these people claim asylum in France?” Of course, the majority do. Three times as many asylum seekers who get to France claim asylum there as seek to come to this country, and in the year up to 2021 the UK had the fifth highest number of refugees, but we were 17th in terms of per head of the population, so we are way behind. We are not doing as much as other countries, and in fact the French figures have been three times our figure. I agreed with the Minister in his opening speech when he said that we cannot take them all. Of course, we cannot. All I argue is that we should take our share of responsibility, along with other countries. It is a very modest request, and if it is put to the people of this country, they say they agree. I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said about Clause 9, most of which I hope we will get rid of in Committee.
On the nub of my concerns, the comments made by my noble friends Lord Rosser and Lord Blunkett in particular, and others, sum up the criticism I have of the Bill. Surely we cannot be in breach of international conventions and just say blithely, “Well, it doesn’t matter what UNHCR thinks or what the 1951 Convention thinks. It doesn’t matter that we have no right to penalise people by the method of travel”. We cannot say that it does not matter: we believe in the rule of law and in international conventions. Also, we cannot keep saying that people should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. That is not the 1951 Convention, no matter how much the Government insist that it is. Just in a practical sense, if that were to be applied, the 1 million Syrians who got to Germany would have all stayed in Greece, Italy and Malta. Surely that is not a sensible policy. That is a point I would make very strongly.
I regard UNHCR as the custodians of the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees. We should not blithely say, “Oh, they don’t know what they’re talking about”, which is effectively what the Government have been saying. We cannot therefore make it a criminal offence to arrive in the UK seeking asylum without having valid entry clearance. The Government keep saying “Oh, well, we can remove people”. There is not a single removal agreement with any EU country and, having left the EU, there is no sign we are going to achieve one. How are the Government going to remove people to whatever country they arrived from, particularly as that would not be the first safe country either?
As regards offshoring, what did the Government think they were doing letting it be known that Albania was on the list? It was complete nonsense. If the Government did not leak that, the Albanians got it from somewhere and they hotly denied it.
There must be a better way forward. We have fundamentally to support the right to family reunion, particularly of children coming to join their relatives—as we used to under the Dublin treaty, which the Government took out in the 2019 legislation. We should also find some accommodation for child refugees who have reached Europe who may not have family here. We must base what we do on international co-operation. We cannot do it on our own; we must achieve agreement. We must stop ministerial hostility to incomers, to new people arriving here. That poisons the atmosphere and makes sensible debate very difficult.
Finally, I am dismayed that our humanitarian tradition will be further undermined by this wretched Bill, unless we amend the nasty and objectionable features of it.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the hallmarks of this Bill are illegality and inhumanity; the imposition of still greater inefficiency and expense on our asylum system; and prejudice to the interests of society in having well-integrated refugees.
The Bill delivers neither dignity for asylum seekers nor a fair deal for taxpayers. My colleague in the other place, Alistair Carmichael, said:
“If cruelty and bureaucracy were the answer, the Home Office would have solved the problem long ago.”
The Bill represents, in the words of distinguished lawyers led by Raza Husain QC,
“the biggest legal assault on international refugee law ever seen in the UK.”
We have a system that is already working badly. Nearly two-thirds of initial decisions are found by the courts to be wrong, there is a backlog of 60,000 people whose cases await initial assessment, and it takes an average of a year to decide a case. The numbers the UK receives ought to be manageable: most European countries, including France, receive far more refugees per head of population than we do.
The obvious solution is to frontload the system, including investing in retention of caseworkers; improving the quality and accuracy of first-instance decision-making; restoring legal aid; and properly funding the courts and tribunals. But the Government, ignoring the first rule of holes, which is to stop digging, have chosen to worsen these problems by making what they call a broken system even more complex and unfair, which only entails yet more delay and expense. They will then double down on blaming asylum seekers rather than looking at the mote in their own eye—I am not the first to observe that it is the Home Office which is broken—and the whole sorry cycle will continue.
There is little in the Bill which helps to put the people-smuggling gangs out of business. The only real way is to create sufficient safe and legal routes, whether through resettlement, humanitarian visas, allowing claims to be lodged at a UK embassy or from, for instance, France, or family reunion. Can the Minister tell us what assessment her department has made of the impact the Bill will have on the number of family reunion visas granted each year?
The UNHCR makes the entirely valid point that the Government’s aim of forcing people to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach is by necessity absent from the refugee convention. The front-line states, which already accommodate nearly 75% of the world’s refugees, would never have signed a convention committing them to host 100%.
I second what the Conservative MP Caroline Nokes said on Report about penalising so-called group 2 refugees:
“It causes me real concern that we will create a two-tier system in which people with identical claims to safety—at identical risk from the Taliban—are treated very differently.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/21; col. 311.]
The further marginalisation of asylum seekers is not only cruel but thoroughly misguided. Skills are lost and health harmed; they are left open to exploitation, with integration and naturalisation impeded and postponed. This is contrary to every interest of our society, which is to see refugees become contributing, productive and taxpaying citizens as soon as possible. Instead of keeping them in depressed limbo for years while they are demonised as scroungers for getting a princely £5.66 a day, the Government should allow all who are able to work. What is the Minister’s response to the recent warning by the Migration Advisory Committee of the “clear evidence of harm” being caused by the current ban on employment?
All I can say now about the proposals on channel pushback, which my noble friend Lady Jolly has fully covered, and offshoring is that they are utterly misconceived. I also have time only to flag my concerns about the proposals on age assessments.
Although the provisions of Clauses 1 to 8 on citizenship are largely welcome, there are two specific groups whose problems in acquiring British citizenship I want to flag: Chagos Islanders and some EU citizens. I signal my intention to join the noble Baroness. Lady Lister, if she so acts, in an amendment on the lines of that tabled in the other place by Henry Smith to restore the citizenship rights of the Chagossians and their descendants, who lost both their homeland and nationality rights when cruelly evicted 65 years ago. It is encouraging that the Minister, Tom Pursglove, indicated that he was “sympathetic” to its aims.
I will again be vigorously pursuing the obscure and obsolete legacy of comprehensive sickness insurance, this time because it is unjustly tripping up EU citizens as regards their own or their children’s British citizenship or family reunion rights.
Lastly, as well as Clause 10 on stateless children, Clause 9 is understandably causing great alarm among our compatriots who because of descent or marriage could be at risk of statelessness. Can the Minister—here I only echo the superb analysis of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich—explain how a right of appeal against a no-notice decision works if the person does not know about that decision?
I look forward to extremely robust discussion in Committee.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords I declare a non-financial interest as president of Migration Watch. Your Lordships will be aware that this organisation has represented an important aspect of public opinion for more than 20 years. Indeed, I note a recent YouGov poll, which found that 34% of the British public now see immigration and asylum as one of the three most important issues facing our country. They are right.
The scale of illegal immigration has now reached the point at which it engages much wider considerations. These include the credibility of our borders, the scale of net migration, the cost of a failing asylum system and the reputation of the Government for straight dealing with those who elected them. That said, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for his impressive overview of the wider issues; and it was the noble Lord, Lord Reid, who pointed to some of the practical difficulties.
I will make three points. First, there is the scale of the problem. The Minister himself listed four groups of those offered asylum here in the past year. I made the total to be about 167,000. That is a huge number, to which must be added legal net migration, which has run at about 250,000 a year for the past 20 years.
Many of those now crossing the channel are not simply seeking asylum. Most have already passed through at least one safe country. Indeed, thousands have made asylum claims elsewhere, many of which were rejected. These arrivals are therefore those who seek not just sanctuary but the most convenient destination for their future plans—a very different thing, it seems to me. I note in passing that 80% of arrivals are men aged 20 to 40. Looking more widely around the world, there are now, as the noble Lord, Lord Reid, mentioned, some 80 million displaced people, of whom many millions might qualify for asylum in western countries. It follows that there is bound to be growing pressure on the borders of Europe and, consequently, on the channel route.
Secondly, our asylum system is already overwhelmed. Last year, as we all know, 28,000 crossed the channel in small boats and arrived here without prior permission. How many were removed? As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, five—five out of many thousands.
For too long, successive Governments have conceded to the asylum lobby at every point; that is the essential reason why the system is now so close to collapse. Removal of failed asylum seekers lies at the heart of any effective asylum policy, yet we now find that there are 80,000 immigration offenders living among the public. That is roughly the size of the British Army. Yet the current system costs not £1 billion, as the Minister said, but £1,500 million, and is clearly in serious need of an overhaul.
Thirdly, the time has surely come to move to a much tougher system of accommodation centres, an idea only touched on in Clause 12. Accommodation in four-star hotels can only be a huge pull factor. Claimants should in future be obliged to stay in accommodation centres until their cases have been decided. Any claimant leaving the centre without permission should find his or her application automatically rejected. Health and security checks could be carried out on the spot, and asylum courts should be collocated to speed up consideration of cases. That is easily said and not easily done, but probably the only way forward. Such changes would achieve better and faster decisions, but they will be useless without effective removal, so there must be a renewed effort to secure effective return agreements with countries of origin.
Finally, if fundamental reform cannot be achieved within the present legal framework, the Government should re-examine the 1951 convention and the ECHR in the face of continuing, massive and uncontrolled illegal entry. The public would be right to demand no less.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the many noble Lords in this House who bring such expertise to our deliberations and compassion to our scrutiny of this Bill. I wish to focus my remarks particularly on Part 5 of the Bill, on modern-day slavery. It has been said that the Modern Slavery Act was a pioneering piece of legislation. I would agree with that, but there is so much more work for us to do to confront this blight on our communities. Addressing modern-day slavery is close to the Church of England’s heart. Through the Clewer Initiative and other programmes, we have worked to raise awareness and to support survivors. This is a matter in which civil society, law enforcement and government share a joint responsibility to act.
Several aspects of the Bill are welcome additions in the fight against modern-day slavery. I welcome the renewed commitment to support victims of physical and mental health and social being, and I welcome the leave to remain route for confirmed victims. However, I share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, over whether this really goes far enough. There are other aspects that also seem troubling. We have heard from many noble Lords of concerns over inadmissibility and the proposed two-tier system for refugees. We must not lose sight of how this connects to modern-day slavery and exploitation. As my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, highlighted, the more there is a lack of safe and legal routes, the more criminal gangs fill the vacuum to bring the desperate people here. Indeed, the harder we make it to arrive with ever more militarised and securitised approaches, the more the only available options are via sophisticated criminal gangs and support from alternative, illegal sources.
The Government have made it clear that they believe the existing modern slavery provisions are open to abuse and are being used to prevent people being removed from the country. I do not doubt their sincerity in this regard, but we must be cautious that in seeking to counter abuse we do not sacrifice the real victims. To do so would be to fail the promise and progress made by the Modern Slavery Act. This was a point that we explored during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill last year, and my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and I will be looking again at the support and protections for migrant survivors of abuse at future stages of this Bill.
As regards victims of modern slavery, I hope that the Government will be prepared to discuss the impact of proposals on changes to the “reasonable grounds” criteria. I have heard the concerns of the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and others that this will have a negative impact on the many genuine survivors, and I will seek assurances from the Government on how that can be avoided. In addition to my remarks, the Lords Spiritual will want to pick up areas that affect children and young people who fall through the cracks of the Bill.
Modern slavers thrive on exploiting destitution and fear among asylum seekers and migrants. They capitalise on gaps in government provision and enmesh the vulnerable in their enterprises. I share the fear expressed by other noble Lords, including the noble Lords, Lord McColl, Lord Alton and Lord Rosser, that, contrary to the intention of the Bill, there is much that might exacerbate modern slavery, not reduce it. I hope that, as this Bill proceeds, we might find ways of improving our commitment and support to victims of modern slavery.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, I, too, intend to concentrate on the one aspect of the Bill that should not be in the Bill—namely, Part 5. I share the views expressed by others. It seems to undermine the 2015 Act, pioneered by the former Home Secretary and Prime Minister Theresa May, although that may be the intention.
In all the years that I have been at Westminster, which is getting on for well over 40, I do not think that I have seen such a letter to legislators—signed by more than 100 chief executive officers concerned about the sector under legislation. I refer to the letter to MPs of 22 November from the Human Trafficking Foundation. It is short and to the point, and I shall give just four quotes. The letter, signed by 114 CEOs, says:
“The Bill sends a message to traffickers that they are free to exploit people with uncertain or insecure immigration status, or criminal records, even for minor offences, or those committed under duress, as they’ll no longer qualify for help”,
and that it
“will reduce the number of criminal prosecutions for trafficking offences as there is no incentive for victims trapped in criminal exploitation, or targeted by traffickers for old offences, from coming forward”.
It says that the
“new Trafficking Information Notices will create further delays … and … will increase costs”,
and that the Bill is
“unfair to victims of slavery, while making it easier for the perpetrators to get away with their crimes”.
These are serious claims, and they must be responded to.
The Bill requires slavery victims to disclose at the moment of identification or be penalised. This is simply not realistic. As a result, fewer people will be identified and helped. I simply do not understand Clause 62, which disqualifies potential victims from protection. The reasons for removal of protection are badly drafted, vague and can be operated on a whim. I am really looking for a legal mind to explain to me what “claimed … in bad faith”, as set out in Clause 62(1)(b), actually means. I have not seen that before, not even when I was at the Home Office as my noble friend Lord Blunkett’s Minister of State. Parliament cannot possibly allow this vagueness. Of course, the anti-slavery commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton, has said that there is a risk that Clause 62 will limit victim engagement in prosecutions and thereby significantly undermine the ability of law enforcement to bring traffickers to justice.
The CEOs’ experience is useful, but the joint letter from the anti-slavery commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner to the Home Office, released on 30 December, is devastating. There is no time at Second Reading to rehearse the contents, such as the view that the Bill is set to degrade existing protections for these victims and that it
“singularly fails to grasp the realities of being a victim”.
There is no time to go into detail but, frankly, if the Minister winding up has not come briefed to respond to that letter, it is a disgrace and a failure as a Minister. I respectfully ask for a response to that letter today, before we start Committee.
This Bill is a very poor signal to the police officers out there at the moment preventing exploitation, seeking the exploited and matching up the incidents they go to as to whether people are telling the truth or are in slavery. What signal are we sending today’s police officers with a Bill that reduces protections for people in slavery?
The national referral mechanism stats show that 47% of referrals are for children, yet there are no protections set out for them. The Minister understandably did not make too much use of this in his smooth speech, which I commend him for, but he said nothing about why and how, as the Government claim, the national referral mechanism is being misused. There seems to be a lack of evidence and data to support the claim.
To conclude, British slave victims account for 34% of those identified. Children account for 47% of slave victims. The fact that the UK still has no national identity system and it is easy to work illegally means the Bill is encouraging the flow of cheap slave labour into the economy. That is the reality. That is what it appears it will do unless amended.
Lord Taverne (LD)
My Lords, I believe this Bill is one of the most inhumane Bills yet put forward by the Government. I will discuss the attitude of the Home Secretary towards people seeking asylum.
Even before she was responsible for them, this country treated people seeking asylum worse than most other western democracies. In the United Kingdom, people seeking asylum cannot work for the first 12 months and are forced to rely on state support of little more than £5 a day. The right to apply for work is much less restricted in most European countries, Canada, Australia and the United States. Several allow them to work and earn a living.
Under the Bill at present, the position of people seeking asylum in Britain and how they are treated will become even worse. In a New Year video message posted on social media this week, the Home Secretary spoke of a so-called legal merry-go-round of spurious asylum claims. I stress the word “spurious”. In effect, she accuses those who seek asylum of doing so under false pretences—in fact, fraud—yet the official figures show that most asylum claims are accepted either at first instance or on appeal. She also said that 70% of individuals on small boats crossing the Channel are single men who are effectively economic migrants and not genuine asylum seekers—the boat people are also frauds. Again, no evidence has been produced that these asylum claims are illegitimate. Analysis by the Refugee Council shows that more than 90% came from 10 countries where human rights abuses and persecution are common. They include Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Eritrea and Yemen. In recent times, a majority of these claimants have eventually been recognised as refugees who need international protection.
That is not all—apart from the fact that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees believes that the Bill breaches international law. Others seeking refuge will now become criminals: under Clause 39, someone who knowingly enters the UK without the necessary entry clearance will face a possible four-year prison sentence. Who are these supposed fraudsters and criminals? They are people fleeing torture and persecution who have made desperate, traumatic journeys to come to the United Kingdom, many to join relatives. In fact, this is no longer open to them as a legal route. Some are unaccompanied children.
To describe these people as “fraudsters” and make some of them criminals is unbelievable—indeed, it is unspeakable. It shows that the Home Secretary has not an ounce of compassion in her character. Indeed, for other reasons she should no longer be a Minister; she should have been dismissed from office when the Prime Minister’s then adviser on the Ministerial Code ruled that her bullying behaviour at work had breached the code. She survived because she is a loyal supporter of the Prime Minister, who simply ruled that she was not in breach.
I was fortunate that my first ministerial post was as a junior Minister to Roy Jenkins, probably the greatest reforming Home Secretary of all time. I never thought that I would one day see the worst Home Secretary ever kept in her post by someone who is likely to go down as the worst Prime Minister in our history.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, there can be no doubting the sensitivity in both political and social terms of the policy areas covered in the Bill to which we are giving a Second Reading today.
Immigration is of real concern to many of our fellow citizens. Over the past centuries, it has shaped this country, very often for the better; equally, there can be no doubting that this Bill touches on matters of not only domestic policy concern but Britain’s international obligations. It thus affects, for better or worse, the Government’s objective of developing a positive global role for our country in the 21st century. I will therefore concentrate my remarks on those parts of the Bill that are difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with our international obligations.
The provisions of the Bill dealing with asylum have been described by the UNHCR, the refugee agency, as
“fundamentally at odds with the Government’s … commitment to upholding the United Kingdom’s international obligations under”
the 1951 refugee convention and its 1967 protocol, and with
“the country’s long-standing role as a global champion for the refugee cause.”
That is strong language from an agency of the UN, which does not lightly criticise a member state which is not only a permanent member of its Security Council but also, over many years, one of its greatest donors. Nor can such criticism be lightly dismissed with subjective legal opinions; after all, why are we now discarding the interpretation of our obligations under the convention which we have applied for 70 years if it is not our intention unilaterally to contravene that interpretation?
However, if there are powerful reasons of principle for seeking to amend the provisions on asylum in the Bill, there are also powerful practical reasons for doing so. Is there any reason to believe that any third country will be ready to accept the offshoring of asylum seekers coming to this country? Certainly, a leak that we might be contemplating trying to negotiate such facilities with Albania provoked an immediate and categorical denial. Moreover, it is surely an incontrovertible fact that no new measures for checking the illegal arrival of asylum seekers will be effective if we cannot secure the full co-operation of our continental neighbours, in particular France.
Does it really make sense in that context to legislate for solutions which have already been dismissed as unacceptable by those countries and contrary to international law? Would it not be wiser to talk first and then legislate? Is it not likely that any such co-operation will in any case require us to open ways in which asylum in the UK could be claimed and processed reasonably expeditiously before asylum seekers quite literally take their lives in their hands by embarking on a perilous Channel crossing?
Quite apart from those complications over asylum, the provisions in Clause 9 for depriving British subjects of their nationality without notice seem to contravene the UK’s obligations under the 1961 UN statelessness convention and would risk depriving their children of their right to a nationality under Article 24(3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 7(1) of the Convention on the Rights of the Child—the latter being particularly poignant to the present speaker as I sat beside Margaret Thatcher in 1990 when she signed it.
The problems caused by our long-standing international legal obligations would thus seem to be a sufficient reason to consider Clauses 9 and 11 of the Bill to be seriously flawed and needing amendment. To ignore these problems or to dismiss them will inflict real damage on one of the pillars of British foreign policy: our support for a rules-based international order. Ministers have stood time and again at the Dispatch Box in this place and in another place proclaiming our national interest in preserving and strengthening that order. For what it is worth, I believe them right to do so. But then measures are brought forward that run contrary to that order—as in the present case—which, if they entered into law, would undermine it. Twice already this House has successfully amended such Bills, in the cases of the internal market Act and the overseas operations Act, to bring them into conformity with our international obligations. I hope that this can be achieved in the present case too. If not, I fear the gap between our rhetoric and our practice could become too wide to bridge with any semblance of credibility.
Earl Leicester (Con)
My Lords, we are an island race and have been subject to many waves of immigration and invasion—some welcome, some not. I leave your Lordships to decide into which category they place the Vikings, Romans, Normans and Huguenots. Actually, I think that on the whole, notwithstanding a few short-term difficulties, these have generally been positive. The Huguenots came at the rate of a thousand a year over, say, 50 years. Of course, the population back then was much smaller. In the 18th and 19th centuries, all those Anglo-Saxon-sounding bankers arrived in London, such as the Schroders, Warburgs and Rothschilds. Then, after World War Two, there was the Windrush generation. Incidentally, I am pleased to see that Part 1 of the Bill appears to attempt to right the terrible wrongs of Windrush. I say the above to demonstrate my support for economic immigration. It has been a necessity in our country, but it must be subject to rigorous control, with checks and balances, and it must suit our country.
There are 80 million displaced people in the world, so it is clear that not everyone who wants to come to the United Kingdom can do so. The current system is collapsing. Indeed, in the New Plan for Immigration published in March 2021, the Government described the UK’s in-country asylum case load as being at an “unsustainable” level. It stated that 109,000 asylum cases were in the system; of those, 52,000 were still awaiting a decision at the end of 2020. Some 5,200 had an appeal outstanding, and 41,600 cases were subject to removal action—the highest level since records began in 2011. In 2013-14, this cost the British taxpayer just over £0.4 billion. In 2020-21, it is costing the taxpayer just under £1.4 billion.
The number of decisions made per year has been falling, despite an increase in asylum casework staff. Indeed, there has been a 46% increase in the number of those staff at the Home Office since 2014-15, when there were 409, to 597 four years later. To further compound the situation, productivity has reduced from a peak of around 18 principal stages completed per staff member per month in 2015-16 to an equivalent figure of only seven per month only four years later. There has been much criticism of the Home Office during this debate. These figures add to that criticism, and I add mine. Of the 29,500 applications made in 2020, only 14,400 decisions were made—granted, the pandemic doubtless had some part in this reduction. But, of course, this all adds to pressure on the system.
While successful application rates between 2004 and 2009 averaged 34%, in recent years that has increased and improved to 48%. Compare that to the 20% rate in France—no wonder immigrants do not bother stopping in Paris but head straight for Calais. Indeed, many applications for asylum in the UK come from people who have had their applications in other European countries turned down. But no one arriving in small boats is fleeing persecution in France.
A related problem highlighted by the Home Secretary is that the persistent failure to enforce our immigration laws, as reflected by the woeful removal statistics—I believe it was only about 2,500 last year—is eroding public trust and disadvantaging vulnerable people who need our help. According to Migration Watch, 79% of British voters think that the Government are handling immigration poorly. We are lucky to have the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, president of the independent Migration Watch, here in this Chamber, giving us some hard-hitting facts on the levels of migration in this country.
I welcome the Government’s introduction of much of this Bill. It is high time we dealt more robustly with people trying to access our country illegally. This should allow the Home Office more time to deal more compassionately with more deserving cases and, most importantly of all, to prevent the tragedies of the like we saw in the channel in November.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Leicester, and I agree with very much of what he had to say. I note that I am to be followed by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. The noble Baroness and I have made common cause on a number of issues, but tonight she will probably disagree with almost every word I am going to say, because I think the direction of travel of this Bill is a good one. There are issues we shall need to think about, debate and possibly amend in Committee, but today, at Second Reading, we are discussing the strategic objectives of the Bill, and I think these are right, worthy and in tune with the wishes of the British people. I do so on three grounds: fairness, impact and morality.
First, on fairness, it cannot be right at any level to allow people, however desperate, to be able to game the system which governs legal entry to this country. To allow this to happen is to create the major pull factor that my noble friend Lord Wolfson raised in his opening remarks. It is not fair to those people, possibly equally desperate, who have followed the legal procedures, and it is not fair to the British people. As a nation, we place great weight on fairness, and nothing is more likely to undermine public consent for our immigration policies than a view that the regulations are being evaded and abused.
Secondly, by impact, I mean the effects, in the widest sense, of rapidly increasing population in what is already a relatively crowded island. It is not just about immigration, because some of our population increase comes about from the natural increase of the excess of births over deaths. Since the Blair Government opened our borders to mass immigration, we are likely to have seen an increase in our population of 13 million —8 million so far, and another 5 million projected by the ONS. That is 25% of our population in 1997.
When you give those figures, people look at you as though you are a little Englander—not so. I fully accept the new arrivals bringing an economic and cultural dynamic from which our society has benefited, but this is about scale and thinking about the widest impacts of population growth and responding to the concerns of the people of this country in a way that builds trust in government. What are those concerns? They include the impact on our economy, our national food and water security, our environment, our ecology, our society and, last but not least, our ability to meet our climate change treaty obligations. For all these reasons, it is very important that we keep tight control of the numbers arriving. In particular, we need to discourage—as the Bill seeks to do—forum shopping, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Green, pointed out, is an issue to which this country is particularly vulnerable.
Finally, I turn to the difficult issue of morality. Here I emphasise, or follow, the remarks of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I think we can all agree that what we really value is compassion linked to a sense of community and of civic responsibility. When we see our fellow human beings in desperate straits, we want to help, particularly if they are children.
Professor Diana Coole of London University has written extensively on the dangers of trying to create a general policy based and founded on the tragedy of an individual or a series of individuals. Yes, we want to give a hand to the Afghans whom we saw in terrible circumstances last autumn. Yes, we want to give a hand to the Hong Kong Chinese who are now under threat from the Beijing Government. Yes, of course, we want to give a hand to the desperate people we saw in the channel last autumn. But as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, will point out in his debate tomorrow, there are 82.4 million displaced people worldwide and many of them are in very serious situations.
To those who suggest that the way to deal with this is to open more legal channels, process applications faster and process those applications at source to cut out the people smugglers, I can see the force of those arguments but we are in danger of creating an immigration superhighway. Those who argue for this need to say what number they think we can accept under the system. What number in a year or over an average of five years? That is an inconvenient truth that has to be faced but face it we must, and because this Bill is trying to face a number of inconvenient truths it has my support.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the long overdue ending of the injustice done to those deprived of the right to citizenship because their British Overseas Territory father was not married to their mother. I pay tribute to Trent Miller and David Varney for their years of battling to make this happen. Sadly, this positive citizenship step is overshadowed by making it harder for stateless children to acquire British nationality, the last-minute introduction of the power to remove citizenship without notice and the very disappointing response in the Commons to attempts to remedy the gross injustice done to the Chagossians, evicted permanently from their homeland by the British Government, with their descendants denied citizenship rights. I hope we can rectify that and rectify the long- standing overcharging of children’s citizenship fees.
I turn to the asylum sections of what has been justifiably dubbed the “anti-refugee Bill”. Contrary to government claims, the Bill, as we have heard, is, in the words of the UNHCR,
“fundamentally at odds with … the United Kingdom’s international obligations under the Refugee Convention”.
First, through criminalisation; secondly, through the application of inadmissibility rules which, according to the UNHCR, rely on a
“fundamental misapplication of … the Refugee Convention”,
in particular a non-existent “first safe country” principle; and thirdly, by the creation of two refugee classes, the Bill effectively denies most asylum seekers the rights afforded by the convention. Moreover, through the prospect of offshoring, discredited by Australian experience, it strips them of their dignity and humanity.
The temporary protection status that awaits “group 2” refugees is likely to mean the kind of barracks-style accommodation found to be dehumanising and injurious to mental health by an APPG on Immigration Detention inquiry, of which I was a member, together with a significant increase in the numbers with no recourse to public funds, spelling serious hardship, including for children. In short, to quote the UNHCR, group 2 status is
“a recipe for mental and physical ill health, social and economic marginalisation, and exploitation.”
This is all in the name of the all-important but, at present, very limited safe and legal routes. Yet, as the UNHCR observed, resettlement programmes, crucial as they are, cannot on their own compensate for the abdication of global responsibility that this Bill represents. Moreover, far from expanding such routes—for instance, through humanitarian visas—the Bill’s weakening of family reunion rights will reduce them.
One consequence, the UNHCR warns, will be that more women and children are likely to attempt dangerous journeys. The ministerial mantra that women and children are being elbowed aside by young men is used to suggest that the former will benefit from this legislation. How is it, then, that Women for Refugee Women and more than 50 other organisations have written to the Home Secretary to warn that more women will be wrongly refused asylum, retraumatised and placed at risk of violence and abuse? Among their concerns are the consequences for women fleeing gender-based violence, more restrictive rules governing asylum interviews and the definition of “particular social group” which women often use to make their case. We have here the institutionalisation of the culture of disbelief that has long marred the asylum process. Children’s organisations share many of these worries, as well as expressing alongside professional organisations strong opposition to the proposed changes to age assessments.
I have two questions for the Minister. First, the Bill, as we have heard, is premised on the assumption that those entering the UK unlawfully, particularly in small boats, are not genuine asylum seekers. How can the Government make such an a priori assumption, particularly given the Refugee Council’s analysis that shows that most of those crossing the channel are likely to be recognised as being in need of refugee protection? Secondly, why should we accept the Government’s interpretation of the refugee convention over that of the body with supervisory responsibility for it?
In conclusion, I cite a refugee who contributed to a Refugee Action consultation following the Government’s failure to take adequate account of refugees’ lived experience in their own consultation. She asked that we look through the eyes of those affected so that we do not create rules that will in future fill us “with shame and regret”. If we let this pernicious Bill pass unamended I, for one, will feel both deep shame and intense regret.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, over the Christmas break I had the chance to read two things in particular. The first was a birthday gift, Jon Meacham’s excellent book, Franklin and Winston; the second was this Bill. I confess that the former experience was considerably more enjoyable than the latter, but the two are linked because it was Franklin Roosevelt whose ideas and humanity did so much to shape the post-war order; and it was Sir Winston Churchill’s Government who, on 11 March 1954, ratified the 1951 refugee convention which this Government, through this Bill, so clearly and shamefully intend to violate.
In the short time available I am going to focus on Part 2, relating to asylum and the treatment of refugees, but I also want to touch on the continuing lack of physical documentation for EU citizens with settled and pre-settled status, an issue which many of us across this House have raised consistently. I give notice that I intend to table an amendment in Committee—again, I hope, with cross-party support—to correct this continuing anomaly which is causing significant hardship to settled EU citizens.
As we have heard, the 1951 refugee convention came into being in the aftermath of World War II. It was intended to create a shared obligation towards refugees and to end the pre-authorisation regime which had existed in the 1930s and had prevented so many people, particularly Jewish people, finding a safe haven from Nazi persecution. It is exactly such a pre-authorisation regime that this Government seem determined to return to, with all the injustice that will entail.
This Bill turns the concept of shared responsibility on its head. It introduces the principle that a refugee must claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. As the UNHCR has made clear:
“this principle is not found in the … Refugee Convention and there is no such requirement under international law.”
As the joint opinion for Freedom from Torture points out, such a principle
“would have been nonsensical in circumstances prevailing in 1951, with no commercial air-travel.”
Quite apart from violating our obligations under international law, this safe country principle makes no sense for an international convention. It would mean that the obligations of the convention applied in effect only to those safe countries which happen by circumstances of geography to be closest to the countries of origin of the refugees. Already, these countries carry the bulk of the burden and often they are the least well-resourced to deal with it. As the UNHCR reminds us, 73% of refugees are already hosted in neighbouring countries and 86% of them are hosted in developing countries. The logic of the Government’s position is to say to these countries that 73% is not good enough—you must take them all.
In inventing this new principle, the Government are also creating a second class of refugee—literally, a “Group 2 refugee”—and then penalising them, in explicit violation of the convention which provides that no such penalties should be required. The result is that people who the Government themselves accept are refugees requiring protection under the convention will be denied rights because of their means of entry to the country or their failure to apply for asylum elsewhere. Not only do the Government intend to penalise refugees for entering by unauthorised means, they are also doing their best to ensure that there are no authorised means by which you can claim asylum outside country. Heads they win, tails you lose.
In his notably bellicose opening, the Minister told us that we did not have to choose between fairness and effectiveness. That is true. It is therefore particularly curious that the Government have felt the need to avoid a choice they did not have to make by plumping instead for legislation that is unfair and will prove ineffective.
The Minister also told us that the asylum system is broken, and who could disagree with him? As my noble friend Lord Paddick and other Peers set out, the Home Office’s administrative record is appalling. It has failed to remove 40,000 failed claimants who are eligible for removal, it is processing only half the applications it did 17 years ago, and those put through its processes are subject to delay, prolonged uncertainty and misery. We do not need new legislation but effective administrative action by the Home Office, safe and legal routes for refugees to claim asylum and a system that is humane, fair, effective and rapid. The Bill will achieve none of that. Nasty and ineffective in equal measure, it is a byword for this Government.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I have had helpful discussions with Professor Katona, the medical director of the Helen Bamber Foundation, an organisation working with survivors of trafficking, torture and other extreme human cruelty. Like me, he worked in the NHS for many years as a consultant psychiatrist. The foundation is very concerned about the impact the Bill could have on the mental health of survivors—particularly those who have experienced trauma—and that it could deny them the protection and support they need. I agree with its concern that the Bill will effectively punish and retraumatise asylum seekers and survivors of human trafficking for behaviour and actions that are inextricably linked to the human rights violations and trauma they have already experienced.
Asylum seekers who have come to the UK by what are termed “illegal” means—such as by small boat across the channel—will be given less protection. Even when their asylum claims are successful, they will still be disadvantaged, despite bravely taking the only means available to them to reach safety. I am unclear whether there are any legal routes available so, before I say more, I ask the Minister to explain in her conclusion exactly what legal means there are and how such routes could be made clearer to people seeking asylum and to protect them when they are the victims of people smugglers and traffickers. How can it be humane to grant people recognised as entitled to refugee status only a temporary form of status simply because of their means of arrival? How can it be fair to restrict their rights to both family reunification and financial support? The loss of hope caused by these actions plus leaving such asylum seekers in a state of limbo and permanent fear of return, unable to rebuild their lives, can only add to their mental distress and will build up problems for all our futures. This is manifestly cruel, particularly in the apparent lack of legal means of arrival.
With respect to the proposal that accommodation centres be used to house those seeking asylum, a review of the evidence by the Helen Bamber Foundation shows that accommodation of this kind has similar adverse effects on mental health to those associated with immigration detention. Offshoring can be expected to have similar, but even worse, effects on mental health to those associated with accommodation centres in the United Kingdom. Evidence from Australia’s use of offshoring has shown how it results in severe harm to people’s physical and mental health. More fundamentally, it would result in major limitations on the human rights of the individuals concerned and would give them little or no chance of subsequent transfer to the UK, even if their asylum claims were successful.
On the idea of so-called late evidence and late claims being treated as lacking in credibility or unmeritorious, this ignores the substantial evidence that trauma and other mental health problems make it emotionally very difficult, if not impossible, for survivors of human rights violations—particularly those whose trauma has a sexual component—to disclose fully what has happened to them unless they are given sufficient time and support to facilitate such disclosure. This is so well evidenced for victims of trafficking and of torture. The assessments provided in reception centres already pay scant attention to the mental health of new arrivals, and staff are unlikely—to be polite—to have the skills or time to enable disclosures. Just the retelling of trauma is retraumatising—I know that from my personal experience. Disclosures of abuse and torture require a relationship of trust and the possibility of sensitive and sustained psychotherapeutic help. To give a parallel example, the average time from abuse to disclosure for survivors of child sexual abuse in one inquiry was 35 years.
I do not expect the Bill’s drafters to have been fully aware of the complexity of the mental health risks faced by asylum seekers, but I seek an assurance from the Minister that the impact of some of the Bill’s provisions on the mental health of asylum seekers will be thought about again and the Bill amended accordingly.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts raised the issue of the UK population. The House may have seen the recent article by Michael Palin, the actor and global traveller, in the Spectator, where he pointed out that when he was born, in 1943, there were 2.3 billion people in the world and now there are nearly 8 billion—an almost fourfold increase. That tells you a lot, he rightly said, about the causes of global warming. However, it also tells you a lot about the causes of mass migration, which has been a phenomenon of this century. Much of the population growth has been in less developed countries, where young men—most migrants are young men—despair of their future in their own country and seek a solution in a richer and safer country. Where there is that demand, you will get ruthless operators who promise young men that they can get them in, hence the flimsy boats crossing the Med and the channel. This is illegal activity that no responsible Government can ignore or condone. It is a problem for all developed countries. It is a challenge to the authority of an elected Government which any responsible Government, of whatever political colour, has to respond to. That is a fundamental point about the whole Bill.
In addition, if unchecked, migration increases inequality and unfairness in recipient countries such as the UK. Obviously, most of the migrants go to the poorer parts of the country because that is where the cheaper housing is, and that multiplies the problems of poorer councils in finding accommodation, schools and GP services for the existing population as well as the immigrants. The devastating effect that the mass migration unleashed by the Blair Labour Government has had on some working-class communities is well set out in the book by the labour and trade union activist Paul Embery in his study of his home area of Dagenham.
Today the spotlight is on illegal immigration. As we have all said in the Chamber, we the British people are kind, tolerant and humane, with a good record in dealing with both economic migrants and asylum seekers. However, illegal immigration on the scale we see today is undoubtedly deeply unpopular. Opinions from YouGov and so forth have been quoted already. In November 2021—only two months ago—a YouGov poll said that the Government were in fact too soft: a warning to my noble friends on the Front Bench.
The Bill is clearly an effort to get a handle on the problem—an attempt to give a legal framework for necessary action. However much we may sympathise, as fellow human beings, with economic migrants or asylum seekers, our first duty as British parliamentarians is to the people of this country, particularly those living in parts of the country that are having to bear the burden of this phenomenon. We must listen to the people’s views and develop an immigration policy with which they are comfortable.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, mentioned Australia, the only country that has been successful in resolving this problem. There, the Liberal Government introduced offshore processing in 2001. This was successful, but the incoming Labor Government dismantled it in 2008. There was then a huge wave of immigrants and the Labor Government hastily reinstated offshore processing. Then the Liberals won the next election and brought it in more effectively. They strengthened the policy and, as a result, the 50,000 immigrants a year who were coming in by boat to Australia are now practically zero, and the costs have fallen dramatically. Inevitably, the policy now has all-party support. I have spoken at length to the head of the Australian Border Force, who says that the essential message it got across to potential immigrants was “You will not get into Australia”. Once that was understood, the people traffickers had no clients and their business model collapsed.
The fact of the matter is that the Bill is a necessary response to a difficult problem. We know that obviously there are practical difficulties in, for example, thinking about replicating what happens in Australia here, but that does not mean that we do not have to try. It is sensible and responsible, it has strong support in the country and in the other place, and it certainly has my strong support.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)
My Lords, it is important to see this Bill in its broader context, particularly in the light of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill, which is currently proceeding in the other place. Together, the two Bills make a group of changes that cumulatively are more significant than the sum of their parts, and the consequences need to be considered together to examine the proportionality, fairness and wisdom of both Bills.
I shall give an example of the reforms made by the two Bills. Say that a gay man has fled from an oppressive, homophobic regime and has arrived in the UK. On presenting himself to immigration authorities to claim asylum, he is too ashamed to admit his homosexuality because of homophobia in his home country and within his own family. He therefore declines to raise his homosexuality as a ground for asylum. Instead, he raises a more general claim that he is unsafe, without giving specific evidence of his vulnerability. His asylum claim is refused, with the Home Office deciding that he could safely live in another part of the country where the regime has a weaker stronghold. He is therefore liable to be removed from the UK.
There are two options available to the Home Office under these Bills, both of which place the asylum seeker in a weaker position of protection and safety. Option one is that the Home Office could issue the refugee with a priority removal notice under Clause 19 of the Nationality and Borders Bill. This would require him to provide a statement, along with evidence, about why he should not be removed. Under Clause 24 of the Bill, the refugee is entitled to only seven hours of legal advice to assist him to set out his reasons and his evidence for remaining in the UK. Under Clause 21, if the refugee does end up admitting his homosexuality but after the cut-off date, any evidence provided by him on this matter must be treated as having minimal credibility by the Home Office unless he can provide good reasons. Based on this credibility rule, the Home Secretary might certify his claim as “clearly unfounded”. Under Clause 27, where the Home Secretary certifies a claim as “clearly unfounded”, the refugee’s right of appeal is entirely abolished. He could not appeal inside or outside the UK, although he could seek a separate judicial review of his decision.
Even if the Home Secretary declines to find the claim “clearly unfounded”, Clause 22 of the Bill will kick in. This provides for expedited immigration appeals, whereby any appeal made by the asylum seeker will go straight to the Upper Tribunal, rather than the First-tier Tribunal. If a person loses in the Upper Tribunal, there is no right to appeal to the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court. Therefore, if the Upper Tribunal makes the wrong decision, the man is again at risk of removal. A series of procedural changes therefore increases the risk of an adverse decision against a legitimate asylum seeker.
In the second option, if the Home Secretary does not issue a priority removal notice under the Nationality and Borders Bill, she may nevertheless issue a removal notice under existing legislation. In addition, if the Home Secretary does not require an expedited appeal under Clause 22 of the Bill, the case will also be dealt with using this second option. If the Home Office does not uphold the individual’s claim for asylum, he can appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. However, if the First-tier Tribunal makes an error of law when deciding on the case and the Upper Tribunal refuses permission to hear an appeal despite the error of law, Clause 2 of the Judicial Review and Courts Bill will mean that the individual could not ask the High Court to overturn this error of law, because this clause abolishes the so-called Cart judicial reviews that used to be available in these circumstances. Therefore, the same consequences follow as for option one. The asylum seeker is liable to be removed to a country where he could suffer inhumane treatment because of the weakened procedural procedures between these two Bills.
Taken together, the two Bills weaken the UK’s compliance with international asylum laws and reduce natural justice and procedural fairness for those who need it most and at the time they need it most.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I noted that in his opening speech the Minister pledged that the Bill is based on fairness, that illegal activities will not be tolerated, that we aim to deprive people of UK citizenship in the event of the most serious crimes and, above all, that access to the UK should be based on need and not on the ability to pay. That is why I want to talk about the visa scheme that enables you to buy access to Britain—the golden visa scheme tier 1 investor visas, which allow wealthy people from dodgy countries to buy the right to live in the UK and, after a period of residence, to qualify for citizenship. It is one law for the rich and another for the poor.
In 2018, after the Salisbury poisonings, Theresa May announced a review of the scheme, which to my awareness has not yet been published. It has been reported that more than 6,000 golden visas, half of those yet issued, are being reviewed for possible national security risks, although those who applied in earlier years will by now have acquired full UK citizenship. Two Court of Appeal judgments in the last year have thrown up questions about the regulation of this scheme and the sources of the finance pledged by applicants. In four of the National Crime Agency’s major cases about illicit finance and unexplained wealth orders in the last two years, those under investigation had originally entered the UK with a golden visa.
Most golden visas have been issued to individuals from countries with a high risk of corruption. Between 2008 and 2020, a third of all golden visas were issued to individuals from mainland China and 20% to people from Russia. Other significant countries of origin included Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine and Turkey. Between 2008 and 2019, 9% of golden visa applications were refused. By comparison, 42% of asylum applications were refused. The UK has regularly been cited in magazines and other sources that appeal to the wealthy as one of the most popular golden visa regimes in the world, and one of the fastest: applications are turned around within three weeks. For UK asylum applications, the turnaround time is around six months or worse. Whether that is regarded as a fair system is an open question.
Last week, I looked at the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report. I quote paragraph 49:
“the UK has been viewed as a particularly favourable destination for Russian oligarchs and their money. It is widely recognised that the key to London’s appeal was … the UK’s investor visa scheme”.
It goes on to say in paragraph 50:
“What is now clear is that … it offered ideal mechanisms by which illicit finance could be recycled through what has been referred to as the London ‘laundromat’. The money was also invested in extending patronage and building influence across a wide sphere of the British establishment … Russian influence in the UK is ‘the new normal’, and there are a lot of Russians with very close links to Putin who are well integrated into the UK business and social scene”—
and, as we all know, into UK politics, in effect corrupting aspects of British institutions and politics, extending into Parliament and the Conservative Party. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s report goes on to say that “one key measure” to limit the damage that is being caused
“would be an overhaul of the Tier 1 (Investor) visa programme—there needs to be a more robust approach to the approval process for these visas.”
I failed to find this touched on when I read through the Bill. I hope the Government will accept that the Bill provides an opportunity to develop a much more robust approach to this rather shameful visa programme.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I cannot welcome the Bill. It does not deal with the protection and care that people urgently need when forced to leave their country. I will speak about the context of the Bill, reuniting families, and humanising our policy on refugees.
This country is relatively sheltered against the consequences of wars and persecution elsewhere. In 2020, Germany received four times as many asylum applications as we did. The great bulk of displaced people and refugees remains in poor countries.
Since we left the European Union, over 1 million people have left the UK, so that we now have serious shortages of HGV drivers, builders, and health, hospitality and care workers. One might think that there was now a little scope for cautiously relaxing migration and asylum policy, but no. The Bill is restrictive and discriminatory. It does not open new safe and legal routes for entry. However, I give the Government credit for proposing the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme.
Recently, the UK resettled some 5,000 refugees each year, mainly through the vulnerable persons scheme. In the year to September 2021, that figure fell to 1,171. We should note that the United States and Canada have both increased their resettlement targets for 2022.
Since 1999, I have called for family reunion to guide our approach. It is an all-round winner for the families, and for their integration into work and communities here. It helps the Government through savings on benefits, health and policing. Such thoughts have perhaps begun to sink in, because it is claimed that family reunions have helped 35,000 people over the past five years. If that is true, I warmly welcome it. Refugee children, as well as adults, who are already here should be enabled to sponsor their close relatives to come here. They should be allowed legal aid to deal with access to visas and similar matters. It would be a flexible way of helping small numbers of urgent cases that would otherwise go unaided.
Her Majesty’s Government could do more to improve the system. For example, they should tackle the backlog of undecided asylum cases, as several speakers have mentioned. It is currently about 72,000 or more. Long ago, I suggested a review panel with an independent majority to speed up work on the cases that have been outstanding the longest.
The period during which asylum applications may not take paid work should be reduced to six months, in line with other comparable states. Destitution should be reduced among unsuccessful asylum applicants by allowing them to work until such time as they can be removed. The length of time that any person can remain in immigration detention should at long last be limited. The details are, of course, complicated. However, they are not insuperable.
Old army barracks and other unsuitable places should not be used as reception centres for new arrivals. As we heard from my noble friend Lady Hollins, these have already harmed the mental and physical health of inmates.
Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, I have tried to pinpoint ways our system can be made more humane. We thought that the infamous hostile environment had ended in this country. Will the Minister confirm that this is so? I go further and call for an end to the automatic culture of disbelief when assessing refugees.
Blaming others, such as the French authorities or the traffickers, has been tried and failed. We should put our own house in order by adopting a humane policy. All agencies in Britain must work together. As has been said, we need international co-operation to close supposedly temporary refugee camps and to achieve resettlement.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, as a former Immigration Minister in this country, I have always been of the view that a primary responsibility of our Government should be to keep the people safe from internal and external threats. This includes maintaining our borders and dealing with immigration with policies that are firm but fair. That is certainly what we strived to achieve under my watch. That included rules that were clear and enforced without bias for immigration, including exercising the powers of removal or deportation in cases of illegality or failure under the rules. The need to improve our rates of removals is something I have always supported. But I never conflated the issues of immigration and asylum; they are wholly distinct and require different considerations. I am therefore a little surprised and disappointed that the Bill has blurred the lines between these things. It has proposed a number of controversial ideas that we need to examine carefully.
The first is Clause 28 and Schedule 3, which give the Home Office powers to send asylum applicants to offshore processing centres outside the UK. About 20 years ago, I chaired two party commissions set up to consider, in turn, the UK’s policies towards asylum and immigration. One of our asylum proposals was to consider applications in an offshore location, isolated from the mainland. I soon realised that this was a highly defective idea and it caused much unnecessary concern to certain islanders around our shores, but at least it did not suggest moving people outside of our territorial jurisdiction. These new proposals do, and in my opinion would be a clear breach of the principles of the 1951 convention on refugees, as well as providing substantial legal concerns as to the responsibility for dealing with applications. An asylum application is under the control of an applicant. Until and unless an application is made there is no status of asylum seeker, and the applicant can decide where to make their application. Therefore, deporting an applicant to another state and jurisdiction and asking them to determine the case for us is an abrogation of our responsibilities and an abuse of the applicant’s rights.
Who would agree to this without themselves breaking the rules? Not the Albanians, not the Norwegians and surely not the Rwandans. The Australians tried a similar idea, referred to by a number of noble Lords, and it was a total failure. Surely it is a totally unacceptable process for us and one where we would end up with different legal and human rights standards. It would be a nightmare and simply would not work.
My second concern relates to Clause 9, which would allow the Home Office to strip people of UK citizenship unilaterally, secretly and without right of appeal. That would be an appalling prospect and is against all our legal and constitutional principles, when notification to an individual of their rights and decisions taken about them is inherent in both our criminal and our civil law. The Bill term “public interest” is similar to that used to justify such an approach in some countries that would not be regarded as being as democratic and free as our own.
Finally, I return to the 1951 UN Convention on Refugees. I was proud to follow British values and the rule of law in our approach to those in need of humanitarian assistance. I was responsible for implementing the Bosnian refugee resettlement programme in the 1990s, which was of great credit to all those involved in its delivery. It was a good and legal route for many to escape persecution, complying with the necessary criteria as determined by UN and UK officials.
Why is this Bill attempting to create two categories of asylum seekers, and how can the arrival of an asylum seeker be determined as being either legal or illegal? As I stated earlier, there are no asylum seekers until asylum is requested, so a pre-application is difficult to define. There are legal and illegal immigrants, but this term cannot be easily transported to asylum seekers. Essentially, according to this Bill, all asylum seekers are therefore to be deemed illegal and we would not hear their claims at all. I think we are obliged to hear those claims. Of course, since we left the EU we can no longer return failed applicants to the states that are subject to the Dublin agreement, an agreement which I was partly responsible for drafting. Our international opportunities for using programmes or, as the Government suggest, legal routes have diminished.
Ultimately, we must recognise the ever-increasing prospect of people being forced to leave their countries of origin. The challenge requires an international effort through the UN or other recognised agencies, with renewed co-operation on both sides between the UK and the EU. This is not helped with these provisions, which are likely to be unenforceable and will perhaps even look a little inhumane. I call upon the Government to think again and try to make sure that the reputation of this country, which is a proud one, is something that we can continue. I am sure that, with the help of your Lordships, this Bill will be returned to the other place in a much better form and order than its current state.
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, it has been a most interesting debate. I was rather surprised to hear the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, refer to a consensus emerging on this subject this afternoon. There has certainly been no consensus in the debate I have listened to; rather, a set of very different, diametrically opposed views based on different moral assumptions. There is nothing inherently wrong about that, but I think we have discussed the matter pretty comprehensively.
It is quite difficult to draw clear conclusions as to the central indicators thrown up by a debate such as this, but there are one or two things that stand out. First, it is very important that we have a policy that is humane, that we can be proud of and that we can defend around the world because it clearly is humane. Secondly, it follows that we have to make sure that we do not split families. It seems to me that there should be an overriding criterion that we should do everything possible to keep families together. That does not happen at the present time, but it should. Thirdly, it is very important that the policies we come up with are coherent—in other words, they are not in contradiction one with the other. We should not have a situation in which you win on the left-hand side but lose on the right-hand side at the same time.
There are some very peculiar things about our law at the present time, not least that you have to be in this country already in order to make an application for asylum here. That does not make any practical sense at all to me, because it is impossible to come into this country and be here for five seconds without being an illegal immigrant, breaking the law and risking a four-year prison sentence. Therefore, in my view, that has to be changed. We must change that system to have a policy that we can reasonably defend.
It is also terribly important that what we say is said in good faith. If, for example, we want to argue that we do not have any space for immigrants, it is no use, in my view, using the argument, as happens at the present time, that there are just terrible delays at the Home Office and we cannot do anything about it, or that there is just a large queue of people waiting to be looked after. That is not the case and it should not be used as an excuse. We instead should make sure that the Home Office becomes a bit more efficient. Efficiency in government is a good thing in principle, and there must be ways of making sure that you can reduce the time taken to process applications in the Home Office, or indeed other ministries.
We really must be prepared to get rid of and replace the extraordinary system we have at the present time under which you have to be resident here when you make an application for asylum, which is surely unnecessary—and incredible. If you get rid of that, you have to ask yourself what you would do instead. I think that means that you take these applications as they come, make sure that you maintain a minimum standard for response times and make sure that your officials live up to that by accepting targets and perhaps receiving bonuses that are subject to achieving the targets, or that sort of thing. That is and ought to be a part of good government in many areas.
Finally, a good solution that has elements of all these things would be for the Government to set up some office in different parts of the European Union—the obvious places would be Dunkirk, Calais and Boulogne-sur-Mer—where officials of the Ministry of Justice or the Foreign Office could examine applications, come to a preliminary conclusion, discuss matters with the applicant where necessary and make some progress, which is not happening at the present time, in the solution of individual cases.
Lord Teverson (LD)
My Lords, I should come clean in that my family, the Teversons, are migrants themselves. The Teverson family reputedly migrated from Denmark in roughly the 10th century. I do not think we were particularly invited by the resident population at the time. There is no picture of us with horns coming out of our helmets, but we were definitely migrants into Suffolk. Since then, I have dwelt with the Celtic tribe of the Cornish in Cornwall, who I am proud to say are a race yet to be subdued by us Danes.
Let me explain briefly why I am speaking this evening. I normally get involved in issues relating to energy, climate change, fisheries—a niche subject—and biodiversity, those sorts of areas. I am speaking tonight, because when I listened to the Queen’s Speech and the Government’s programme, what I saw very strongly was a dark side, a malevolent streak, that I had not seen before in a government programme. The relevant Bills, which I will go through very briefly, were: the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill; this Bill; and the heavily modified, I am pleased to say, Judicial Review and Courts Bill. There is also the Elections Bill, which is primarily about voter suppression. Let us be clear: that is what it is about. I therefore decided that I would involve myself in this Bill.
Let me move on for a minute. It interesting that the Minister in his opening remarks mentioned “reality”. I should like to concentrate on that a little because there are some unrealities that we talk about on asylum-seeking. It is different from migration and we should keep those two subjects separate, as other noble Lords have said. One issue is people smugglers. I condemn their gross activities but let us not pretend, as some Ministers do or imply, that migrants and asylum seekers across the channel somehow have traffickers with Kalashnikovs behind them who force them to come across the channel. It does not work in that way. I did A-level economics—wow—and one of the things that I learnt about was called supply and demand. It happens in most things with any economic background. Where there is demand, there will be supply. In this area, forget trying to stop the so-called pull factors. The push factors will always outweigh those by miles. What is the evidence of that? It is the evidence of those 27 people who died in that small vessel in the channel several weeks ago because they were willing to risk not just their own lives but the lives of their families to reach these shores. Forget the idea that pull factors will end that. I do not know whether anyone in the Government has been in business, but the thing about destroying business models is that they are replaced by more effective business models. It does not solve the problem but tends to make those challenges even greater.
One of the other so-called realities that I need to challenge is the contention that we are a friendly nation for migrants. There are 84 million refugees in the world. More than two-thirds of those are from five countries, which maybe gives a clue as to the way in which we should approach this issue rather than concentrating just on the symptoms. Four out of 10 refugees are in five countries. The fifth country is Germany, in which there are 1.2 million refugees. We have only a 10th of that number. Let us keep those numbers somewhere in our minds.
I was going to talk about some of the other matters that I find difficult in the Bill but I will not go through them because I will run out of time. However, I will refer to one of my fellow Scandinavians who maybe came over in the same ship as my forebears—King Canute. He is famous for one thing. He went down probably to the channel coast, looked across to the continent and tried to push back the ocean. What is he known for? It is his failure. The fact is that the Bill cannot and will not work. It will not be a solution to a problem but, in the process, we will continue to trash the reputation of this country internationally. To me, that is a matter of despair.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of the Schwab and Westheimer Trusts, which help young asylum seekers in this country who cannot work and cannot access student finance to access further and higher education.
My mother, and many members of my family, came to this country as asylum seekers from Nazi Germany. I have some inherited understanding of these issues and, unlike the example given by the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, it was quite a recent event. The Bill appears to have little understanding of what it means to be an asylum seeker in this country—often desperate, insecure, unwelcome and feeling unwanted. As other noble Lords have said, the UK receives relatively few asylum applications compared with other European countries. The international norm, as set out in the 1951 convention, is to accept asylum applications regardless of the mode of arrival. Nowhere in international law is there a rule around people needing to seek protection in the first safe country in which they arrive. Nor should there be.
The Government appear to doubt that those crossing the channel in small boats are doing so to claim protection. However, as others have said, analysis by the Refugee Council has shown that by far the majority have come from just 10 countries where human rights abuses and persecution are rife, including Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, Iraq, Sudan, Eritrea and Yemen. For many of these nationals, there is no legal refugee resettlement route to the UK. The majority of people from those countries are eventually recognised as refugees, thereby showing that the UK’s asylum system understands that at least some of them are in need of protection. Reducing the rights of refugees who arrive in the UK irregularly will not reduce the numbers fleeing war and persecution, nor will it make their travel routes any safer. People do not board unsafe small boats from France for fun. They do not trust people traffickers because they are stupid. They just do not have an alternative. These measures will not help that.
I want to raise three further specific points. Refugees in the UK often find themselves separated from their families following brutal experiences of conflict and persecution. Refugee family reunion allows people to come to the UK to reunite with family members in a safe way. In the past five years, over 29,000 people have arrived in the UK through family reunion— 90% of them women and children. The restrictions to family reunion rights in the Bill will increase the numbers resorting to unsafe routes and will particularly impact women and children.
My second point is about age. Unaccompanied children face particular problems in proving their date of birth. Many have no official identity documents and, in the absence of documentation, it is extremely difficult to determine a child’s age. Yet age is fundamental to their receiving the support and protection that they need. We know that children as young as 14 have been placed in immigration detention, alone in accommodation with adults, with no safeguarding measures and at risk of abuse. Of course there will need to be some age assessments but they need to be done sensitively by people skilled and experienced in carrying them out. Yet Clauses 48, 49 and 52 give the Home Secretary broad powers to designate who can undertake age assessments and to compel local authorities to assess the age of a child and hand over evidence to immigration officials, thereby undermining their independence. Clause 52 allows the Home Secretary to make regulations about how age assessments are carried out. This includes the use of so-called scientific methods to assess age, which allows the Government to introduce regulations specifying scientific methods to be used, including all sorts of horrible things such as
“examining or measuring parts of a person’s body”,
analysis of saliva and so on. These “scientific methods” have largely been discredited. I ask the Minister to explain to this House why she is proposing that those methods be allowed. If she thinks that maybe they should not be, will she reconsider?
Lastly, as other noble Lords have said, Part 5 provides for far-ranging reform of modern slavery legislation alongside other proposals that will impact all children who are at significant risk of exploitation, especially those who are trafficked. Children’s rights and protection must be put first. This is an urgent human rights and child protection issue. In fact, if the proposals go ahead, it will be a bit of a crisis. I ask the Minister to say whether she will carry out a children’s rights assessment before we reach the end of proceedings on the Bill.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, working to see progress in tackling modern slavery has been a long interest and passion of mine. Nevertheless, I have to ask the Government why Part 5, an entire section on modern slavery, has been thrown into this immigration Bill. Immigration and modern slavery are separate issues that require separate responses. To conflate the two is to go against everything that we know about modern slavery and how traffickers work.
The Government have said that at the heart of the new plan for immigration is a simple principle—fairness. There is nothing fair about a Bill that is neither trauma-informed nor victim-centred. The Government seem intent, without any clear justification, on making it harder for victims to be identified. Indeed, I am disappointed that the Government have not published a detailed impact assessment on the effect of the Bill on victims of modern slavery and how that might differ across the regions of the United Kingdom.
I commend the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for his continued work in this area and for championing the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill. I echo and reiterate all that he has said to this House regarding Part 5. I am proud of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act, passed in Northern Ireland in 2015. It was the first comprehensive piece of legislation on this subject to be passed anywhere in the United Kingdom. The very title of that legislation serves to further the point I wish to make:
“Criminal Justice and Support for Victims”.
Justice and support go hand in hand and complement each other.
I welcome Clause 63. It is good to see the Government catching up with Northern Ireland and Scotland, where NRM support has been provided on a statutory basis since 2015. The statutory support available in Northern Ireland is for 45 days, even if a conclusive grounds decision is made in that time. But the recovery period is set at 30 days in Clause 60(3), after which the Government can deport a person who no longer has right to remain. Please will the Minister address this scenario in her remarks: could a victim in Northern Ireland have their support cut short because of deportation?
It is disappointing that there is no provision in Clause 63 for long-term support for confirmed victims of modern slavery once they have exited the NRM. I am grateful that in Northern Ireland we are already a step ahead through the provision of discretionary support to confirmed victims following their exit from the national referral mechanism. Section 18(9) of the human trafficking and exploitation Act provides for discretionary support to be continued following a positive conclusive grounds decision. We are constantly learning more about the needs of victims and we must tailor our response accordingly. I would like to see all confirmed victims in Northern Ireland receive at least 12 months statutory support once they exit the NRM, but that is a conversation for the Northern Ireland Assembly.
That said, only victims who are British citizens or who have received leave to remain—for instance, as an asylum seeker or under the current discretionary leave to remain for victims of trafficking and exploitation—are able to access long-term support in the devolved jurisdictions. This has limited the number of confirmed victims who have been able to access the discretionary support in Northern Ireland and it has meant that individuals who may have received additional support have not done so as a result of their immigration status.
Clause 64 will have an impact on all victims of human trafficking and modern slavery across the UK who are not British citizens. I welcome that the Government have acknowledged the need for a system of leave to remain, but unless it leads to an increase in grants it will not make a significance difference to the well-being of victims. Indeed, I am concerned that the text of Clause 64 will limit the impact of any future extension of support in the devolved Administrations by making current discretionary leave to remain criteria narrower than what is currently in guidance. For instance, any personal needs that might be cause for granting leave to remain under Clause 64 would be only those associated directly with exploitation that has occurred and, even then, leave to remain might not be provided.
There is much more that I would like to say, but, as I look at the Clock, my time is up. I think the Bill needs considerable amendment.
Lord Lilley (Con)
My Lords, few of us would risk crossing the channel in a flimsy, inflatable dinghy, so we assume that anyone who does so must be fleeing a well-founded fear of persecution by an evil tyranny. But these boats do not set off from Basra, Iran or Africa; they come from Europe carrying people who have been in France, Belgium or Germany—none of which is a tyranny threatening them with persecution. They take this risk because, for whatever reason, they would prefer to be in one safe country—the UK—rather than other safe countries they have passed through. For some, that reason is that they have been refused asylum or fear refusal in France, Germany or wherever, and they believe the UK is more likely to grant them asylum and, even if they are refused, they stand little risk of being deported. They are right. In France, only 25% of asylum applications are granted on first request, whereas the figure in the UK is 64%, plus 59% of those who appeal. Moreover, pre-Covid France forcibly deported 34,000 migrants a year—10 times as many as we did.
One reason for this difference is that the British standard of proof for granting asylum is unusually low. Home Office guidance requires only a “reasonable degree of likelihood” that the asylum seeker is telling the truth. That is far below the criminal standard of “beyond reasonable doubt” and below even the civil standard of “the balance of probabilities”. Home Office rules say that
“keeping the relatively low standard of proof in mind, the claimant’s statements and other evidence about the facts being established can be accepted if they are”
detailed, coherent, consistent with local circumstances and plausible. Any well-coached economic migrant should have little difficulty providing a story meeting those criteria. The genuine victims of persecution may have no concrete evidence of their suffering and, if they lack coaching, may be rejected.
The truth is that we allocate the right to asylum by lottery, albeit with odds stacked heavily in favour of claimants. The price of a lottery ticket is over £10,000 to pay the people smugglers, which rules out the poorest people, plus willingness to risk the channel crossing. A lottery with such good odds of winning has been possible only because there is such a high cost and risk of entry. No one who signed the Geneva convention intended to create such a cruel and absurd system.
Some noble Lords propose that we reduce the price of a lottery ticket by letting people apply from their homeland or a third country. But advocates of safe routes do not say whether claimants abroad would have the same rights as at present to legal aid, appeal and judicial review, and low levels of proof. If those advantages are to be curtailed for distant applicants, why retain them for applicants within the UK?
We know what happens when you offer free tickets to a lottery for visas. The US allocates by lot 50,000 visas to people in a different list of countries each year. The response is huge; 20 million people applied for those 50,000 visas last time, including 13% of the population of Albania, 15% of Liberians and 9% of Armenians. I could go on. As noble Lords observed in a previous debate, these are not the main countries from which migrants currently come—precisely. Does anyone imagine that fewer Iraqis, Afghans or Syrians would apply if we offered them a costless, riskless possibility of asylum in the UK? They would be joined by a huge number of economic migrants from other poor and troubled lands. Safe routes would overwhelm our already unsustainable system. Rather than letting anyone in the world chance their luck on our system, what is needed is a radical pruning of the unintended forest of Kafkaesque legal processes which have grown up since 1951. This Bill makes a timid start, but I fear something more radical may be needed.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I have very little experience in the making of laws; unlike the noble Lord who preceded me, I am not a politician. I have even less experience of interpreting and applying our laws; I am not a lawyer or a judge. But I have a lifetime’s experience of standing with those affected by our laws, especially people in trouble, the homeless, prisoners, victims of racism, sexism, homophobia, those suffering abuse of one kind or another, the poor and the dispossessed, and refugees.
The Bill that we are discussing today is mean-minded and punitive. It fills my mind’s eye with pictures of people on the move through famine and political oppression along the migratory routes from the Horn of Africa or through war-torn territories in the Middle East, North Africa or Afghanistan. I see people in small boats risking their lives, many of them pushed back on the high seas; I see people held in grim detention centres, men and women with hope driven from their eyes, denied of their rights and doomed to live meaningless lives.
The Government bringing this Bill have such a different mindset from those who framed the United Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees 70 years ago. I must take issue with the Minister, who urged us not to look to the past. I am afraid that it is in the past that I find the inspiration that should be behind the framing of the proposals before us now. Led by Clement Attlee and—let us not forget—by Winston Churchill, British lawyers framed the convention and brought it into our domestic law, giving us binding, legal obligations towards all refugees under its jurisdiction. The British delegation to a conference of plenipotentiaries pleaded that the convention be enacted with generosity, that its signatories should go beyond the merely contractual and that there should be solidarity with those nations at the front line in receiving those fleeing persecution.
All this progress is now, admittedly, being steadily eroded. Across Europe, not just here, states are, in one way or another, redefining or neglecting or abandoning the obligations of the convention. This Bill is not the first indication of our present Government’s hostility to the idea of fulfilling their duties, but it is a hammer blow, likely to seal the reputation of the United Kingdom as a xenophobic nation—the same United Kingdom that did so much to create a post-world war order based on human rights and the rule of law.
Noble Lords should read the long list of indictments in the UNHCR documentation that we have all received. In recent months, I have had extensive conversations with UNHCR officials in London, Strasbourg and Geneva. The document that they provide is relentless and scathing, so we must ask Her Majesty’s Government just what the pledges they made so recently at the United Nations General Assembly in support of the United Nations’ Global Compact on Refugees can mean because the proposals in the compact are so at odds with the proposals in this legislation. It is difficult to see what the promises made in New York will add up to if the Bill is passed in its present form.
The noble Lord and the noble Baroness who stand at the Dispatch Box—goodhearted people who have earned the respect of all of us here today—will be under the usual obligation to stand firm on the Government’s line. That is their job, and they must do it as best they can, but I appeal to those who sit behind their Ministers, people sitting on the Benches opposite—so many friends and colleagues whom I have got to know over the years—to join all of us in other parts of the House who certainly want to send heavy amendments back to the Commons. I hope that we can amend this Bill and do it with commanding majorities.
My final appeal, therefore, is to all noble and learned Lords, judges and practising or retired lawyers, all who have interpreted or applied our laws in their professional lives. I urge them to bring their skills to the task of helping the House to argue the case robustly for a more humane Act of Parliament than the present Bill would provide, one that remains faithful to the undertakings that we have made in international and domestic law. Britain’s standing in the world depends on no less.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, as we have already heard, several provisions in this Bill are a real cause for concern. The actual effects of the Bill in its current form would be to punish refugees, reduce safe and regular routes to the UK and limit refugee family reunion rights. I associate myself with the comments made by the noble Lords, Lord Rosser, Lord Blunkett, and Lord Anderson of Ipswich, about Clause 9.
This Bill will create a differential status for asylum seekers based on their mode of travel to the UK, leading either to their claim for asylum being dismissed or to them being given temporary asylum status with significant restrictions on family life and financial support. Asylum seekers will face the threat of criminal charges and a four-year prison sentence for entering illegally, thus criminalising asylum seekers.
Those who make irregular journeys to seek refuge do so because conditions in their countries of origin are desperate and necessitate leave for asylum. The UNHCR has clearly stated that these provisions will not only be discriminatory but are inconsistent with the refugee convention and have no basis in international law. These concerns should not be dismissed lightly. There is nothing in the refugee convention that defines a refugee or their entitlement under it according to the route of travel, choice of country of asylum or the timing of their claim. Orderly exit from dangerous and volatile situations is never easy. We only have to recall the shocking scenes we all witnessed in Afghanistan. Delays in opening up safe routes and settlement schemes exposed the arguments about safe third countries.
The Government have been keen to emphasise their desire to increase safe and regular routes, but this Bill does not introduce any new legal routes of this kind, nor does it increase the numbers already coming here. It also attempts to close off asylum status for those who have travelled from a safe third state to the UK. This again is contrary to international law, which allows asylum seekers to seek protection in specific countries where they have legitimate reasons.
The Government’s attempts to criminalise asylum seekers for irregular entry to the UK is beyond comprehension. The consequences of this have been powerfully articulated this afternoon by organisations working closely with asylum seekers. The Bill is not worthy of the UK and the values we purport to project to the world. If we want to prevent the exploitation of vulnerable people from ruthless smugglers, we need to give priority to the provision of safe and legal routes and not become ruthless towards asylum seekers.
The Bill also proposes that refugees arriving in this way should be housed in accommodation centres. Plans for accommodation centres have been criticised by the Refugee Council, the British Red Cross and others. Conditions in current centres are harrowing and have been graphically documented. The extension of this dehumanising proposal, particularly offshore centres, would lead to human rights abuses where oversight would not be possible. Offshore processing of asylum claims is not only inhumane, it also undermines the refugee convention by shifting our obligations offshore.
Anti-slavery provisions are also deficient. They do not tackle the concerns which have been raised by victims of trafficking being seen through the immigration lens rather than as victims of trafficking. As I said earlier, aspects of this Bill are inhumane. Analysis of facts and figures show that claims from asylum seekers are small compared to other countries. Why they come here is evident if we look at the countries from which they are coming. The changes we need to make need to keep this perspective in mind, and we need to ensure that the system treats asylum seekers with humanity and not as numbers to be processed or criminalised in the process.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, said, we have a tendency to conflate asylum seekers with migrants. This confuses the issue and leads to misleading debates. This issue also requires international co-operation. If we care about our international obligations and our image as a decent country, I urge the Government to listen to the concerns expressed and to respond with understanding to the amendments which will be introduced in Committee.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it is a privilege to speak after the noble Baroness. I wondered how I might find a way of defending this Bill in what I suspected would be a hostile environment, but my anxiety was alleviated when I heard the introductory speech of my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar who made a compelling case for the broad principles on which the Bill rests. I was wholly with him on that.
The starting principle of international law is that no country is under an obligation to grant admission to any non-national. Admittedly, that obligation is moderated by international treaty conventions that we have entered into. I was glad to hear my noble friend say that we were going to adhere to the convention on refugees. It does not, of course, mean that all irregular arrivals are refugees and those who are not should be removed.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, and various other noble Lords have appealed to our common humanity as the basis on which we should be constructing our immigration law. While we all respect and acknowledge the obligations that arise from our common humanity, that is to get things the wrong way round, because we also have a moral obligation to our own people who live here, in part because we claim and exercise the exclusive right to act on their behalf in this area. I regard that as a prior and balancing moral right. In fact, I would say that the purpose of immigration law is the protection of the stability and welfare of our own society and that our obligations under common humanity are a constraint on how we implement that law, rather than confusing it with what its purpose is.
However, there is an area in the Bill that causes me deep concern: the provisions allowing for the removal of British citizenship in even more administratively curtailed circumstances than exist at the moment. Various noble Lords on the Labour Benches have objected to this—the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, gave us a wonderfully distracting pointer to legislation from 1914—but they should note that it was actually a Labour Government, with the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, that for the first time introduced the power to deprive British citizens, by birth or descent, of their nationality, provided they had a second nationality that they might fall back on. That had never existed before. Once that door was opened—once that principle was given up—all this complaint about what are effectively subsequent tidying-up exercises is, in my view, pure hypocrisy.
My concern is different. I object to the removal of citizenship in any circumstances because I have a more conservative—some might say hopelessly quixotic—view of what nationality actually means and should mean for us. My conception of British nationality is much more profound than a mere travel document. It is—or should be—a permanent and reciprocal bond of loyalty on the one hand and protection on the other. It is not a driving licence to be taken away if you clock up the wrong number of points; it goes to your identity. When you lose your nationality, you do not just lose your identity papers, you lose your identity. It really is not a driving licence or administrative ticket.
I say this is quixotic, but that bond is a real and lived experience. When, in the same legislation in 2002, the Labour Government introduced citizenship ceremonies, I thought they would be rather tacky, un-British, American sorts of things—but actually, when I saw people coming time and again to my own town hall when I was a councillor, and coming in a sort of festive, family spirit, almost like they were coming to a wedding, I saw then how real that bond can be between citizen and nation. That is what a Conservative Government should be building up; we should not be pursuing and entrenching this cynical Labour ploy. Especially following Brexit, we should be building up and strengthening the bond between citizen and nation, whereas it seems to me that this provision goes only to dissolve it further.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I would like to reinforce what others have said about the Bill being an affront to human rights and civil liberties. It is an anti-refugee Bill and an anti-asylum Bill and whatever the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, said about dismissing the concern for common humanity, it is a display of a lack of respect for our common humanity. What terrible detriment to the humanity of British people comes about from providing shelter to those fleeing persecution? What possible terrible detriment to the British people happened as a result of offering shelter to those who were fleeing Nazism and the concentration camps? The very idea of pushing boats back to the French coast is totally contrary to international and maritime law, as we have heard—but we do not even have to talk about its unlawfulness; it is about the morality of it.
Similarly, when we talk about offshoring and that proposal, it is not just unworkable, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, was saying; it, too, is a dereliction of our national duties under international law. How are people going to access legal advice of a proper standard that we would be able to rely on confidently? As others have said, the Bill creates a two-tier system for asylum seekers. To criminalise those who come to the UK because they have not secured advance permission is unconscionable, especially when there are no safe routes for most people to get here. People who are fleeing are coming in desperation; they are in fear of their lives and they take the most incredible risks to find sanctuary. When people speak, as the noble Lord, Lord Lilley, did, about the cost of doing so, it is often about whole communities putting together money in order to make it possible for that person to escape likely death.
The Bill does nothing to create legitimate ways of getting those who are at grievous risk to safety. It opens up, in fact, greater possibilities for traffickers and those who exploit those who are at risk. In September and October of this last year, along with a little team of lawyers from the International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute, which I direct, we evacuated 103 women—Afghan judges, lawyers, journalists and others—out of Afghanistan with their families. They were desperate because they were on Taliban kill lists and we have had to struggle desperately to find final destinations for them around the world. We are still waiting for the promised resettlement scheme here for Afghanis; it still has not come into existence.
The Bill in its current form would have prevented my Afghan women coming to the UK. My Afghan judges are evacuated in Greece, Greece having agreed to be a lily pad, a temporary landing place, but they would be group 2 refugees, which means that they would have to stay in Greece because, of course, it is a safe country to all intents and purposes. Desperate women are also in communication with me still who escaped over the border into Pakistan, Iran or other neighbouring countries. They, too, would be group 2 refugees, even if they have a relative who lives in this country who is willing to receive them. Of course, Clause 15 makes it inadmissible to claim a special connection even if you have relatives in this country.
The Minister is right that there is a crisis in the immigration system, but this Bill is not going to solve it. Around half of immigration appeals against Home Office decisions are successful in the First-tier Tribunal. One-third of judicial reviews against the Home Office are settled or decided in the claimant’s favour. That tells you something loudly and clearly about the quality of the original decision-making in the Home Office—it is abysmal. The starting position is to say no when people apply to enter this country. So, in asking for ideas of how to improve the system, if you want to run a well-run system there has to be better early decision-making, access to proper legal advice and properly run courts and tribunals. But, instead of strengthening early decision-making, the Home Secretary is weakening appeals, creating fast-track processes that are unlawful and increasing her own arbitrary powers, taking to herself the power to accelerate hearings at such speed that there are likely to be illegal outcomes.
There is a whole set of clauses that I could refer to which deal with putting at speed decision-making without the proper legal advice that would make decisions safe. There is a whole set of proposals that we should be concerned about. I want to reinforce what was said by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, about how people who have been trafficked and have come here are modern-day slaves, yet the discretionary leave to remain system is not working for them. In the past five years, only 7% of those of 6,000 survivors have been given discretionary leave. I hope that this Bill will accept amendments to change that, because it has got worse under the current Home Secretary. Likewise, I hope that Damian Green’s amendment in the other place to accept more of the young from Hong Kong might be considered.
Efficiency cannot be bought at the price—
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am very sorry, but there is a five-minute Back-Bench speaking limit. Everybody else is managing to keep more or less to it.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
I hear the noble Lord. Efficiency cannot be bought at the price of reduced fairness. My advice to government is: improve the quality and accuracy of first-instance decision-making and bring back proper legal aid in this area of law.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I welcome this legislation. Although many changes have been made in recent years, including by a Conservative Government, the asylum system and some related policies are not fit for purpose. Criticism comes from both sides. There are those who think that one of the main thrusts of this legislation—greater national control of the asylum process and the elimination of abuses— is misplaced. The process of claiming asylum should in their view be easier. Accordingly, they identify with those who appear to them to have been short-changed by the present system and argue for a less rigorous process. We have heard many such contributions today.
I am not of that persuasion. The greater need, in my view, is to deal with the very evident abuses that have emerged, enraging many of our fellow citizens as our hospitality is shamelessly abused, with the deleterious effect on social cohesion. Nevertheless, despite the overwhelming evidence in support of what I will call my macro view, we need to embrace this opportunity to address this whole area of policy, including areas where the conditions of those arriving here can be improved without adverse consequences.
I therefore look forward to helping with the scrutiny of this Bill. I share the Home Secretary’s wish—I quote from Third Reading—to
“bring in a new, comprehensive, fair but firm long-term plan that seeks to address the challenge of illegal migration head on.”—[Official Reort, Commons, 8/12/21; col. 445.]
However, I worry about the comment from the Opposition spokesman, Yvette Cooper. With her background on the Home Affairs Committee, she considers that the measures would severely limit our ability to convict perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups. This is worrying, and I shall listen carefully to contributions on this topic.
I seek my noble friend the Minister’s thoughts on three issues. First, the overall numbers, as the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and my noble friend Lord Leicester have explained, are very worrying. Asylum claimants and delays in processing them are going up all the time, and the returns of rejected claimants to their point of departure are not. In particular, the numbers taking the dangerous channel crossing are going up by leaps and bounds to a total of over 28,000 in 2021, three times the 2020 figure. Somehow, the Home Office seems incapable of getting a grip and is being outflanked by the people smugglers. If this abuse can be resolved in no other way, I am coming to the view that the only way to resolve the problem is to adopt a new rule that all prospective asylum seekers who arrive in this way cannot be granted asylum. We have to find a way in which to change the cruel incentive structure, and not be too worried about the short-term criticism relating to individual cases. At a stroke, we need to find a way in which to put the traffickers out of business, as we saw in Australia.
Secondly, I turn to the wider question of deporting criminals, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. Why can convicted criminals fight successfully to get off the planes organised to transport them? The total numbers actually removed, usually of dangerous criminals, are now tiny and much smaller than planned by the Home Office. Can the Minister explain this unsatisfactory state of affairs? Is it about the right to family life? In that case, does this provision need to be amended? What assumptions underpin Part 3 of the Bill, and why does my noble friend think it will work?
Thirdly, how will the new rules prevent abuse once the powers in the Bill are available? I am particularly concerned by migrants passing themselves off as under 18. I have seen media reports that more than 1,100 migrants who claimed to be under 18 were found actually to be adults in the 12 months to September. This is not only reprehensible, it puts a huge and needless strain on our hard-pressed care and education services for children under 18. Worse, it disrupts the education of British children, as these migrants end up in our classrooms. There have previously been reports of children with full beards and hairy chests, even swigging beer. Doubts have been expressed about whether the proposed age assessment board will solve the problem.
Those are three questions, and they raise another one in my mind. Has enough independent thinking been given to the Bill—beyond remedies that the Home Office has been serving up for decades?
I have a final question which goes beyond the purview of the Bill, and I am happy to have a reply in writing. It is reported that the Secretary of State for International Trade is considering offering student or other visas to India in exchange for a free trade agreement. Who has been advising the Secretary of State? Our Immigration Rules are a national matter and should not be the subject of negotiation with any foreign country. Immigration entitlement has no place in any agreement on trade. I hope the Minister will be able to assure us that those reports are inaccurate. Otherwise, the Government will have a hard time with some of their strongest supporters. The Minister will wish to bear in mind that on most issues she can rely on my support.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, we have had some very fine speeches in this debate. I particularly congratulate my noble friend Lord Rosser on the devastating critique of the Bill that he launched at the start. I will be with him all the way in his opposition to this measure.
We have two objectives in tension here: we need to allay legitimate public concern about illegal immigration, but we must meet our duties, which are both moral and legal, to refugees. There may be no perfect solution to this dilemma, which is likely to get worse in years ahead. There will be structural changes in population movements as the result of climate change, there is already a growing number of failed states in the world and there is a retreat from democracy to authoritarianism, so the pressures will grow and it will always be difficult.
However, I think there is a centre ground, and it was the centre ground that my noble friend Lord Dubs espoused. We cannot have unlimited immigration—there has to be control—but we as a nation should meet our fair share of responsibility for dealing with the victims of abuse and atrocities in other parts of the world and people who cannot any more live safely in their own country. We must meet that fair share and acknowledge that we are not doing as much as other European countries. I hope the Minister will confirm that we fall short of what other European countries are doing.
My second big point follows up on what my noble friend Lord Reid of Cardowan said. We make progress in balancing those responsibilities only through international co-operation. Let us look at the question of chasing these horrible gangs. We have to work with the security services and the police on the continent, but we have put obstacles to doing that in our way by the Brexit settlement we have negotiated. Will the Government re-examine that so that we can more effectively co-operate with security services in other countries?
Thirdly, on the speedier resolution of asylum claims, we have spent hundreds of millions of pounds on the borders question as a result of Brexit. Why are we not trying to ease the passage of goods at the borders and spending some of this money on speeding up asylum decisions?
Fourthly and finally, we must tackle the problem of refugees at the root. We have made what I regard as unacceptable cuts in our foreign aid budget, but if we are making cuts to it then the priority is to work even more with our partners and friends on trying to tackle the refugee problem at root. Are we doing that? No. Priti Patel is standing there shouting abuse at the French. How do the Government justify that as an approach to international co-operation in tackling the refugee crisis? Lying behind this is the fact that the Government know that their claim that they would be able to stop immigration as a result of Brexit is false. When will they admit it?
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, when you are speaking 51st on the Second Reading of a Bill which has already generated much controversy in the other place, the chances are that some other noble Lords will have already mentioned any point you wished to make. That is very true in this case, so I will make only one point, which I beg the Minister to take away and reflect on, because it is borne out by practical experience. I break off to thank James Tobin for a most comprehensive Library briefing.
In 2010, I was asked to chair an inquiry into the death of an Angolan under restraint on an aircraft at Heathrow, on which he was being returned to Angola, guarded by G4S. We were shocked by the poor standard of the Home Office decision-makers and caseworkers involved in returns, to the extent that my committee commented on them in its final report. Worse even than this, there appeared to be no supervision of their work. The arrangements made for families appeared to be better than those for single people, a point which I advise the Minister to respect before embarking on this extremely controversial Bill, about which many noble Lords have expressed their unease.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, who always makes an outstanding and unique contribution to this House.
A joint statement by faith and civil society groups calls the Bill “sinister” and “un-British”—counterintuitive to our long-held tradition of welcome. The Bill is deemed pernicious in its intent, with troubling aspects resulting in inevitable breaches of international laws and conventions, including proposed offshore detention facilities, the revoking of citizenship without notice or appeal, and, appallingly, border officials being authorised to push back families to their inevitable consequential deaths.
The Bill stands accused of racism and a draconian misuse of power, supposedly for the public good. I understand the fear expressed in an infinite number of emails about many aspects of the Bill, particularly Clause 9, now exponentially fuelled by the explanations and questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. Clause 9 contradicts everything decent about adherence to international human rights law and will empower the Home Secretary and the Government to deprive an individual of citizenship without having to give notice if it is not “practicable” or in the “interests of national security” or the “public interest”, and without an opportunity for the individual to defend themselves, contradicting our basic right to stand innocent until proven guilty. With this Bill, the Government are saying to British citizens: “You are guilty, with no way of proving innocence.” This concern is exacerbated by what we know about the disgraceful treatment of British citizens of the Windrush generation, many of whom perished and suffered enormously without being able to prove their citizenship.
The Government refer to ambiguous terms of “national security” and “the public interest” to strengthen the discretionary powers of the Home Secretary and others in the Government and to justify actions that they are all too aware will breach international laws and conventions. We cannot allow the Government and the Home Secretary carte blanche with added discretionary powers, given what we know about the danger of discretion in handling protests, stop and search, and so on. Combined with the police Bill, the widening of discretionary and absolute powers by citing national security makes the Bill one of the most regressive, dangerous and dehumanising pieces of legislation proposed by this Government. Consequently, the Bill will directly affect two in every five people from a non-white ethnic minority background.
Leading law experts and women’s NGOs are equally vociferous in their concerns that the Bill undermines the Government’s own commitment to ending violence against women and girls, poses additional threats for victims and survivors with insecure immigration status, and shows a glaring lack of genuine insight into maintaining proper oversight of how legislation and policies affect all victims and survivors, regardless of their immigration status. Organisations including SafeLives, Women for Women Refugees and Rights of Women are fearful of the consequences for abused women and girls who may be held in detention centres without adequate information or access to legal services and safeguards.
We have debated, with wounds, the effect of Uighur detention centres, yet in the same breath have no qualms about proposing offshore centres that we decry as barbaric practice elsewhere, leaving aside the unreasonable expectation of extremely vulnerable people navigating an alien system to prove their case. Many may indeed languish in uncertainty as a consequence of reporting sexual violence, exploitation and abuse.
Will the Minister assure the House and external women’s organisations that the proposal for a firewall between the police and immigration services will be given serious consideration, given what she knows already about the danger of Immigration Enforcement’s migrant victims protocol for asylum claimants? Does she agree that this plainly two-tier system, albeit dependent on entry point, is inherently discriminatory and places particularly women and girls fleeing conflict zones in greater danger?
The Government’s claim of increasing
“the fairness of the system to better protect and support those in need of asylum”
is as utterly flawed as the ambition to deter illegal entry into the United Kingdom is fanciful. Have the Government defined what set of criteria constitute “reasonably practical” when deciding not to give notice of deprivation of nationality, given that a deliberate act to make a citizen stateless is prohibited under Article 15 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?
We are witness to the genocidal brutalisation of the stateless Rohingya people of Myanmar. Have we learned nothing? Has our conscience been so lost as to emulate Myanmar’s arbitrary policy on citizenship? The effect of deterrence by any means necessary will allow rescue workers to “push back” families to their deaths. Watching children, women and men die in our waters and calling it a Nationality and Borders Bill is an affront to the rule of law and humanity, which we constantly claim in abundance in this Chamber.
Under the Bill, border security staff are being asked to breach our commitments to the refugee convention and, critically, duty of care law. Are we seriously asking our officials—
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am nearly finished. Are we seriously asking our officials to watch as people die, which may be considered manslaughter by gross negligence in our English courtrooms?
Over generations the UK has contributed to destabilising many nations, most recently Afghanistan, and the same can be said for Iraq and countless African countries. What result did we expect when the UK and its allies dropped an average of 46 bombs a day—
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness did say she was nearly finished and she nearly is not.
Baroness Uddin (Non-Afl)
—we cannot punish the victims we have created. I sit in this Chamber every day, hopeful that it is possible that we can change the way in which we discharge our duties. Doing nothing is an abrogation of our duties. Our moral standing leaves nothing for others to emulate except tyranny, and we cannot be a bystander to such degradation of human decency.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I am not going to give most of the speech that I had prepared for today’s debate, because if I did I would sound as though I live on a different planet. Listening to many noble Lords today, I have on occasion wondered whether I do.
I want to make a few points. The first is obvious but none the less important for being so: illegal immigration is a problem that matters to people in this country and they expect us to find the right ways to deal with it. I am not a human rights lawyer or any other kind of lawyer. I have never been Home Secretary or indeed a Home Office Minister. I do listen to and take seriously those who are duly qualified to comment on the details of the Bill, but if we are going to be here until midnight debating this legislation in the weeks ahead, as some noble Lords have promised—I might even say almost threatened—we owe it to the public we exist to serve to take their views seriously in our debates. The impression from some noble Lords that “There’s nothing we can do, so we’re going to block what the Government propose” is dangerous.
Along with my noble friends Lord Hodgson, Lord Horam and Lord Moylan, and, I think, one or two others who have spoken, I believe that our first priority as UK parliamentarians is meeting the expectations of all the law-abiding people who live here and play their part in our collective success as a nation: to make sure that we have in place the right legal frameworks so that citizens and communities can thrive, especially in a world that never stops changing.
I support the Bill. My noble friend the Minister has set out a strong case for it and reminded us, powerfully, of all that the Government are doing to support innocent people fleeing cruelty around the world. He also made clear the importance of our support for people who are fleeing persecution continuing, and why that places an even greater responsibility on us to deal with illegal immigrants.
Some measures in this legislation are contentious and will need to be scrutinised and debated, but we parliamentarians love to add complexity to the process of scrutiny, often in the name of safeguards and protections, which can make it even harder for those on the ground charged with implementing legislation to achieve results that meet people’s expectations.
But British citizens and anyone else living here legally deserve to know that our authorities can remove people who have no right to be here. The biggest problem with our current system is that illegal immigrants know that once they have made it to the UK, they are unlikely ever to be deported. That cannot be right. I know there is an argument, as my noble friends Lord Balfe and Lord Lilley have raised today, that the answer to this lies only with renegotiating the Geneva convention, which was created for a different age, not today’s era of mass migration. I do not, by the way, think that we should dismiss this. Those for whom such an idea amounts to heresy should understand that the case for this will only grow if we cannot deal better with unlawful immigration cases in a timely fashion with the laws that exist or that we need to implement.
I know that noble Lords approach their responsibilities seriously. We all seek to improve legislation, believing that we do so for the right reasons. The same is true for this Bill, as evidenced by some very powerful contributions today. The Bill covers difficult matters that affect human beings, so of course we have and will continue to receive representations from various bodies and individuals who are against the Bill or are concerned about some of its measures. I know that noble Lords will ensure that those views are reflected when we debate the Bill in detail, and rightly so. But, at the same time, we must not lose sight of the millions of people, whether they were born in the UK or are themselves immigrants who have chosen to live here, who do not write to us but who support the three principal objectives of this Bill. It is in part what they have voted for. If we lose sight of this, we risk damaging yet further their confidence in our system of democracy. I look forward to supporting this Bill as it progresses through your Lordships’ House.
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
I still feel indignant about the consequences, whether intended or unintended, of leaving the EU. The Dublin III arrangements suited this country well, and we enjoyed better co-operation with France at that time. On the plus side, we have rolled over some very successful trade agreements, but we seem to be going rapidly downhill on immigration. It is surely now plain to all that, as far as migrant health workers are concerned, Brexit was a mistake. Thousands of staff are more urgently needed in care homes and the NHS, especially because of the pandemic. Although the Government have relaxed the rules, the paperwork means that these workers are simply not coming in the numbers required. I know that is not in this Bill, but the Home Office has not scored very high on asylum seekers either, especially where accommodation is concerned.
Only in December we had the thorough APPG on Immigration Detention report condemning Napier, Penally and Tinsley House as “fundamentally unsuitable” for asylum seekers. A recent inspection of detention facilities at Tug Haven, Kent Intake Unit and Frontier House showed that some agreed improvements in facilities and screening will not be ready for months. My noble friend Lady Prashar also mentioned this. Few of us would like to admit that the UK may be deliberately creating poor conditions to deter new arrivals. That may be an open question, but if it is policy, it is not succeeding.
On Syrian and Afghan refugees, the various UNHCR resettlement programmes offering safe passage and family reunion, after a lot of pushing from individuals here in Parliament, have been rated a success. These refugees from appalling conflicts have quite rightly been seen as a priority. However, Amnesty shows that things are not quite so rosy, even among Afghan refugees, at the moment. When it comes to the desperate people attempting a channel crossing, this Bill is surely the enemy of human rights and clearly meant to be a deterrent, even though their numbers are small in the world context. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said, the UK is only 17th on the list for the intake of immigrants when measured per head of population in Europe.
Not surprisingly, the JCHR has attacked the Bill for its adjustment of immigration law, including the pushback measures. It inflicts harsher penalties, it fails to stop trafficking and, in the case of refugees, it comes up against the convention and several other international treaties. We can all be sympathetic to those local authorities that are bending over backwards to find hotel rooms or shelter for genuine refugees. In many cases they will have to fall back on the good will of voluntary agencies and volunteers, who often help out of their own pockets. The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, praised the charity Safe Passage. Another, Care4Calais, is highly efficient in helping asylum seekers, not only in northern France, and is now is committed to the search for food and shelter in the UK itself.
However, mistakes are easily made. One disabled family in Portsmouth was given council accommodation in a second-floor flat, which meant that they were housebound and unable to access even a wheelchair. Fortunately, the voluntary sector came to the rescue, but, again, social care is one of the sectors hit hardest by immigration policy. There are just not enough people available to help and there is a lot of fear and suspicion that there is discrimination, especially on nationality, and the deprivation of citizenship in Clause 9.
I hope that the Minister can explain the anomaly about citizenship relating to young migrants from the Commonwealth aged 16 to 25 who are currently channelled into a 10-year path to citizenship. Clauses 17 and 25 are intended to speed up the process, which in general seems a good idea—but what about the Children’s Society’s argument that these clauses discriminate against children and young people who are often afraid to provide evidence so soon after their experience?
There will be a lot of amendments on modern slavery which I cannot rehearse today, but I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, that this could undermine the whole system of protection. The anti-slavery commissioner herself says that the IECA is a step backwards. Clearly, if the NGOs are right, the Home Office is not yet qualified for this job and needs to learn a lot more. The Bingham Centre is leading an important research project through the Modern Slavery and Human Rights Policy and Evidence Centre to assess the impact of people’s inability to access adequate and timely legal advice. I am sure that the Home Office will follow that.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, there are two questions which I believe we are seeking to answer by this Bill. First, what should it look like to take back control of our borders in a humane and legal way; and, secondly, how can Britain continue to be a place offering sanctuary to the world’s most vulnerable at a time of need?
Whether during the Holocaust or the flight of Ugandan Asians from Idi Amin, Britain has historically been a place of sanctuary. Post-Brexit global Britain should aspire to continue this tradition. While I agree with the objectives of the Bill, I will start with why I am raising concerns that it may not achieve its stated aim, and I will then turn to areas where it could be constructively amended, which it would be good to explore in Committee.
As we have heard, the Bill aims to disincentivise so-called irregular entry through the creation of a two-tiered system, in the hope of producing what the Home Office calls the “pull factor” of the UK asylum system. So let us pause for a moment on what the pull factors are which encourage people to come to the UK. A few of them would be our language, our culture, the rule of law, democracy, historic ties through the Commonwealth, family connections and liberty. In short, the pull factor is not our asylum system. The pull factors which set our nation apart as a desirable place of refuge are characteristics which make Britain what it is today. No one in this House would wish to dismantle them. Britain will always be an attractive place, even with a two-tiered refugee system.
Our Government’s own equality impact assessment recognises this, saying that
“evidence supporting the effectiveness of this approach”—
that is, increased deterrence to encourage people to claim asylum elsewhere—
“is limited”.
So can the Minister outline the Government’s reasons for weakening and potentially breaching the refugee convention by discriminating between people based on their arrival, and when there is such limited evidence of efficacy?
I also have concerns that the legislation as currently drafted would create a significantly greater administrative burden, making it even harder for the Home Office to process legitimate asylum claims. This concern leads me to ask for more information from my noble friend the Minister to help this House understand how this might be handled. First, what estimate have Her Majesty’s Government made of the cost of needing to reassess a refugee’s protection needs every two and a half years? Secondly, have Her Majesty’s Government assessed the likely legal costs of judicial review applications and the compatibility of the legislation with the ECHR, the Human Rights Act and the Children Act 1989? Will this legislation’s passage be possible only alongside reforms of our human rights legislation? What steps are Her Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that the legislation does not set back the progress made in the Modern Slavery Act?
There may well be a better way forward. In my view, the only meaningful way to resolve the issue of irregular arrivals from France is through diplomacy. I know this is difficult to achieve ahead of the French election, but are we really not prepared to wait until July to see whether this might not be possible? We could create a safe-returns agreement with the French, alongside a more regular and regulated pathway. This would be in both countries’ long-term interests. What is Her Majesty’s Government’s assessment of this approach post the French elections?
There could be two further areas where the Government could improve this legislation to better protect and support those in need of asylum. The first is designating new and improved safe and legal routes. The Minister will remember that this House was given assurances from the Dispatch Box during the Brexit Bill debates that the Government would institute safe and legal pathways. Because of these assurances, our amendment to that Bill was withdrawn. These promises are yet to be fulfilled. Will the Minister bring forward an amendment to the primary legislation or secondary policies laying out the exact nature of the safe and legal routes?
Secondly, I wholeheartedly support the Migration Advisory Committee’s recent recommendation calling for the Government to institute the right to work for asylum seekers. The arguments for the right to work after six months, ranging from the benefit to the Exchequer to the boon to integration, are compelling. I will be tabling a cross-party amendment on this, and I hope to work with my noble friend the Minister on this matter.
I look forward to working as a House to support the Government to achieve their stated objectives and to ensure that our character as a compassionate nation is fully expressed, while ensuring that people smugglers are put out of business and vulnerable people are no longer exploited.
Lord Woolley of Woodford (CB)
My Lords, this feels a little like being back at school; with a name like Woolley, I am always near the end of the list.
I will focus my remarks on Clause 9 of this piece of legislation, but before that I want to take a minute of my time to reflect on my first two years here, and particularly the last year when I sat on the Youth Unemployment Select Committee, headed by the very able noble Lord, Lord John Shipley. Being on that committee reminded me why this place is so very special. Big political beasts and characters such as the noble Lord, Lord Ken Baker, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ken Clarke, the noble Baroness, Lady Newlove, my noble friend Lady Coussins and others all sought to leave their tribal politics at the door to find common ground on very difficult challenges, in this case youth unemployment. What came out was an excellent report, with real, concrete solutions for white working-class youths and black, Asian and minority-ethnic youths—solutions that would help businesses; good politics that gave hope and showed decency and leadership. Today, tomorrow and beyond, this House must show hope, decency and, above all, leadership.
For the avoidance of doubt, Clause 9 does not render me and others like me second-class citizens. As the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, suggested, that was done by successive Governments from both sides of the House who deemed that, because my mother was born in what is now the republic of Barbados, I could be stripped of my citizenship, even though I was born here. Clause 9 in effect makes me a third-class citizen by, if deemed necessary, taking away my right to appeal against being stripped of citizenship.
Some of your Lordships may be saying, “Come on, Lord Woolley, that can’t happen to good British citizens”. Really? Tell that to the Windrush victims who also had precarious citizenship, to the families of Windrush victims who died waiting for justice, such as Sarah O’Connor and Richard Stewart, and to the thousands who are still waiting after so many promises of compensation. Precarious tiered British citizenship, compounded by certain political winds of poisonous change, makes a perfect storm for very bad things to occur.
All this is at a time when trust in the Government, particularly from black, Asian and minority-ethnic communities, is extremely low. Worse still, some politicians keep telling us that British citizenship is a privilege and some commentators say that people like me should kowtow and be extremely grateful. They are wrong. To be clear, I am proud—very proud—to be a British citizen, but British citizenship is not a privilege; it is an honour. Complicit in that honour should be a gold-standard citizenship, not a second-class one as mine is, and definitely not a third-class one, as Clause 9 would have. We all need a first-class British citizenship for every British citizen that is not precarious—one that gives us true hope, a greater sense of belonging and an equal footing for everyone.
Today and going forward, we must hold this line. To Clause 9 we say thanks, but no thanks. When the time comes, drop the tribal politics and vote for decency. Vote for something we can be proud of.
Viscount Trenchard (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, who made a most moving speech. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for introducing this debate. It is very welcome that the Government have resolved to take firm and decisive action to try to break the business model of people smugglers and protect the lives of those they endanger. We can be proud that we have provided refuge to more than 25,000 refugees from regions of conflict since 2015 and that we have enabled a further 29,000 closely related persons to join them subsequently.
It is also right that we should facilitate residents of Afghanistan who fought with us and residents of Hong Kong whose freedom is now threatened, who wish to build new lives in this country, to come here and help them become productive, participating citizens. I strongly support the plea made by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, concerning the former service men and women from Hong Kong, and look forward to the Minister’s reply to that question.
The migrant situation ranks highly on the list of matters on which people want the Government to get a grip. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also said that the Government should get a grip and focus on illegal immigration to this country, but went on to say that the Liberal Democrats oppose almost all of the Bill.
As pointed out by Nick Timothy in his interesting article in the Daily Telegraph on Monday, prior to the election of the Labour Government in 1997, net migration had peaked at 77,000 in 1994 and had never exceeded tens of thousands. However, one year after Sir Tony Blair became Prime Minister, the net migration figure leapt to 144,000 and has never been lower since. When the coalition Government were elected in 2010, net migration was running at 250,000 a year.
The passing of the Human Rights Act and the Equality Act has made it harder to enforce immigration laws and to deport foreign criminals. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said, we may need to examine whether some of this legislation should be amended to protect the rights of British citizens. According to Migration Watch, and as well illustrated by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, net migration to the UK has risen relentlessly in recent years, to reach 313,000 in 2020—my noble friends Lord Leicester and Lady Neville-Rolfe also referred to this.
The number of those entering the country illegally is now also increasing exponentially. As your Lordships are all too aware, more than 28,000 people crossed the channel in small boats in 2021, three times as many as in the previous year. Despite 27 people being drowned out of a boatload of 29 when an inflatable dinghy collapsed on 24 November, there was no effect on high numbers crossing the channel in December.
I understand the arguments proposed by some noble Lords that the asylum applications made by some genuine refugees may be adversely affected by the Bill’s introduction of differential treatment of refugees. However, surely those refugees whose applications conform to the requirements contained in Article 31 of the refugee convention should not be disadvantaged by having to compete with those whose applications do not conform. Surely it is right to try to protect those most at risk from human traffickers by including an additional hurdle that requires those who have entered the country unlawfully to show good cause.
I do not follow the argument of those who oppose the housing of asylum seekers in accommodation centres. Surely it is much easier to protect them in such centres from the many risks they face rather than at large in the community. Have the Government reached a consensus with stakeholders on the design of support packages to be offered to asylum seekers held in accommodation centres?
In general, I welcome the Bill, which makes a responsible and reasoned attempt to balance the rights of the British people, both individually and within their communities, with the rights of the growing number of migrants, which includes both genuine refugees and those who are not at risk in their own countries but simply choose to move for economic reasons.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I begin with a short list of issues that I regard as priorities in trying to make this Bill less disastrously bad. I associate myself with every word said by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, about its impact on some of the world’s most vulnerable women and girls. I note that expert legal commentators have described the equality impact assessment of the Bill as superficial and inadequate. Many of the same concerns apply to LGBTIQA+ refugees, a point made also by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby. The Bill is also of grave concern for its impact on children, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said.
In other contexts, we have heard the Government talk positively about “trauma-informed practice”—for example, in prisons. This Bill is the very opposite of that; it can only be described as abusive of trauma survivors. I note that a briefing from the Royal College of Psychiatrists says that
“a background context of basic physical and emotional security, including an assurance of safety and freedom from harm, is a key factor in recovery from most if not all mental disorders”.
This Bill is clearly actively designed to take refugees who are already in situations far from ideal security and rip not just the rug but the entire ground from under them. They are refugees whose circumstances, as the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, pointed out, we have often played a major part in creating.
I note also the extremely useful briefing from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, with its concerns about Part 4 of the Bill and age assessments, particularly its note that the use of ionising radiation for the purpose is absolutely inappropriate. Perhaps the Minister can give us an assurance that that will not happen, or a broader assurance as asked for by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger.
A noble Lord earlier described the Minister’s introductory speech as spirited. Coming so late to this long debate gives me the chance to look closely at the Minister’s speech. He said:
“The prevailing legal framework was not designed to cope with the type, and certainly not the scale, of the mass migration we have seen in recent years.”
But, of course, the Bill is not about migration but asylum. The foreign-born population of the UK is about 9.5 million people. That is about the same number of Britons who live in other countries around the globe. Of that foreign-born population, 5% have come here as refugees—that is about 388,000 people, or 0.6% of the total resident population. We are not talking about a mass at all.
The Minister issued a challenge: that noble Lords set out
“what steps should be taken to achieve the object of controlled immigration, which many profess to support.”
That challenge has been answered by many noble Lords, perhaps most notably and powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. We need to provide safe, orderly routes to apply for asylum. However, I think the Minister was seeking numbers. I have a suggestion. As many noble Lords noted, France welcomes proportionately about three times as many refugees as the UK. That could be a starting point: set up an orderly, timely, effective system, fairly distributed around the world, recognising the UK’s place in creating the circumstances forcing people to move, to welcome three times the number arriving now.
In that context, it struck me, looking at the Minister’s speech, that a word was missing: a word that in the proceedings of your Lordships’ House is clearly obligatory in almost every government contribution. That word is “world-leading”.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I am sorry—world-beating. Perhaps either/or.
We are clearly not world-leading in saying “refugees welcome”. Some 39% of refugees are hosted in five countries: Turkey, Colombia, Uganda, Pakistan and Germany.
The noble Lord, Lord Woolley, talked powerfully about Clause 9, on deprivation of citizenship—I have to declare an interest, in that this also affects me. However, I do not want just to attack this new provision; I want to say that we should abolish the whole power to deprive people of citizenship. If we trace back the history of this—I am afraid that it goes back to when the largest party on this side of the House was sitting on the Government Benches—we see that it is a classic case of hard cases producing bad law. It is one of the many examples of knee-jerk responses to populist outcries, cheer-led by the organs of a handful of right-wing media tycoons, which are eating away at the freedom and rights of us all. Once principles are conceded, the exercise of power always expands, in reach and force.
My noble friend said that we should throw out the Bill, and I agree. However, I have a final proposal for the Minister. Let us throw the Bill out, keep the few good clauses that are in there, and put them into a “refugees welcome” Bill.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, in my limited time I will speak today only to Clause 9, which seeks to strip British citizens of their citizenship without notice. I want to focus on the real-life impact of this proposed legislation and the consequences for communities, and to unpick the notion that citizenship is a privilege, not a right.
Modern nationality law starts in 1981. For all its shortcomings, it was an attempt to bring into the system through formal paperwork those who were British—I repeat: those who were by right British. The state was formalising a right that already existed, something expressly stated by the then Home Secretary William Whitelaw during the passage of the Bill. However, what followed, with subsequent changes to nationality law and an increasingly hostile approach taken by successive Governments of all colours, was the appalling circumstances in which the Windrush generation and others—people who by right were British—were treated like outsiders, foreigners and aliens. Our hostility to immigration and immigrants was the climate in which we abandoned our own who were by right British, even if they had not formally exercised that right.
I lay out this background because this notion of citizenship being a privilege seems to be a popular, but sadly ignorant, mantra. Of course, immigration is not a right, but immigration and immigration controls are very distinct from nationality rights. Those who mix them do so because their flawed understanding does not see beyond the colour of someone’s skin.
Let me personalise it. My family, as many of yours, were a century ago citizens of the UK and colonies. They had rights; all those in the Empire and the Commonwealth did. When my grandfathers fought for the British Indian Army as British subjects, they did so as citizens. When the Windrush generation answered the call for workers and came to this country, they did so as citizens. When South Asians took up gruelling jobs in the mills and foundries of Yorkshire, as my family did, they did so as citizens, as equal members of this country in a continuation of a bond that had started decades earlier. It was not a conditional or temporary right, or a right that we would try to take away from them and their children or grandchildren in ever more cunningly creative ways, and it certainly was not a privilege. It was a right, one established through our colonial history, through strife, blood, sweat and those who even gave their lives. By formally taking a British passport, they were merely formalising a right, not having a privilege bestowed upon them.
The othering of our fellow citizens—which has happened over the years under Conservative Governments; was made worse, I would argue, by Labour Governments, with some of the most dramatically expanded powers of deprivation; and was extended by the coalition Government—this chipping away at the basic right of citizenship, must now stop. That starts with striking Clause 9 from this Bill. We across this House, whichever party we belong to, have been part of the problem. Our respective parties have, over time, torn down the basic belief that all citizens in this country are and should be equal and that, as a citizen, you are a permanent member. It is a fundamental right recognised in case law, including by the High Court in the case of D4, the case that led to Clause 9. This problem did not start with Clause 9, but it must start to end with Clause 9.
This is government sleight of hand, this last-minute addition to override the decision of Mr Justice Chamberlain. It is an attempt at another incremental change with the hope that, once again, no one will notice, but which has huge real-life consequences. This power grab by the Home Secretary is deeply dangerous, one that seeks to deprive someone of their right to citizenship without even giving the person being deprived the right to know, depriving them even of the right to check whether the Secretary of State had the legal basis or accurate facts to exercise that power. These proposals would mean that I would have greater protections when being deprived of my driving licence than of my nationality.
And so a piece of legislation introduced but never used by the late Lady Thatcher’s Government during the Cold War to deal with treason has morphed, mainly during the Blair years as an attempt to remove one man, Abu Hamza—my noble friend Lord Moylan is absolutely right that Labour sowed the seeds of what we now reap—into a catch-all law that covers around 40% of our ethnic minority communities. This clause is not a debate about immigration, it is a debate about our fellow citizens. These laws have the potential to include members of Parliament and their families. They include our loved ones, friends and colleagues; they include some of us. This is not scaremongering, this is fact. This is why families across our country are campaigning to push back against the real-life consequences they are today experiencing as a result of years of incremental legislation.
In conclusion, my parents’ generation, now in their 80s, always feared that their future generations would be outsiders, second-class citizens who would be told to “go back home” or to leave. My generation always dismissed these fears as unfounded, but Windrush proved they were not baseless. Clause 9 and the Government’s exponential use of deprivation powers compound these fears and so I urge my noble friend, who is thoughtful and informed on these issues, to ask the Government to think again and row back.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I must begin with an apology. As I am new to your Lordships’ House, there was an error in processing my request to speak, although I am grateful to the Whips for permission to interject at this point. It is a privilege to have been part of the debate and I look forward to following this Bill through and benefiting from the collective wisdom here.
I believe that I am among relatively few in the House who have experience of both sides of the asylum and refugee system, having first come to this country as a refugee from Iran in 1980. The plight of those fleeing violence and persecution and the difficulties in navigating identity and finding a new home are not abstract or intellectual propositions for me but part of who I am, and it is with that perspective that I offer some thoughts now.
Often, I see asylum seekers presented either as victims who require help but have no agency or as chancers seeking to abuse generosity—criminals even. Neither approach is helpful. How different discussions might be if we reframed the debate in terms of the best way to work with potential future citizens, neighbours and friends. Not every asylum seeker will meet the criteria for being a refugee, but many will and they will become part of our nation and communities. How we treat them in the process has consequences for the sort of society we are creating—the kind of nation we want to be.
We have heard repeatedly that citizenship is a privilege not a right. I dispute the binary nature of the claim but I agree that citizenship and other statuses require a need for people to belong and contribute. Belonging can be fostered by welcome and how asylum seekers are received but it also relies on there being real opportunities to contribute. A system that respects human dignity, encourages agency rather than victimhood and gives people a chance to be heard and contribute is one that will foster healthy communities and build up future citizens.
In Chelmsford diocese we are proud of our work with refugees and have played a leading role in community sponsorship. We believe that civil society needs to play its part in the welcome and building up of neighbours. I hope to hear more from the Minister on community sponsorship schemes but I also want to make the point that that is never enough. We need a policy framework that gives future citizens the chance to contribute in meaningful ways. The opportunity to work, particularly for those facing long delays in the asylum process, would be one such chance but it is absent, sadly, from the Bill.
Indeed, there is much in the Bill that does not meet the tests of providing for agency, dignity and a chance to be heard. I am concerned that the provision to remove citizenship without notice is a denial of the right to be heard and one that has wider implications that seem to be unacknowledged. I am concerned too that the proposed differential treatment of refugees, depending on how they have arrived, is an example of learning the wrong lessons from the hostile environment and I will be listening carefully to proposed amendments in that space.
I have spoken to a great many people over the years and am yet to find the asylum seeker who was deterred from coming to the UK because they would be barred from working or housed in substandard accommodation. The situations from which people flee and the promise of hope and a new life greatly outweigh any deterrents and yet these hardships are real and serve as barriers to contribution and to fostering a sense of belonging. No one disputes the challenges facing the asylum system but I am deeply troubled by some of the implications of this Bill. I am not clear what problems differentiated treatment or deterrence policies will solve, and fear that aspects put in jeopardy the agency and dignity of many vulnerable people.
In conclusion, if you will indulge a bishop a biblical reference, St Paul writes in his letter to the Hebrews:
“Do not forget to show hospitality to strangers, for by so doing some people have shown hospitality to angels without knowing it.”
It is better for the soul of this nation, and for creating good future citizens, to treat people with the greatest possible respect and dignity, rather than with hostility and doubt.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the Board of Deputies of British Jews quoted from the Torah in its briefing. I am afraid it is not at the front of my mind, but it is the same thought. There have been so many powerful and informed speeches that I decided at about 5.30 pm that I must stop adding namechecks to my notes.
I have often heard from the Dispatch Box the term “professional curiosity”—an encouragement to probe, analyse and avoid the unthoughtful and the knee-jerk. It seems to me that professional curiosity has been lacking both from the underlying policy and this Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, mentioned virtue signalling. There certainly seems to have been no attempt to understand the push factors.
I should apply that to myself. How is it that a Bill against which I would readily have voted today has any appeal? Is it that people have had bad encounters with refugees? I think that is unlikely. The reaction of most people who have talked to individuals is often admiring. Is it fear of the other? We are a mongrel nation, as noble Lords have said; I certainly am. Is it an underlying insecurity about housing, the health service, jobs, the cost of living and the economy? Likely, I suspect, and so we should address those.
How is it that the Government’s priority is not to take a leadership role in integration, rather than creating tiers, different levels of protection—“differentials”, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, put it—and the deserving and undeserving? Instead, they make the environment aggressively hostile.
Among the many emails we have received opposing the Bill, I had one from a lady who wrote:
“Although I do not believe that the current Front Bench is racist,”—
I should say that I have just had another email which takes a contrary view, but I am not making that accusation myself—
“it would be naive to imagine that it will always be ‘in the public interest’ for me and my parents to continue enjoying the ‘privilege’ of our British citizenship.”
Let me say that we believe that the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, is in the public interest.
How many British citizens suddenly feel insecure? Another email I had said:
“Clause 9 does not make me feel safer.”
I am sure the writer would be happy for the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, to quote that on a future occasion. It seems we are to assume the worst of asylum seekers, victims of modern slavery and those who missed out on claiming citizenship—those who, in its words, are not the “cash cows” the Home Office expects.
My noble friends Lord Paddick and Lord Oates referred to comparative numbers of applications and refugees accepted in other countries, as did the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Dubs. The starkest are the numbers being hosted by bordering states and by developing and middle-income countries. Our responsibility is no less because of our geographical position. We should be fair in the international context. Clearly, we cannot take everyone, but we fall well short of our fair share. I do not think that is the same as not controlling borders, and it is not Marxist in any sense. I am reminded that another word that is almost compulsory in this House is “proportionate”. One could apply that here too.
The tone as well as the detail of the Bill are of denial of our role as part of the international community, engaged in a co-operative effort to address a shared issue. As for offshoring, I hope we will not see that, for the sake of individuals and of the host—if that is the right word—country with fewer resources than we have. It feels more like offloading.
It is almost the least of it but requiring visa penalties for unco-operative countries baffles me; it is not my approach to co-operation or partnership. In fact, I have trouble with a lot of the logic. The great majority of family reunion applications, as we have heard, are for women and children to join a family member here. How does that square with government policy to protect women and girls? If a refugee cannot sponsor an application, does this not incentivise dangerous journeys, particularly by women and girls? That is the Australian experience. Smugglers understand the process; that is part of their power. Asylum seekers are unlikely to do so; it is not part of their thinking.
Politicians who admire successful business people should understand that, faced with an obstacle, they find ways around it; they are not deterred. By the way, life sentences, an option under the Modern Slavery Act, have apparently not been used. The Bill, perversely, plays into the smugglers’ business model. It is predicated, as many noble Lords have said, on a substantial increase of safe and legal routes. Apart from it being the right thing to do to increase them, their creation would reduce the market for dangerous crossings. As has been observed, the Home Office impact assessment points to the inherent risks of dangerous crossings. What the Bill is not based on is a trauma-informed approach. That is the clear view of the professionals who have written and spoken about age assessment, which they and we see as a matter of safeguarding. They are very clear that this is not cut and dried scientifically. Personally, I am not surprised that young people who have gone through what they have been through act older than their age.
Concern is expressed about the impact of much of the Bill on children. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham was the first to mention that issue. Even the clauses righting historical omissions regarding citizenship are overshadowed, and Clause 10 is plain unjust. Citizenship is hugely important; it is about belonging. It is well known that victims of slavery and trafficking, as well as those fleeing persecution, oppression and tyranny, cannot immediately tell the whole or even much of their story. “Late” is a misnomer. The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner makes very balanced and powerful comments—to use a neutral term—including on the danger of viewing victims through an immigration lens and ignoring their trauma and exploitation. I cannot, unlike others here, see the Bill as other than a retrograde step back from our world-leading legislation of 2015. What the Minister said about ILR was on the basis of assisting prosecutions. That is important, but it is a complex issue, and it is not the only one, as the noble Lord, Lord McColl, always makes clear.
I can give only a modified welcome to the additional qualification for legal aid, given the shortage of provision in practice—the funding structures and rates, and the refusal of the Legal Aid Agency, as I understand it, to fund expert reports at the application as distinct from the appeal stage. This is part of a wider issue, but it bites here.
There are big legal issues raised by the Bill. Others have touched on compliance with international law and the law of the sea, and I am sure that we will spend time on this in Committee. I find it perverse to use domestic legislation to impose the interpretation of international conventions, although I have to say that it is of a piece with the Government’s announcement of legislation to correct the courts’ judgments in human rights cases. Language can be misleading; an expedited or accelerated process sounds attractive, but so did “detained fast track”, as a term, which the Court of Appeal, rightly, brought to an end.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, I am concerned about the criminalisation that may spill over to individuals and organisations that seek to support asylum seekers. Judging from the support that we have seen for the RNLI, that view is widely shared.
I hope that the Minister will be able to detail what routes there are by which an asylum seeker can come direct from countries from which so many flee—Iran, Iraq, Eritrea, Yemen, Sudan, Vietnam and so on. The Government may tell us about schemes for Afghanis and Syrians, but we know that we would like them to be far more extensive, and we are concerned about the lack of what is happening at the moment. What is being done to create safe and legal routes, and why is there no provision for humanitarian visas? Perhaps we can also hear why the Government, who have relied on the UNHCR to identify those whom they have resettled in the UK, refuse to take on board its analysis. The UNHCR’s critique of the Bill is devastating.
I have had much more time than most speakers, but none of us has had anywhere near enough to make all the points that are to be made on this Bill, which clearly fills so many of us with gloom and anxiety, nor enough time to thank all those who have briefed us and who work on the front line—and, certainly, nowhere near enough to cover what will so affect people’s lives.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a research fellow in modern slavery at the University of Nottingham. It is a great privilege to follow the excellent speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who outlined many of the problems and issues we have with this Bill.
I am proud and pleased to be standing here on this side of the House with the noble Baroness and many others who have spoken behind me, to my right, to my left and across the Chamber. We are all united in the belief that we need to tackle illegal immigration and have control over our borders but that, as my noble friend Lord Reid said, we should not do so at the expense of putting forward unworkable solutions which will do nothing to deal with the problems we are confronted with. Why should we do this in a way that drives a coach and horses through human rights legislation and international conventions to which this country has been a proud signatory over decades? That is the crux.
I am pleased to say that this Chamber reflects the country; there is a clash of views in the country. The Government will say they speak for public opinion—I challenge that. I believe that the whole country is united by a belief that there is an issue around illegal immigration, but I am also convinced that people want it dealt with in a fair, equitable way that reflects the traditions of our country over the decades. This Bill does not do that.
Our country has always prided itself on its tolerance, its welcome to those fleeing war and persecution and its embrace of difference and varying cultures. I am proud of that, as your Lordships’ House will be, so why have the Government introduced a Bill that makes changes for asylum seekers and refugees, altering the current system for asylum claims and appeals and introducing measures on people-smuggling and modern slavery and a two-tier system for asylum seekers arriving in the UK, with differentiation based on method of arrival? It risks undermining that very tradition in which this country has always legislated on these issues. As my noble friends Lord Dubs and Lady Chakrabarti and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said, refugees are people. Our values must be applied; our country will be judged on the way in which we treat refugees and asylum seekers.
In Committee, we can debate and discuss this Bill line by line, but Second Reading allows us to set out the context, principles and broad sweep of policy which should guide the general topics as we go forward. I remind the House, since a political point has been made once or twice, that the Government say this Bill is needed to fix the asylum system; they have been in control of that system for 12 years, so why have initial asylum decisions fallen by 40% over the last five years, under their watch, with 67,000 people waiting for an initial decision? That is what undermines trust—the failure to administer and manage these people and situations properly.
Many of these provisions—I turn to my former boss at the Home Office, my noble friend Lord Reid—were rejected as too draconian by the last Labour Government. I understand from what the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, and others have said that we did not get everything right, but we rejected many of the proposals put forward in this Bill.
On illegal entry, the Bill proposes to change the immigration offence of how someone enters the UK and specifies the mode of entry as legal or illegal. The UNHCR states that, if implemented as it stands, this will cause great suffering and undermine the 1951 convention—an international protection system not just in the UK but globally. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association says that it is contrary to international law; Article 31 of the refugee convention provides that states
“shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees … where their life or freedom was threatened”.
Do we care? Do we care that we are breaking these international conventions? This is what the UNHCR is saying. I just point this out to the noble Baroness the Minister. Is she right and the UNHCR is wrong? The UNHCR is saying that this Bill breaks international conventions; that this Bill is not consistent with the treaties that we have signed. Both of those statements cannot be right. As the noble Lords, Lord German, Lord Hannay and Lord Oates; the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar; my noble friends Lord Dubs, Lord Ponsonby, Lord Griffiths, Lord Reid, Lady Lister, Lady Chakrabarti and many others have stated across this Chamber, this country seeks to ensure that international treaties and obligations are met by others, and we should ensure that we meet them ourselves.
Group 1 and group 2 refugees will be created by the Bill, based on how they arrived into the UK and the point at which they presented themselves to the authorities. Those who have travelled via a third country, do not have documents or did not claim asylum immediately will be designated group 2 refugees—sub-standard refugees, not real refugees. The UNHCR again says:
“The design of this new Group 2 refugee status is incompatible with the 1951 convention.”
It does not say that it has a problem with it: it says it is incompatible with the convention. Do we care? Does that not matter? Are we bothered? Do the Government think that the UNHCR is wrong? What are they going to do about it? Why do they not just get up and say, “We are going to drive a coach and horses through this”—or are they going to say that they have got this wrong?
Why did we not negotiate new Dublin III arrangements when we left the EU? There are no return agreements with EU countries, and family reunion routes for refugees and asylum seekers in Europe, including children, have been cut. So how will the Bill work with no agreements between the UK and EU member states? How will the Bill help with no workable deal with the French Government, as others have mentioned, to tackle the operations of criminal gangs on the French coast? Is it not the case that there were just five asylum seekers returned to European countries in the last year while channel crossings have soared? What is going on? What are the Government doing about it now, let alone when this Bill passes through? Is it not the case that there are no new safe, legal routes for the family reunion proposed in the Bill, and that that is one of the measures that is desperately needed and that we should be seeking to address?
The rhetoric of the Government and of the Home Secretary has failed. It failed when she said that we would halve boats across the channel in three months and make them infrequent in six months. In that time, the figure has risen tenfold. As the noble Lords, Lord McColl, Lord Alton and Lord Morrow, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and my noble friend Lord Rosser in his brilliant speech all pointed out, the Modern Slavery Act is undermined by an immigration and asylum Bill. That is unbelievable. The Modern Slavery Act is one of the totemic achievements, if I may say so, of the Conservative Government before last—one of the totemic achievements of former Prime Minister Theresa May. On most issues I fundamentally disagree with her, but on this she deserves all the credit that should come her way for introducing that Act. She stood up in the Commons, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, pointed out, and said that certain elements of this Bill would restrict victims’ ability to come forward. She said she was concerned that the public order disqualifications threshold and the time period on slavery and trafficking information notices would have that effect. Victims of modern slavery will be prevented from coming forward to help identify those who have perpetrated crimes. Those are not my words, or words from a Labour Government now or in the past, but the words of a former Prime Minister of this country saying what the current Conservative Government are going to do to the Modern Slavery Act that she, and all of us, were so proud of.
The Government say that they want to deter people from using the defence of being a victim of modern slavery against deportation. Where is the evidence for that? Where is the evidence for erecting barriers to accessing the national referral mechanism?
Of the 10,613 potential victims of modern slavery referred to the NRM last year, 47% were children and 34% were British. Where is the sense in what the Government are proposing there? No distinction is made in the Bill between adults and children, and the Bill as proposed would expect victims of slavery to disclose what has happened to them at the moment of identification or be penalised. What on earth? Does the Minister realise how ridiculous it is to expect somebody traumatised by modern slavery or trafficking to be able to present themselves within a short, specified time to the police or others with these identification notices, otherwise they will be deemed to have failed? It is unbelievable, unworkable and something that I and no doubt many others will want to come back to on Report.
I have a last couple of comments. The independent slavery commissioner, Sara Thornton, says the Bill
“will severely limit our ability to convicted perpetrators and dismantle organised crime groups.”
Others have mentioned offshore processing. Others have mentioned Clause 9. Others have mentioned issues to do with the RNLI and pushback. There will be amendments coming forward, if not from us then from others, which we will support. Will the Ministers say to me, to this House, to this Chamber and to this country that, if I were a navigator on a boat passing people at sea and in danger, it will be a criminal offence, as under the Bill as currently constituted it will be, for me to stop and help them? Is that really the legislation we are seeking to pass? I do not believe that even the Minister would do it, nor would the noble Lord—they are decent people and would want to help, but the legislation they are proposing to this House, this Chamber, this evening would penalise people and make it a criminal offence for them to do that. It is ridiculous and simply has to stop.
We could go on. There is much to debate and we will seek to amend the Bill as it goes forward, protecting the victims of modern slavery, including children, with safe routes for unaccompanied children, safe routes for family reunion of unaccompanied children and negotiations with the EU for a new asylum agreement, including safe legal routes and safe returns, maintaining our respect for international law and agreements. The Bill will not solve the problem of dangerous boat crossings and will not improve security co-operation or create safe legal routes. It will make it harder to prosecute and convict people traffickers and will grant the Home Secretary the power to decide asylum cases based on how someone arrives in this country. It will give the Home Office the power to deprive a person of their British citizenship without warning—third-class citizenship, as one noble Peer mentioned. The Bill has a lot wrong with it and certainly, as we go forward in Committee, we will seek to amend it, as we will on Report. This country has a proud tradition of supporting asylum seekers and refugees, and this Bill is not part of that.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken today in what has been quite a long debate. I know noble Lords will understand if I do not respond to every single point that has been made, but I thought it would be a good idea to summarise, very briefly, what has been talked about today.
I hope I can divide the House into those who think we have gone too far with the Bill and those think we have not gone far enough. There are an elite few here who support the Bill. There is quite a contradictory view on the EU as being either the best thing since sliced bread or, contrarily, as not being regarded by some as a safe area for migrants, but there is also the Groucho Marxism that my noble friend referred to—I will not call it LibDem-ism—which says, “Whatever it is, I’m against it”. I will call out two noble Lords for actually suggesting solutions. One is the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and the other is my noble friend Lord Balfe. Solutions have been in very short supply this afternoon, and although I may not agree with them, they actually suggested solutions.
We are a nation of immigrants—I have said that before at this Dispatch Box—and I am a first-generation immigrant. Immigration has made this country the place that it is today. It rebuilt it after the war and we provided protection for those fleeing persecution, both during the Second World War and in the decades since. What comes to mind is the Ugandan Asians and now, of course, the people from Afghanistan. We have just resettled more than 20,000 people through the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme and we will go on to resettle 20,000 people under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme.
The other word that has been used quite a lot today, by quite a few noble Lords, is “inhumanity”. The inhumanity I see is the treatment of migrants by criminal gangs: the inhumanity of making your way to our shores being based on your ability to pay those criminals; the inhumanity of the fact that if you are a woman or a girl—women and girls have been mentioned by quite a few noble Lords this afternoon—you are very unlikely to be in one of those boats, because most of the people in them are men or boys; and, finally, the inhumanity of using people as commodities in the grim industry that those criminals engage in. They do not see the people in those boats as human beings at all. That, for me, is the inhumanity of all this, and I do not think noble Lords would actually disagree with those points.
My noble friend Lady Stowell said that illegal migration matters to the people of this country. It does, not because they are racist but because they have a great sense of fairness. We should be careful when we use the word “racist”. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned an email she received today relating to the Front Bench, and retracted from that accusation. Someone from my background or that of my noble friend Lord Wolfson would never countenance that—and I do not accuse her of asserting that at all.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I should like to make it clear that my correspondent said that she does not think that the Front Bench is racist.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, and I know she would not have made that suggestion.
We are talking today not about the lawful migration which has so enriched our country, but about illegal migration, which only makes it harder for us to do what we all want, which is to protect those in greatest need of our help.
As I said, I cannot touch on every point that was made, but I hope to touch on some of the key issues. To quote my noble friend Lord Wolfson again, we have to start with the basic reality that the current system is not working. We need real, practical solutions, not just another outline of the problems, so I offer particular thanks to noble Lords who have today shared some suggestions of what we can do. Reform is desperately needed, and the Bill will enable us to deliver it.
I turn first to the deprivation of citizenship, because that has been so widely mentioned, including by the noble Lords, Lord Rosser, Lord Paddick, Lord Blunkett, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, Lord Dubs, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate and Lord Hannay of Chiswick; the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox of Buckley, Lady Chakrabarti, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, Lady Lister and Lady Uddin; and my noble friends Lord Balfe and Lady Warsi. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, that, irrespective of his name—mine also starts with a “W”, so I know where I stand—I listened to his concerns on the clause very carefully. I assure him of the Government’s continuing commitment to righting the wrongs of Windrush. We have been very clear on that, so, to echo what was said explicitly in the other place, the Bill does not widen the reasons for which a person can be deprived of their British citizenship. The change is about the process of notifying the individual.
Picking up on some of the questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, in particular, the clause is necessary to ensure that we avoid a situation where we could never deprive a person of their British citizenship just because there is no way of communicating with them, or where to make contact would disclose sensitive intelligence sources, including a last known address—if we even have one. This is vital to protect the security of the UK from those who would wish to do us harm.
Rightly, this power is reserved for those who pose a threat to the UK and those who obtain their citizenship by fraudulent means. Decisions are made following careful consideration of advice from officials and lawyers, and in accordance with international law. It always comes with an appeal right. The Government do not seek to extend deprivation powers—I want to make that absolutely clear. The grounds on which a person can be deprived of their citizenship will remain unchanged. We also do not want to deny a person their statutory right of appeal where we have made a decision to deprive, and the Bill preserves that right. The change is simply intended to ensure that existing powers can be used effectively in all appropriate circumstances and in no way represents a policy change in this important area of work. Instead, the scaremongering that we have seen around this clause from some quarters is unacceptable, irresponsible and highly regrettable.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, made some thoughtful contributions on the importance of organisations such as the RNLI, and I share their sentiments about them. I want to reassure noble Lords that the Bill does not change the Government’s approach to existing obligations under international maritime law, including that first duty to protect lives at sea. I might say that I am delighted that the RNLI has received additional contributions, because I see the work that it does down in Cornwall. The Government tabled an amendment to the Bill in the Commons on Report to make absolutely clear that organisations such as HM Coastguard and RNLI will be able to continue to rescue those in distress at sea, as they do now.
Perhaps I may move on to differentiation. The noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti, Lady Ludford, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws and Lady Uddin, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham spoke about provisions that differentiate between groups of asylum seekers. I know that there is a difference of opinion about these provisions, but I do not make excuses for doing everything possible to deter people from making these dangerous crossings. I should like to provide reassurance that family reunion, which I know is an issue of particular concern, will be permitted for those in group two where refusal would breach our international obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
I should also like to pick up specifically on the comment from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, on female judges from Afghanistan. She and I have talked about that and how they will be considered under the new differentiated asylum policy. As she set out, in August we announced the Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme, one of the most generous schemes in our country’s history, with up to 20,000 people at risk being given a new life in the UK. The scheme will explicitly prioritise those who have assisted the UK’s efforts in Afghanistan and stood up for values such as democracy, women’s rights and freedom of speech or the rule of law. I hope, therefore, that I can assure the noble Baroness on that. The scheme includes women’s rights activists, journalists and prosecutors.
Individuals granted settlement under the ACRS will not be subject to any differential treatment and will be granted indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom. That sits alongside our other safe and legal routes, including the UK resettlement scheme and community sponsorship, which I am delighted the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford mentioned, because it is a scheme that I am very keen on and I hope to have more discussions with her on it. Other safe and legal routes include the mandate resettlement scheme, the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the immigration route for BNO status holders from Hong Kong.
I move on to modern slavery. Many noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord McColl, the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool, Lord Rooker and Lord Morrow, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London asked about Part 5, which relates to modern slavery. The Government are totally committed to tackling this terrible crime, one that seeks to exploit and do harm. This requires active prosecution of the modern slavery perpetrators.
Noble Lords asked why we are legislating for modern slavery in this Bill. The fact is that there is an overlap between some individuals who enter the immigration system and the national referral mechanism, so it is right that we make sure that those individuals have their full set of circumstances considered together. We also want to make sure that vulnerable individuals are identified as early as possible so that we can ensure that they have access to the right support.
That is why this Bill makes clear, for the first time in primary legislation, that where a public authority, such as the police, is pursuing an investigation or criminal proceedings, confirmed victims who are co-operating in this activity and need to remain in the UK in order to do so will be granted temporary leave to remain. The legislation also makes it clear that leave will be granted where it is necessary to assist an individual in their recovery from any physical or psychological harm arising from the relevant exploitation, or where it is necessary to enable them to seek compensation in respect of the relevant exploitation. It is right that leave is granted only to those who need it. This is both firm and fair.
Additionally, as part of our ongoing commitment to victims, we will continue to explore opportunities to enhance our support for victims through the criminal justice system through our review of the modern slavery strategy. Having as clear a definition as possible of the relevant eligibility criteria is the best way to give victims the clarity and certainty they need.
I assure noble Lords that we remain in line with our international obligations and will continue to support, via a grant of temporary leave to remain, those who have a need to be in the UK to assist with their recovery from physical and psychological harm caused by their exploitation. All those who receive a positive conclusive grounds decision and are in need of tailored support will receive appropriate individualised support for a minimum of 12 months. We will set out further details in guidance in due course.
I turn to the concerns about the steps we are taking regarding the wording of the reasonable grounds threshold in the Modern Slavery Act 2015. Our purpose here is to ensure that this mirrors our obligation under the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings. We remain committed to ensuring that the NRM effectively identifies and supports genuine victims to recover.
Lastly, I turn to the specific questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, on the recent joint statement of the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner and the Victims’ Commissioner. I assure him that we are fully considering the issues raised and that we are currently engaging with both commissioners on these important issues.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I am sorry to do this to the Minister, but the context of the Bill has to be seen in the light of the pronouncements of the Home Secretary. When I was Home Secretary, I knew and was reminded constantly by my special advisers that what I said constituted government policy, the direction of government and the context within which legislation was provided. I need her to assure the House that what I read out five and a half hours ago as being the views of the Home Secretary in November either constitutes the view of the Government or is refuted by her.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I cannot read the mind of the Home Secretary, but the noble Lord is absolutely correct that that was a quote from her. On the point that she was making, I think the article he referred to was in relation to the Liverpool bomber. I think the Home Secretary gave that as an example of someone whose asylum claim had been refused. That person then went on to do potential harm to the people of this country. In fact, through the actions of the very brave taxi driver, he blew only himself up, but she was reflecting on the harm that a broken asylum system can do to the people of this country. That is why we need to give refuge to those who need our refuge and to make sure that we deter illegal migration and come down hard on those people who would wish this country harm. I hope that encapsulates my right honourable friend’s estimation of the situation and satisfies the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett.
In terms of the impact of provisions on women, which I touched on earlier, I was very interested to hear the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins, Lady Lister and Lady Neuberger, about the experiences of women and girls including those fleeing sexual violence, and from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, about the experience of vulnerable people who may be experiencing physical or mental ill health. These must be quite traumatic experiences, particularly if you are in a war-torn country.
We recognise that people who have experienced those traumas may feel unable to provide evidence relating to their protection or human rights claim. That is why the Bill makes very clear that, where late evidence is provided and there are good reasons for that, the credibility penalties relating to late evidence will not apply. We will set out in guidance what can constitute good reasons to allow decision-makers the flexibility to take a case-by-case approach depending on a person’s specific situation and vulnerabilities. Looking at the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and his potential case study, it might apply in that case.
We have heard many views expressed on our proposals to make it possible to remove protection claimants to a safe country while their claims are processed. I note in particular the speeches from the noble Lords, Lord Desai, Lord German and Lord Dubs, and my noble friends Lord Horam and Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. While people are placing their lives at risk making perilous journeys, every possible option must be considered to reduce the draw of the UK. The Government have made their position clear throughout the debate: people should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach. That is the fastest route to safety. We are also clear that this Bill is fully compliant with all our international obligations and we will not act in such a way which means that a person’s life is at risk or which places a person at risk of persecution, torture, inhumane or degrading treatment.
I move on to the British Hong Kong service personnel. I hope noble Lords will indulge me for an additional minute or two because I was intervened upon. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, raised concerns about the former British Hong Kong service personnel, and I think, to be fair to him, has been doing so since I have been a Home Office Minister, so I must give him credit for that. We remain extremely grateful to those former British Hong Kong service personnel. Under the British nationality selection scheme, a limited number were settled in Hong Kong and could apply to register as British citizens, as he knows. I can confirm, as he requested, that the Government have identified a potential solution to this issue and are currently investigating proposals that could see this cohort treated in a similar way to other non-UK service personnel. That would be in addition to other pathways that they may already be eligible for. There is considerable work to be done to fully scope the ramifications and impact of the policy; however, we aim to provide further details as soon as we can with a view to a solution being provided before the end of this calendar year. Given that he has waited nearly six years—under my tenure anyway—I know he has got an awful lot of patience.
More broadly in terms of international co-operation, my noble friend Lord Balfe, the noble Lords, Lord Reid, Lord German, Lord Davies, Lord Liddle and Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, have spoken eloquently about the need for us to work with our international partners to tackle what really are shared global challenges. I totally agree; all countries have a moral responsibility to tackle the issue of illegal migration. Most countries have got the challenge of illegal migration.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I apologise for creating a slight extra delay, but I have listened in the last 21 minutes to the noble Baroness several times referring to “illegal migrants” or “illegal migration”. This Bill is about asylum seekers and refugees. We may differ on the legal issue of people arriving or entering irregularly, and our interpretation of the refugee convention, but under the Government’s own terms this Bill is not about illegal migrants; it is about asylum seekers.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is also about illegal migrants.
Going back to international partners, we expect them to engage with us and we have tried to work with them to build on our good current co-operation and continue to highlight the importance of having effective returns agreements to stop people making perilous crossings. This is an established principle of any functioning migration relationship, and it enables us to maintain public confidence in our immigration system.
We have already signed agreements with India and Albania. There are more people here illegally from India than from any other country, and there are more foreign criminals from Albania than from anywhere else. It is now easier to return criminals and people with no right to be here to both countries. Beyond this, we will seek to negotiate readmissions arrangements with key EU member states which have a mutual interest in preventing asylum seekers moving between safe countries. Where we do not have broad returns agreements, we will seek returns on a case-by-case basis. We will continue to work with our international partners to meet this joint challenge.
We have heard a range of views on international conventions. I note the contributions of the noble Baronesses, Lady Fox, Lady Chakrabarti and Lady Neuberger, and the noble Lords, Lord Green of Deddington, Lord Dubs, Lord Coaker, Lord German, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, Lord Oates and Lord Griffiths of Burry Port. This Government remain committed to our international obligations, including the 1951 refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. Those in need of protection should claim in the first safe country they reach. That is the fastest route to safety.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, we will have hours of debate on this in Committee, but that is our premise. The first safe country principle is widely recognised internationally. It is indeed the fundamental feature of the common European asylum system. Without any enforcement of it, we simply encourage criminal smugglers to continue to exploit vulnerable migrants.
Today’s debate has shown that there is no silver bullet when it comes to fundamental reform. We are overhauling a decades-old system, but the whole package of measures within the Bill and the wider reforms that sit alongside it will help to put people smugglers out of business and deter illegal entry to the UK.
I finish by reiterating the key objectives of the Bill: to make the system fairer and more effective; to deter illegal entry to the UK; and to remove more easily from the UK those with no right to be here. As my noble friend Lord Wolfson said earlier,
“the need for reform could not be clearer. The public are not prepared to accept the current situation, and neither are the Government.”
We are backing those words up with action. The Bill will help us deliver lasting, meaningful change. I beg to move.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Thursday 27th January 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (27 Jan 2022)
Baroness Hamwee
Member’s explanatory statement
The JCHR recommended that the Home Office consider how best to ensure that the intention to treat those previously discriminated against equally well as those not previously discriminated against, is made clear in the drafting of Clause 1. This amendment is to probe the drafting of Clause 1.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 1 is grouped with Amendments 2, 8, 9, 10, 12, 17 and 21. Amendment 9 is in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and my noble friend Lady Ludford; the others are all in our names.
This Bill is not all bad, so I am glad to be able to start with Part 1, most of which we support, although the exceptions to that support are very significant. This rather gentle introduction is to probe into the clause that remedies historical inequalities. What is not to like? One thing that I do not like—which is not directly related to the Bill, but I am going to take this opportunity to say it—is that I am not comfortable with receiving so many briefings from organisations to which we cannot do justice. That is my discomfort. It is not that we do not want the briefings, but often they come too late for us to reflect concerns in amendments. I know that I am not alone in this House in finding it hard to keep on top of the material and feeling particularly bad about not being able to use all that is sent to us. I hope that organisations—which I know are very often overstretched and understaffed, and have their day job to get on with—will understand that we are not ignoring them, but please could they send us material earlier than sometimes they do? I am sure I am not the only one who has received briefings this morning.
I turn to the substance of the matter. Clause 1 provides for parents where there is discrimination in British nationality law that prevents mothers passing on British Overseas Territories citizenship to their children. It provides for the parents in such cases to be treated equally in terms of passing on that citizenship. The Joint Committee on Human Rights pointed out that this could mean equally well or equally badly; naively, I had not thought about it being equally badly. The way the clause is drafted is not the same as Section 4C of the British Nationality Act, which addresses the same discrimination in respect of British citizenship. That uses the phrase “in the same terms”, and that is what is proposed in several of these various amendments. I understand that concerns have also been raised that the reference to the parents having “been treated equally” is, on its face, unclear. The JCHR said it would be prudent to deal with the drafting so that it is “in the same terms”. I add that when you have different wording relating to very similar situations, that in itself suggests that the two should be dealt with differently.
Amendment 8 takes us to the issue of good character and would repeal Section 41A of the British Nationality Act. That section requires adults and young persons to be “of good character” if they are to be able to register as British citizens. If someone has the right to become a British citizen—or, more accurately in some cases, to have their right to citizenship registered, because the right is to citizenship and registration is simply the procedure—then what is done by the right hand should not, by giving discretion to the Secretary of State, let the left hand take it away. I hope the Secretary of State will allow me, for this purpose, to describe her as the left hand.
This point applies to Amendments 10 and 19 and to Amendment 9 from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and my noble friend Lady Ludford. Their explanatory statement is much more elegantly expressed than mine, but it is the same point. This point is particularly acute in the case of a child. Is the test really in the child’s best interests? I saw a bit of resonance with the police Bill, which I was going to say we have so recently finished but of course we have not, when we debated an amendment about candidates’ disqualification for standing for office as police and crime commissioners because of a misdemeanour—I think I can almost use that term in its technical sense—in their youth. This term is not the same as that; it is more amorphous. It is a discretionary matter and is of particular concern. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendments 8 and 9 about good character. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am particularly concerned about its application to children and those whose conduct when a child—and we are talking about children as young as 10—is used to deny the right to register as a citizen, which would otherwise be theirs.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights has voiced its concern, not just with regard to this Bill but in a 2019 report, where it pointed out that
“half of the children denied their … right … to British nationality on good character grounds have not even received a criminal conviction (having merely received a police caution)—let alone been prosecuted for ‘heinous crimes’.”
The Select Committee on Citizenship and Civic Engagement, of which I was a member, expressed considerable concern about the good character requirement. The committee called for a review of its use and description and of the age from which it applies—which is, as I said, 10. The Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, of which I am a patron, and Amnesty International, which have been campaigning on this point for some years, say:
“That some British people are required to satisfy the Home Secretary that they are ‘good’ for their citizenship rights to be recognised is divisive and alienating.”
I am not sure how many politicians would come out well as having “good character”, but I shall leave that as it may be. The good character condition is relatively recent in nationality law. It certainly should not be extended; ideally, it should now be scrapped.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, as we have heard, the Joint Committee on Human Rights spent quite a lot of time considering this and related issues. I should perhaps say at the outset that when I was in the Commons, I served on the Public Bill Committee dealing with the Bill that became the British Nationality Act. I am trying for the life of me to remember some of the details of the discussions. I have not had time to look them all up, but we certainly spent many weeks and many sittings on that Bill, but I do not recall this issue arising. I do not think the good character requirement existed then; I think it was brought in later.
The issue is that in the process of trying to get British nationality, there has been some discrimination, or there would be discrimination if the good character requirement were to apply. I am thinking of somebody who should normally have been able to get British citizenship but was unable to do so and, when applying now, if this is passed, will have to meet the good character requirement. That seems a little odd. I hope I have understood that correctly; that was certainly how we looked at it on the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Perhaps the best thing I can do is to quote from the committee’s report, because it states it very clearly. This is from paragraph 41:
“We reiterate concerns made by this Committee in previous Parliaments that requiring good character when considering applications resolving prior discrimination risks perpetuating the effects of discrimination for those previously discriminated against. Moreover, we also share the concerns raised by the JCHR in 2019 about the appropriateness of the good character requirements being applied to children, particularly children whose main or only real connection may be with the UK. It is difficult to align this requirement with the obligation to have the best interests of the child as a primary consideration.”
That is the case for this amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Hamwee has comprehensively explained the reasons for these amendments, which we support. On the issue of good character, if someone has the right to become a British citizen—they already have that right; they just want to register it—what has good character got to do with it, particularly if they are children? Even if the applicant is guilty of a criminal offence, surely denial of citizenship is a disproportionate punishment.
What are we to say about people who acquire British citizenship at birth? We do not say to British citizens, “You’ve been found guilty of a criminal offence, so we are going to take away your citizenship.” What is the difference if people have to apply to register their British citizenship? We fully support these amendments.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I just second what everyone else has said, in particular the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, whose Amendment 9 I have had the honour to co-sign. As he pointed out, the key element to stress here is that the imposition of a good character requirement for citizenship now would perpetuate discrimination against those who have been discriminated against in the past, when the whole—laudable—point of Part 1, which, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee pointed out, is the only good bit of the Bill, is to rectify historical injustice.
Indeed, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights believes, it could well amount to
“unlawful discrimination, contrary to Article 14 as read with Article 8 ECHR, to require a person to prove good character when remedying previous unlawful discrimination against that person.”
When applied to children, it is even more unfair and obviously against their best interests. Hence the need to delete Clause 3(4), which is the focus of Amendment 9. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to the quotation that this is “divisive, alienating” and unjust, compared to the treatment of other British citizens.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, briefly, I offer Green group support for these amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made a point that needs to be reinforced. We have a question, which will arise later with my Amendment 33. Do we have one class of British citizenship or two? If you are not a British citizen because of past discrimination, can we really allow you to be discriminated against again just because of where you or where your parents were born? That is simply unacceptable.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, we strongly welcome Clause 1 and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, in a Bill where there is so little to welcome, the early clauses of Part 1 seek to redress historical injustices in our nationality law. That is certainly welcomed from these Benches, as well as by other noble Lords who have spoken.
Clause 1 corrects an historical injustice left over from what many would regard as the appalling situation in which mothers did not have the same citizenship rights as fathers. It addresses the citizenship rights of children of mothers who were British Overseas Territory citizens. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for her amendments. We raised the clarity of drafting of the clause when the Bill was in the Commons. As the noble Baroness also explained, this concern was raised by the JCHR, which noted that the language in this clause is not the same as the language used for similar purposes in the 1981 Act and raised questions over how well the clause achieves its intention. The JCHR said:
“We recommend that the Home Office consider how best to ensure that the intention to treat those previously discriminated against equally well as those not previously discriminated against, is made clear in the drafting of clause 1.”
In the Commons, my colleagues pushed the Government to amend the clause so that its drafting reflects the drafting in the 1981 Act, when this discrimination was addressed for children of British citizens. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that, in raising this concern, we are all trying to get this right and make the clause work as it should.
The Minister’s response in the Commons was that he did not believe that amendments were necessary, which is quite a standard government reply, and that the current drafting worked as intended. He also said that these points would be further clarified in underpinning guidance. Have the Government given this issue further thought since it was raised in the Commons? What objection do they have to a minor amendment to answer the JCHR’s concerns? If Ministers believe that that will be further clarified in guidance, should they not consider clarifying it in the Bill?
When we consider the good character requirement—I do not want to repeat everything that has been said—the JCHR is concerned that requiring good character when considering applications resolving prior discrimination risks perpetuating the effects of discrimination for those previously discriminated against. Much of this debate is familiar. As has been said, over the past few years the JCHR has routinely raised concerns about the impact of the good character requirement in cases resolving previous discrimination and in cases concerning children. I simply ask: how does that square with our primary duty to act in the best interests of the child and how is that currently balanced with the good character test? Can the Minister provide details to the Committee on how many children each year are refused citizenship based on this requirement and on what grounds it is deemed that they do not meet the test?
I too welcome the questions raised by my noble friend Lord Dubs on behalf of the JCHR on the application of the good character requirement in Clause 3. I simply wish to make the point that we are debating this clause due to gaps left in the law where we attempt to redress historical discrimination. Where the JCHR is raising concerns that the good character requirement is inappropriate where an applicant has already had their rights denied for a significant number of years, the Government should consider that challenge seriously. If we are to remove existing injustices in our system, we should do so thoroughly and with great care, so that we do not find ourselves having to come back for further fixes at a future date.
I look forward to the noble Baroness the Minister’s reply on behalf of the Government—or perhaps it is the noble Lord; I am sorry.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank noble Lords, and I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Rosser..
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling Amendments 1 and 2. Both refer to Clause 1, which I am pleased to introduce, as it corrects a long-standing anomaly in British nationality law. I appreciate my noble friend’s attention to detail in seeking to make sure that this new provision is clear and in line with the parallel provision in the British Nationality Act 1981 for children of British citizen mothers. However, we do not think that an amendment is needed, as the proposed wording here achieves what is intended. In saying that this provision applies to someone who would have been a citizen had their parents been treated equally, we are talking about a situation where the law applied equally to mothers or fathers, women or men. We are satisfied that the current wording does what is required.
I turn now to Amendment 8 and consequential Amendments 10, 12, 17 and 21, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. British citizenship is a privilege, reserved for those who meet the requirements of the British Nationality Act 1981 and who respect the law and values of the UK. This is reflected by the statutory requirement for an individual to be of good character when they apply for British citizenship. Published guidance sets out the basis for how we assess whether a person is of good character and the types of conduct that must be taken into account as part of this assessment.
Decision-makers are required to give careful consideration to each application on a case-by-case basis, and must decide on the balance of probabilities whether an applicant is of good character. Grounds for refusal of citizenship on the basis of not meeting the good character test include criminality that meets the threshold laid out in guidance, immigration offending such as illegal entry or unlawful residence, and serious adverse behaviour such as war crimes, terrorism or genocide. Such behaviour is fundamentally in opposition to core British values of decency and adherence to the law. Removing the good character requirement from all registration routes for British citizenship would mean that we could no longer refuse citizenship to those opposed to these values.
I turn, finally, to Amendment 9, for which I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dubs; I know he has taken a great interest in a number of the provisions of the Bill. I start by reassuring the Committee that the Government are committed to removing discrimination from nationality legislation. That is the aim of Clauses 1 and 2. The Government also recognise the difficulties that current British nationality law has presented for some British Overseas Territories citizen parents who wish to pass on their citizenship. However, the Government do not agree that the application of the good character requirement as set out in Clause 3(4) results in unlawful discrimination. Removing the good character requirement for those applying to register as a British citizen having acquired British Overseas Territories citizenship through the new routes established by Clauses 1 and 2, as this amendment proposes, would be unfair and inconsistent with the approach for British Overseas Territories citizens who can apply to become British citizens by virtue of Section 3 of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 and who are subject to the good character requirement.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned the word “misdemeanour” in connection with such matters. We need to be clear that the guidance is clear that a criminal record does not necessarily mean that an application for citizenship will be refused. Those with a non-custodial sentence or who have received an out-of-court disposal will normally be refused citizenship unless three years have passed. Caseworkers have discretion to make an exceptional grant of citizenship in certain circumstances. On the subject of children, we ought to remind ourselves that 10 years old is the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales.
I want to clarify that the good character test applies only to new provisions introduced in the Bill to resolve historical discrimination where it already applies to the current route that the person would have been entitled to register under had the discrimination not existed. So the only people who will have to meet a good character requirement under Clause 3 are those who would have had an entitlement to registration as a British Overseas Territories citizen under Sections 15(3), 17(2) and 17(5) if their parents had been married, because registration under those routes carries a good character requirement.
To try to answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, where people would have become British automatically had women and unmarried fathers been able to pass on citizenship at the time of their birth, the good character requirement does not apply.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, asked how many children this issue has affected. I am afraid that I do not know the answer and will have to write to him. I should say that if the person would have become British automatically had the discrimination not existed, they will not now have to meet the good character requirement. That deserves reiteration.
I ask noble Lords to withdraw or not move their amendments for the reasons that I have outlined.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Can the noble Lord address the point that I made, which I think was in the JCHR report? The courts have said that there should be an overall assessment—a holistic approach—that looks at good character as well as bad. However, the noble Lord appeared to concentrate only on a bad record being a triggering factor. He used the phrase “balance of probabilities”, but did not say that something bad could be outweighed by an otherwise wholly good record. He did not appear to suggest or confirm that overall holistic approach. He concentrated only on the negative triggers, which is precisely a fear expressed in the JCHR report. It goes against what the courts have said should be the approach.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for her request for clarification. Guidance is clear that a criminal record does not necessarily mean that an application for citizenship will be refused. As I said earlier, those with a non-custodial sentence or who have received an out-of-court disposal will normally be refused citizenship unless three years have passed. But—and this is the key point—caseworkers have discretion to make an exceptional grant of citizenship in certain circumstances, which, I should imagine, would very much cover the circumstances that the noble Baroness has just described.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, there is clearly concern about good character. I echo my noble friend’s query; the point about a holistic assessment has not been answered. I appreciate that those briefing the noble Lord might not have anticipated the question, but the way in which a caseworker sets about the task is fundamental to this issue.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I did not mean to imply that the noble Baroness was saying that. I apologise for intervening on the noble Baroness, but I want to clarify the caseworker point. To answer the question, they do look at cases in the whole.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
Thank you. That is good to know.
I come back to the registration point that we are dealing with. The Minister made some distinction between different routes. I take that point. I am not capable of making these distinctions myself, on my feet, without a lot of papers spread around me.
Section 41A is about registration. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that it must have come in after the Bill had been introduced in order for it to be numbered in this way.
I turn to my first two amendments—to replace “equally” with “in the same terms”. I repeat my point that having one concept expressed in different ways in the same Act is bound to cause confusion, if not trouble. This may be very boring and it does not go to the root of a lot of what we are debating, but it is potentially of great importance in practice. I hope that the government lawyers can look at it again—or perhaps all my legal training is out of date. I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 1.
“(7) The Secretary of State must not charge a fee for the processing of applications under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures that the Secretary of State must not charge a fee for the processing of applications under section 17A.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, this is the first time I have spoken on the Bill, as I was unable to speak at Second Reading. I want to speak to the amendments in my name in this group. I look forward to hearing the thrust of Amendment 13 from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. At the outset, I declare that my mother was a naturalised Brit through marriage, under an earlier incarnation of this Act. I am also a non-practising member of the Faculty of Advocates.
I shall move Amendment 3 and speak to Amendments 4, 5, 6, 7, 18 and 22. I am enormously grateful to Michael Clancy of the Law Society of Scotland for his expertise and briefing in preparing these amendments, which concern the fees to be charged under Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 7 of the Bill. The amendments are the work of the Law Society of Scotland, and in particular I pay tribute to its immigration and asylum sub-committee, which has considered this part of the Bill in some detail.
The Law Society of Scotland states that it agrees with Clause 1, subject to the registration process being free. There is no clarity around that in Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 7. This is a cause of concern and which is why I have tabled these amendments. In this connection, the Law Society acknowledges and agrees with the 2020 report by British Future, Barriers to Britishness. At pages 10 and 11, it recommends:
“Citizenship by registration should be free for those who become British by this route. This group mostly comprises children and those with subsidiary categories of British nationality, such as British Overseas Territories Citizens and British National (Overseas) passport holders from Hong Kong who now have a route to citizenship through the bespoke British National (Overseas) visa.
Nationality law should be amended to allow children born in the UK to be British citizens automatically, restoring a policy that applied before 1983.
Vulnerable groups of people should be encouraged to take legal advice, which should be affordable and widely available in all parts of the UK.”
The Law Society looked particularly at the case of PRCBC and O v Secretary of State for the Home Department—reported in “[2021] EWCA Civ 193”—where the Court of Appeal held that the fee of £1,012 for certain applications by children to register was unlawfully high. An appeal to the United Kingdom Supreme Court has recently been heard. We await the decision in due course.
I also want to refer to the extremely helpful report from the Constitution Committee of this House about the Bill. Paragraph 16 concludes:
“The Government should clarify its intentions on the amount of fees to be charged under Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 7.”
The committee sought clarity as to what fees will be charged for registration applications under this clause and under similar provisions in Clauses 2, 3 and 7, referred to earlier. The committee also referred to the forthcoming appeal decision of the Supreme Court.
I urge my noble friend, when summing up on this little group of amendments, to come forward and say whether fees are going to be applied and at what level they will be set. It is inappropriate to discuss the Bill at this stage and not to have any idea as to what fees will be charged during the process. With those few remarks, I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 13 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham—who cannot be here today—for their support. I support the other amendments in this group. I am grateful, too, to the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, of which I am a patron, and to Amnesty International UK, for their help. Once again, I pay tribute to them for their continued work to promote children’s citizenship rights.
Essentially, the new clause would ensure that children are not excluded from their right to citizenship by registration by unaffordable fee levels, well above the cost of administering that right. It will also require action to raise awareness of this right.
It feels a bit like Groundhog Day. I have lost count of the number of times we have raised this issue in your Lordships’ House. Indeed, we are now known as “Terriers United”, although I do not think that all the terriers are able to be present today. On our last outing, during debate on the then Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill of 2020, I warned the Minister that we would be snapping at the Home Office’s heels until we achieved justice for this vulnerable group of children.
I will recap the arguments briefly. We are talking about a group of children who were either born here to parents—neither of whom was, at that time, British or settled—or who have grown up here from an early age and have rights to register as British citizens. A combination of factors, notably the exorbitant fee of more than £1,000—£640 more than the most recent stated cost of administration—lack of awareness of the need to register, and the difficulties faced by local authorities with regard to looked-after children, have resulted in thousands of children being denied that right to British citizenship, even though it is theirs. A High Court judgment, to which I shall return, noted the mass of evidence. As a consequence, many children born in the UK feel alienated, excluded, isolated, second best, insecure and not fully assimilated in the culture and social fabric of the UK.
When we last debated this issue, as part of an amendment calling for a review of the barriers to registration of the right to citizenship, the Minister said:
“I completely acknowledge the points that the noble Baroness makes about citizenship costs; I will not tell her that you do not need citizenship to live here, because your Lordships will not accept that sort of answer.”
Quite right. I trust that there will be no attempt to revive such arguments today. Instead of trying to combat our arguments, the Minister proposed a “task-and-finish activity”. This would involve discussion of the issues in the wider context of societal cohesion and integration, which, sadly, will suffer as a result of this Bill. She then said that she would
“think about how we can then bring that back to the House”.—[Official Report, 5/10/20; cols. 429-30.]
Well, we had one initial meeting. It was very constructive, but it did not really address the substance of the withdrawn amendment, and nothing came back to the House.
In the meantime, there has been a significant development: the Court of Appeal upheld the High Court’s judgment which had found the fee unlawful because of the Home Office’s failure to take account of the best interests of children under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act. It is worth noting a few points from the Court of Appeal’s judgment. First, it spelled out:
“There is no issue but that the recent and current levels of fees have had a serious adverse impact on the ability of a significant number of children to apply successfully for registration.”
It noted that payment of the fee would involve “unreasonable sacrifices” for those on low or middle incomes and, in the case of the children of lone parents on benefits,
“it is difficult to see how the fee could be afforded at all.”
Secondly, it underlined the importance of citizenship. Both these points, it said, were
“not disputed by the Secretary of State.”
Thirdly, and crucially, it said that, because
“no other consideration is inherently more significant than the best interests of the child”,
the Home Secretary
“must identify and consider the best interests of the child … and must weigh those interests against countervailing considerations.”
The judgment gave short shrift to the frankly pathetic Home Office argument that the debate on the fees initiated by Members of both Houses constituted consideration of children’s best interests. The chutzpah of trying to put that argument takes my breath away; anyway, the court would have nothing to do with it.
The case was heard by the Court of Appeal in October 2020 and the judgment was given in February 2021. The Home Office chose not to appeal against the best interests judgment yet, nearly a year later, it still has not published the outcome of the best interests review required by that judgment. However, because of a separate appeal on a different point of law to the Supreme Court in the name of PRCBC, of which I am a patron, and O, whose case it was, judgment on which is still awaited, Ministers now argue that publication of the best interests review must await that judgment. Why, given that the judgment has nothing to do with the best interests review?
As it happens, I understand that the judgment will be given next week. Can the Minister therefore commit to publishing the outcome of the best interests review swiftly following that judgment, and certainly before Report? If not, why not? The longer the continued wait, the more children will be denied their right to citizenship because of the level of the fee. This cannot be right. Please do not use the Supreme Court’s irrelevant judgment as an excuse for rejecting this amendment. These children cannot afford to wait any longer. Every month of delay is another month of exclusion and alienation from British society. The terriers are growing very impatient.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I will speak on Amendment 13 on behalf of my noble friend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who sadly cannot be in the House until later today. He wishes to declare his interests in relation to both RAMP and Reset, as set out in the register. The following words are his, but I will say that I wholeheartedly agree with every one of them.
My interest comes from my ongoing engagement in this House with issues concerning children and ensuring that their best interests are central to legislation. The Government should be doing everything they can to ensure that all children in the UK have the opportunity to thrive. We should be working to remove barriers that they may face in seeking to reach their full potential. The current British citizenship registration fees create a barrier for many children to being and feeling fully part of society.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is great pleasure to be one of the terriers of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and a signatory to Amendment 13. I thank her for her conviction, eloquence and persistence in bringing this issue back to us again. It is, as I said at Second Reading, an opportunity to put right old wrongs, and we should not miss this opportunity yet again.
When she introduced this group, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, reminded us of her origins and, therefore, of an interest. I suppose I should declare to the House that I too am the son of an immigrant. My mother was Irish; Irish, not English, was her first language. She came here at the end of the Second World War and married my father, who was a Desert Rat and had fought at El Alamein; he also saw action at Monte Cassino and elsewhere. He was brought up in the East End of London, where he saw terrible anti-Semitism. He and his brothers enlisted in the Armed Forces because they wanted to contest the fascism represented by the Nazis in Germany—and one of them paid the ultimate price.
I say that simply to illustrate that you do not have to hate one country—Ireland, in this case—to love another. I am very proud of the fact that I have both a British and an Irish passport, as do my children and grandchildren. I hope that they, too, will grow up knowing about the traditions that they come from but being incredibly proud to be British citizens.
In the same spirit that the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, described her origins, I will say that, when I went to the great city of Liverpool as a student, I was pretty shocked when I went out in my second year looking for accommodation to see in tobacconists’ windows notices that advertised accommodation and said, “No blacks and no Irish need apply”. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and I have this shared experience in common.
It is against that backdrop, as well as being a patron of Asylum Link Merseyside and having been involved in these issues over the years in both Houses, that I am particularly keen to support what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said today. Indeed, I was involved in the 1981 proceedings in the House of Commons on what became the British Nationality Act. It was, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will recall, a genuine attempt to try to define what it meant to be British. It certainly was not part of our proceedings at that time to take away the rights of children to register because of prohibitive costs debarring them from becoming citizens. I felt so strongly about this that, when I was asked whether I would provide a witness statement about what I believed to be the considerations that we had in 1981, I provided that statement to the High Court in the action that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, described to us.
I should also mention that the late Lord Sacks, Jonathan Sacks, in two great books, The Home We Build Together and The Dignity of Difference, spelt out the nature of citizenship and why we have to learn to live alongside one another and to value the idea of citizenship. During 20 years or so as director of the Liverpool John Moores University Foundation for Citizenship, I explored the issue. It is good to see the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, here today, because she was one of our lecturers as part of the Roscoe series of lectures looking at what it means to be British and how we all should fulfil our individual missions to be good citizens in our society.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has told us the High Court ruling. It is not the fault of the Government that this has gone for further definition at the Supreme Court, but why on earth did the Government not accept the decision of the High Court on this specific point about the cost of citizenship for children and leave the other issues to be decided about the general parameters, as she said? The one does not stop the other and the House should turn its attention to this.
The Court of Appeal upheld the High Court ruling that the £1,012 fee for a child to register as a British citizen was unlawful, because it was set without consideration of the best interests of children. That is at the heart of this amendment. Two of the judges, I might add, also saw great force in the argument that is continuing at the Supreme Court—that it may be additionally unlawful because it effectively deprives many children of their rights to British citizenship.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has been very diligent in responding to questions on this issue, including a Question that I had tabled in the House on 19 October 2020. I said then that it was
“passing strange that the Home Office can calculate the difference between the £640 that it costs to administer the citizenship fee and the £1,012 that it actually charges, even to children in care, but cannot assess the legal costs of contesting the High Court’s judgment? Instead of racking up lawyers’ fees and subsidising the immigration system with what Sajid Javid”,
when he was Home Secretary,
“rightly called huge citizenship fees, should it not be reviewing this policy as noble Lords from right across your Lordships’ Chamber have argued?”
In 2020, there was indeed a widespread view across the House. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London said:
“Putting a financial barrier on being able to access one’s rights is a clear barrier to one’s access to justice”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said:
“this is not about immigration but about children with the right to register as citizens and potentially denying them their right to register if they cannot fund more than £1,000”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Primarolo, asked:
“Will the Minister tell the House whether the Home Office carried out a children’s best interest assessment of the Government’s policy on fees in light of the original judgment?”
As far as I know, that question remains unanswered. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked the Government to explain why
“the Government want the immigration system to be self-funding in a way that no other government department is”.
Again, this seems an unanswered question, but in the course of these proceedings we really need to have an answer. I was struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, one of the longest-serving Members of your Lordships’ House, said from the Government Benches. She asked,
“whether the Government have assessed how many people forgo registering for British citizenship for themselves and their families as they cannot afford it? How this might contribute to their sense of belonging and well-being is important”.
The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, asked:
“Can the Minister tell the House whether she believes it is right that the immigration system is subsidised by children who are born in Britain and have lived their entire life in Britain and have the right to be British?”—[Official Report, 19/10/20; cols. 1273-74.]
I could go on, but I will not. The point is surely now registered with noble Lords. We have the chance between now and on Report not to turn this into yet another contested issue. There is feeling across the House that we need to put right this injustice. This is about putting right an old wrong and I hope the Government will attend to it.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I briefly pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett for her campaigning on this issue and on so many related issues on behalf of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and other distinguished Members of the Committee on bringing this issue to the fore.
For me, the nub perhaps lies in the distinction between some comments that the Minister—the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe—made on the previous group about British nationality being a privilege and comments made in this group repeatedly by almost every speaker about the rights of these children or the rights of this or that group.
We all acknowledge that to be British is, in a colloquial sense, always a privilege in that we are proud and fortunate to be British. Whichever route we have taken, we are all very proud and fortunate, given the other places in the world where we could be. However, in the legal sense at least, in a number of cases—not all, but including those that the Government are attempting to deal with in Part 1—citizenship is a right. The Government’s intention seems clear in some of the early clauses to rectify previous injustices and to confer rights on people who should have them. It would be a terrible shame to do this and then to make the right illusory or difficult to access on the basis of a financial bar, particularly for children.
Noble Lords have approached this in slightly different ways, and different options have been made available in this raft of amendments for the Government to look at between now and Report. I urge Ministers, with all the controversy that I fear is inevitably coming on subsequent clauses, to see what they might do in relation to the rights that they are conferring here, if not to citizenship rights and fees more generally.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, there is obviously strong feeling on this issue across the House. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the work that she has put into this over the years. It is an important campaign. I sympathise with all the remarks that have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others. This is an interesting and important issue. The problem is that the solution proposed does not work.
Very often, in these sorts of debates, it is proposed that the cost be related to the cost of registration or some aspect of that. The difficulty is that the cost can be manipulated. We never know what can go into the cost of producing a particular form or what overheads are involved. This is the difficulty; I have seen it again and again. In the end, the object is subverted by people manipulating the cost in such a way that they get the result they wanted in the first place.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh is right that we need some clarity from the Government in saying exactly what their proposals are in this area. I hope that when my noble friend the Minister replies and on Report we will get more clarity on this issue. I fully agree with the principle of what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, is putting forward. The difficulty is with the suggestion that it should, first, be in primary legislation, with the inflexibility that it brings; and, secondly, that it is related specifically to the cost of registration, which can be manipulated. That is my concern and I hope the noble Baroness, who is about to rise to her feet with a charming smile on her face, will understand what I am saying.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his support of the principle, but is he suggesting that the Home Office would manipulate the cost in this way? The figure that we have is a Home Office figure. The Home Office tells us how much it costs to administer it, and therefore it seems reasonable that the fee should be linked to that. Ideally, I would like there to be no fee for this either, but that might be pushing things too far. Certainly, we are arguing for no fees for those who are in local authority care, but it is a Home Office figure, not a figure per person who is registering.
Lord Horam (Con)
I appreciate that perhaps “manipulate” was the wrong word. I simply meant that events and costs can change over time. If you have it in an Act of Parliament, you cannot change it; you introduce inflexibility, which may in some instances work against you. Often the case is put forward that this is the right way to do it; I have seen a number of these instances, but it never works.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Forgive me, but is the noble Lord agreeing with me that, in relation to citizenship rights that the Government are seeking to confer on those who should have them, there should not be a fee at all?
Lord Horam (Con)
I am sorry, but I did not quite follow the noble Baroness’s point.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Perhaps I can clarify. We all agree that we should know what the figure is. We are also seeking clarification from the Government Benches on why the fee is almost double the cost of processing the work. That is where there is a bit of a mismatch, if I have understood Members correctly.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, that there is no suggestion of putting a figure in the legislation. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, is suggesting that there should be no fee at all, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, does not mention any numbers at all in her amendment.
Lord Horam (Con)
You may not have a number, but costs can change from year to year; that is the point.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Absolutely, and I understand that that might be the case, but that is not the essence of either of the noble Baroness’s amendments. If I have not explained it by the end of what I have said, I am sure that the noble Lord will come back to me.
We support all these amendments, and I am grateful to Amnesty and many others for their briefings. As we have heard, and as the Explanatory Notes explain, Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 7 are aimed at ending anomalies in British nationality law, such as allowing women as well as men to pass on citizenship at the time of birth, including where the parents are not married. They also aim to allow the Secretary of State to grant citizenship where a person failed to become a British citizen and/or a British Overseas Territories citizen because of an historical legislative unfairness, such as an act or omission by a public authority or other exceptional circumstances—the Windrush injustices come to mind. But all these measures come to nothing if those entitled to citizenship cannot afford to pay the required fees to correct the injustice; hence Amendments 3 to 7, 18 and 19, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mcintosh of Pickering. The Government accept that applicants have been unfairly treated, but they then continue to treat them unfairly by charging, in many cases, prohibitively high fees.
I pay tribute to the sustained and tireless work of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, on this issue, and thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, who summarised previous debates in the House so well. Amendment 13, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, takes a slightly less generous approach than the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, but one perhaps more likely to be accepted, ensuring that the Home Office could charge only cost price for citizenship—still a considerable amount of money—or less in the case of children if the family cannot afford it.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I take this opportunity to clarify what is says: it says that no person may be charged a fee that is “higher than”. It is not saying that it should be the cost price. Given that, every year, the Home Office must look at the fees, I do not see that there is a problem. I am sorry to interrupt.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am very grateful for that important clarification. The cost price is the maximum that should be charged, not the actual cost that should be charged.
There may be some difficulty around whether there is to be a means test, as implied by subsection (3), but the important addition to the amendments proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Mcintosh—subsection (4) —is the requirement for the Secretary of State to raise awareness of the right to be registered as a British citizen or British Overseas Territories citizen. As Amnesty rightly points out, thousands of children grow up in the UK excluded from their citizenship rights because they are unaware that they are without British citizenship and need to exercise their right to be registered.
Citizenship should not be an optional extra. It is the right to have rights. It is not, as the Minister said on the previous group, a privilege. It is a right that these people have. It is also likely to make those who acquire it feel more included, and more likely to be loyal to this country, its laws, values and traditions. It is not just of value to those who acquire it but to everyone in the UK, and, as such, the cost of acquiring it should not fall solely on the applicant but on society as a whole.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I express our support for the amendments in this group. The amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, raise a simple and crucial point. The intention of this part of the Bill, at least its early clauses, is to remove barriers for those who have been unjustly denied citizenship. To then present a barrier to that citizenship in the form of fees for accessing those withheld rights raises obvious problems. This is particularly, and one would hope undeniably, the case for those who would and should have been automatically granted citizenship if it were not for outdated injustices impacting their mother or the marital status of their father.
What has so far been missing from the Government is clarity on this issue. I understand that in Committee in the Commons, the Minister would not directly answer questions as to whether fees will be charged. I hope we may fare a little better today, with the noble Lord the Minister—if that is who responds—telling the House whether the Government intend to charge people to access these routes. Is the intention no fees, fee waivers in some cases, reduced fees from what we have now, or the continuation of existing fees? When and how will this be made clear? In the Commons, the Minister suggested that this was more appropriately dealt with in secondary legislation, but why should clarity not be provided in the Bill in relation to this key issue?
I express too our support for Amendment 13, in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett, with notable cross-party support from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. As has been said, to say that my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett has been tenacious on this issue would be the understatement of the year; she has been rather more than that.
The amendment tabled by my noble friend addresses a current fee policy that charges people who have the right to register for citizenship exorbitant amounts to do so. As has been said, the amendment does not ask the Government to scrap the fee for application; it simply requires the fee not to be higher than the actual cost of the registration process. As has been said, this means it could be fixed at a considerably lower level or there could be no fee at all.
In particular, I add our strong support for measures to reduce the cost for children to register their citizenship, which they have as much right to access as any Member of this House, and to remove the cost completely, certainly for children in our care. Although the Government have repeatedly resisted this change, it is not without Cabinet support, as has been said. After all, the Health Secretary has described the fees as
“a huge amount of money to ask children to pay”.
I repeat that these costs are levied against children who are born here, grew up here and go to school here but who, unlike their classmates, are not automatically British at birth. Surely it is the will of this Parliament and our nationality law that those children are entitled to citizenship after certain conditions are met. But, in reality, that right is being denied for at least some—probably many—because it is just too expensive for them to access. The Government have already been asked for information on the numbers who have been denied citizenship on the basis that the fees are too high. I am not sure whether we are going to get a response to that point.
There has been some discussion about the legal position. As has been said, in February last year the Court of Appeal, in referring to the best interests of the child, ruled that the child citizenship fee, at over £1,000, is unlawful. That had also been determined earlier by the High Court. A number of noble Lords commented that, instead of using the obvious vehicle of this Bill on citizenship to rectify the issue, the Government have argued—as I understand it—that they want to await a further ruling in the Supreme Court.
Finally, I admit my surprise that, in the Commons, the government Minister claimed that this issue of the cost of registering citizenship was
“not a matter for the Bill.”—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 19/10/21; col. 165.]
This part of the Bill is about access to citizenship. I question how the Government can say that this issue, which has been raised many times across both Houses and with cross-party support, should not be regarded as a matter for this Bill. I hope we have a helpful response from the Government when they now reply.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester speaking on behalf of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for tabling Amendment 13; and to my noble friend Lady McIntosh for tabling Amendments 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 18 and 22 on fees charged for applications for British citizenship and British Overseas Territories citizenship. My noble friend the Minister would also like to place on record her thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for engaging with her on this subject in various meetings.
I first turn to the amendments put forward by my noble friend Lady McIntosh. You will be aware of the importance that application fees play in the funding of the migration and borders system, which has been noted in this debate, and that this income is vital to reduce the reliance on taxpayer funding and run a sustainable immigration system. Immigration and nationality fees are set in fees regulations, which are laid before Parliament and subject to the negative procedure. I hope that answers a number of noble Lords’ questions. If we were to remove or amend fees during the passage of the Bill, it would undermine the existing legal framework without proper consideration of the sustainability of the system and fairness to the UK taxpayer. Not only that, but it would create an alternative mechanism for controlling fees, which would reduce the clarity of the fee structure.
As the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, noted, I am of course aware that similar provisions were considered in the other place. We are sympathetic to the view that a fee should not be charged where a person missed out on becoming a British citizen due to historical anomalies.
In answer to the specific questions of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, about those who cannot afford application fees, we have always provided for exceptions to the need to pay application fees for leave to remain in a number of specific circumstances. These exceptions ensure that the Home Office’s immigration and nationality fees structure complies with international obligations and wider government policy.
The subject of children in government or local authority care also came up. The Government do cater for children and their well-being. There are a number of exceptions to application fees, which protect the most vulnerable, including young people who are in the care of a local authority and applying for limited or indefinite leave to remain.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Does the Minister accept that there is a difference between leave to remain and citizenship? We are talking about citizenship, and the courts were very clear about the importance of citizenship. Please do not rerun the argument that leave to remain is as good as citizenship, because it is not.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Of course I accept the distinction. There is no arguing about that at all.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, raised the point that the provisions in this Bill are about righting historical wrongs, and I assure the Committee that it remains our intention to continue to adopt the approach of not charging fees in instances where unfairness or injustice has occurred. But as I tried to outline above, this is not a matter for the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Horam noted, it should be remedied through secondary legislation in line with other changes to immigration and nationality fees, as far as applications for British citizenship are concerned. Administration of British Overseas Territories citizenship applications is a matter for the overseas territories. We have consulted with them about the new nationality provisions; that applies to all the amendments except Amendment 13.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I apologise to the noble Lord. On the previous point about regulations for fees, the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in fact anticipates regulations. It limits the amount of fees that can be paid, but does not seek to use primary legislation to set the specific fee.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
If we were to remove or amend fees during the passage of this Bill—I have said this before—it would undermine the existing legal framework, without proper consideration of the sustainability of the system.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Will the Minister clarify what he just said? The existing legal framework has itself been undermined by a decision of the High Court. Is that not something we now need to rectify? From the expression on the Minister’s face, I think he is coming to that and I am grateful to him. To return to the point that has been repeatedly made about not specifying the amount of money in the Bill, this amendment does not do that. It seeks to create a context in which fees can be charged, in which the cost is no more than the administrative cost. The point the noble Lord made about taxpayers is dealt with in this amendment. I hope he will concede that and, when he does, will he confirm the remarks by the previous Home Secretary that what is being charged at the moment is
“a huge amount of money”?
Is that the view of the current Home Secretary, the right honourable Priti Patel?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, that it is a lot of money is not in dispute. I am coming to the part that deals with the various reviews and the High Court judgment, so I hope the noble Lord will bear with me for a second. I think this will address his other questions.
Amendment 13 was put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. I note that this new clause is identical to one considered in the other place. That the noble Baroness has put it to this Committee to consider leaves us in no doubt about the strength of feeling on this matter, and this debate has reinforced that.
Proposed new subsection (2) would prevent the Secretary of State charging a fee to register as a British citizen or British Overseas Territories citizen if the child is being looked after by a local authority. I just mentioned that as well. The Government already have waivers in place, which I referred to, that will allow any child looked after by their local authority, irrespective of nationality, to apply for both limited and indefinite leave to remain, which I accept is not the same citizenship, without being required to pay application fees. This ensures that children in local authority care can access leave to remain, and the benefits of living, working and studying in the UK, without having to pay a fee.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The noble Lord acknowledges that leave to remain is not the same as citizenship. When we last discussed this, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, accepted that this is not an argument that this House will accept. Please do not keep putting that argument, because it does not wash here.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I assure the noble Baroness that I am not going to try it again today.
Proposed new subsection (4) would require the Secretary of State to take steps to raise awareness of rights under the British Nationality Act 1981 to be registered as a British citizen or British Overseas Territories citizen among people possessing those rights. The Government publish information about becoming a British citizen on GOV.UK and we are committed to ensuring that such information is fully accessible by all.
Going on to the Supreme Court, pretty much every speaker has alluded to the fact that child citizenship fees have been the subject of a legal challenge brought forward by the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens, and that this litigation has not yet concluded. We await the final judgment of the Supreme Court hearing, which took place on 23 and 24 June 2021, so that we can take proper account of the Supreme Court’s views. I believe that judgment is due next week, to confirm what I think has also been said here. In the meantime, the Home Office will continue to charge the fees set out in the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations 2018.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am very sorry to interrupt yet again, but I pointed out that the appeal that has gone to the Supreme Court is a completely separate legal point from the one that requires the Home Office to carry out a best interests review. Why do the Government keep putting this argument when it has been over a year since the judgment? Why can they not produce the best interests review now? It has nothing to do with the appeal to the Supreme Court.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I was just coming to that.
The Government are currently carrying out a Section 55 assessment, in tandem with the best interests review, in relation to the child registration fees. I cannot predict the outcome of that assessment, but that does not necessarily mean that the fees will change. I cannot give the noble Baroness the assurance she seeks on when it will be published, but the reviews are ongoing.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I cannot answer that, I am sorry. I will write on that.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I promise not to intervene again, but before the noble Lord leaves this point, is he not inviting the Committee to be like Don Quixote and to tilt at imaginary windmills? As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, pointed out, this is not the substance of the continuing action in the Supreme Court. The question of the cost of the fees was dealt with by the High Court. The Home Office lost. Surely that is the issue that should be laid to rest in these proceedings.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, they are all part of the same debate. As I said, I cannot pre-empt the Supreme Court’s decision or the outcome of the ongoing review, for which I obviously apologise. I would like to give him the answer he seeks, but I cannot.
Lord Deben (Con)
When the court has said that this is illegal, why do the Government not accept what the court has said? Or are the Government setting themselves up against the court and deciding that it is not illegal? If it is illegal, it should be changed at once.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
Again, with respect to the noble Lord, we are awaiting the further judgment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry, but the lawyers behind this are very clear that these are completely separate legal points. The people who appealed the Court of Appeal’s judgment were not appealing in relation to the best interests of the child. The Government accepted the best interests of the child judgment a year ago. Why do we still not have the best interests review? As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, surely the Government should have acted immediately once they accepted that it was unlawful to charge this fee without taking account of the best interests of the child.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
As I said, I do not have the answer to why it has taken a year, but I will write to the noble Baroness and all noble Lords who have expressed an interest in this subject to try to explain.
Having said all that, I hope you understand that I cannot comment on the Supreme Court’s judgment. We remain of the view that it is the right course of action to wait until the judgment—I am sorry to labour the point. Accordingly, for the reasons I have given, I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, first, we do not address each other as “you”. I know that the Minister is new to the House, but we do not use that term.
Secondly, there is a difference between an on/off decision about whether to charge a fee, as suggested by the Baroness in her amendments, and interfering with the current system, where the fee level is set by regulations. They are two different issues.
Thirdly, the noble Lord kept talking about interfering with the existing legislative framework. That is our job. We interfere with the existing legislative process by passing legislation. That is a nonsense argument.
Finally, the noble Lord talked about fees being waived in exceptional circumstances. People do not apply to register their right to British citizenship and then, when they take a look at what the fees are, say, “There’s absolutely no way that we can go ahead with this. We’re not even going to apply.” The fee being waived in exceptional circumstances does not even arise. Does the noble Lord not accept that?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The noble Lord said something about how the system relies on these fees. Could he clarify what he means? I hope he does not mean the immigration system, which is often referred to, because we are not talking about immigration here. Many of these children were born in this country.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I apologise for my inadvertent use of the word “you”. I feel suitably admonished. My apologies. To answer that question, it is the migration and borders system.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry, but that is irrelevant, because this is not about immigration. It is about the right to register for citizenship for children who have been born here or who otherwise have lived most of their lives here.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I thank everybody who contributed to this debate. I thank my noble friend for his courteousness in giving as full a reply as he is able to at this time.
I acknowledge the indefatigable campaigning skills of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the work they have done. I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester for sharing the concerns of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and his work in this regard.
I will focus on one particular aspect of my noble friend’s reply. I will not get involved in the best interests review because that is a separate argument. We need a very clear undertaking that, if the Supreme Court is to rule on the appeal as soon as next week, the Government will come forward and let us know what the scale of fees will be. I accept that the amendments I have put forward are the more radical. They say that the fees should be waived for all the reasons given during the debate: they are proving a barrier to children who, as the Government Benches and the Minister have agreed—I welcome that—should be welcomed, and citizenship should be awarded to them provided they meet the conditions. I do not think that a fee of £400 more than the cost of the work being done is satisfactory. It is unacceptable.
In the words of the Law Society of Scotland and of the Constitution Committee, I urge the Government to clarify their intention on the amount of fees to be charged under the relevant clauses—Clauses 1, 2, 3 and 7—after the Supreme Court judgment is announced, and to come forward with an amendment in this regard before Report, otherwise I will feel obliged to retable the amendments. At this moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall) (Lab)
My Lords, I probably should have consulted my absolutely authentic book of words, but I believe it is now clear that we wish to resume the Committee at a convenient moment after 2.15. I think I must have had a particularly bad night, and I do apologise to the House—no sympathy required—for the slight confusion. We will now take the lunchtime business.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Thursday 27th January 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-I(b) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (27 Jan 2022)
“Provision for Chagos Islanders to acquire British nationality
(1) Part 2 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (British overseas territories citizenship) is amended as follows.(2) After section 17H (as inserted by section 7), insert— “17I Acquisition by registration: descendants of those born in British Indian Ocean Territory(1) A person is entitled to be registered as a British overseas territories citizen on an application made under this section if they are a direct descendant of a person (“P”) who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of P’s birth in the British Indian Ocean Territory or, prior to 8 November 1965, in those islands designated as the British Indian Ocean Territory on that date.(2) An application under this section must be made before the date specified in subsection (3).(3) The specified date means—(a) in the case of a person aged 18 years or over on the date of coming into force of this section, five years after the date of coming into force of this section, or(b) in the case of a person under the age of 18 years on the date of coming into force of this section, before they reach the age of 23 years.(4) A person who is being registered as a British overseas territories citizen under this section is also entitled to be registered as a British citizen.(5) No charge or fee may be imposed for registration under this section.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow anyone who is descended from a person born before 1983 on the British Indian Ocean Territory to register as a British overseas territories citizen. They may also register as a British citizen at the same time. Both applications would be free of charge. The application must be submitted within 5 years, or in the case of a minor born before the date of coming into force, before they reach 23 years old.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley of Woodford, for their support for the amendment. The amendment would extend the right to register as citizens to the descendants of Chagossians exiled from their homeland, subject to a time limit. I am grateful to Rosy Leveque of BIOT Citizens for her help with it, and to Chagossian Voices for its briefing.
To understand the case for this amendment, a bit of history is necessary. Back in the 1960s and early 1970s, the inhabitants of the Chagos Archipelago—a British Overseas Territory which became part of the British Indian Ocean Territory—were evicted by the then British Government to make way for a US airbase on Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands. They have never been allowed to return. Not only did they lose their homeland, but their grandchildren and other descendants have no right to British Overseas Territory citizenship and, therefore, to British citizenship. Only those born on the islands and the first generation born in exile have such a right. I should perhaps make it clear that the right to citizenship should not be confused with the quite separate right of return, which is not affected by this amendment, important as it is.
The Chagossians were deported to Mauritius and the Seychelles and now around 4,000 live in the UK, but because of the unjust citizenship rules many are undocumented and children have been and continue to be deported. Families have been broken up and communities are divided, as some members have access to citizenship rights while others do not. This has caused hardship for many and has aggravated the trauma associated with exile. The lack of citizenship rights has created insecurity and made it harder to integrate into local communities.
In the Commons, in Committee, the Minister, Tom Pursglove, expressed some sympathy for the case made for the extension of citizenship rights and acknowledged that
“the Chagossians present a unique case.”—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 4/11/21; col. 644.]
He said he would “reflect further”. It all looked rather hopeful but when the Conservative MP, Henry Smith, raised the issue on Report, what looked like a half-open door was slammed shut by the Immigration Minister, Kevin Foster, which was very disappointing. Mr Smith emphasised the anomalies created, the injustices caused and that we are talking about no more than a few hundred to the low thousands of people who would benefit. So far, BIOT Citizens has identified 500 descendants. What is at stake is a small concession but one that would make a huge difference to the lives of those affected. It would also have symbolic importance for a people who have lost their homeland through no fault of their own.
Mr Smith’s amendment was rejected in a single paragraph. There appear to be two strings to the Government’s case. The first is that the amendment
“would undermine a long-standing principle of British nationality law … under which nationality or entitlement to nationality is not passed on to the second and subsequent generations born and settled outside the UK and its territories, creating quite a major precedent.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/21; col. 258.]
I am sure noble Lords can spot what a specious argument this is in this context. The only reason the Chagossians in question do not meet this condition is because they are descended from people who were evicted against their will from a British Oversees Territory. Forced and continued exile prevents them from meeting these long-standing conditions. It is not clear that the Government really understand this, but as the Junior Minister acknowledged in Committee, it is “a unique case” so no precedent would be set, unless the Government have plans to evict others from their British Overseas Territory homelands. I hope and trust that, if the noble Baroness—I think it is the noble Baroness—the Minister has been briefed to use this argument, she will scrap it now.
The second government concern is more credible. They do not want to create an open-ended right in the way that the Commons amendment did, and I think that is reasonable. This amendment therefore creates a five-year time limit for applications, following the Windrush precedent in the British Nationality Act 1981. Those aged under 18 at the time of enactment will have up until the age of 23. I am offering the Minister an opportunity to add something positive, that would be widely welcomed, to a Bill that—with very few exceptions to be found in this part of it—has been widely condemned. If this particular way of capping entitlement is not to the Government’s liking I am, of course, open to discussions about alternative means, such as a generational cap. I very much hope that the Minister will accept the amendment or a revised version of it for Report. Is she willing to meet virtually with me and other signatories to the amendment and those advising me to discuss how we might proceed? I plan to return to the issue on Report to try to put right what Henry Smith MP correctly described as an “appalling injustice”. I beg to move.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thoroughly endorse what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said, and I am very pleased to co-sign this amendment. In the first two groups that we discussed this morning, we talked a lot about righting injustices. This is an opportunity to right a gross historic wrong—a forced eviction and exile that was, indeed, ruled illegal by the International Court of Justice in 2019.
I was one of those who raised this issue very briefly at Second Reading. I do not think the Minister referred to it in her response, although I know she had a lot of issues to cover. It should be noted, though, that the amendment in the other place from Henry Smith MP at Report stage, which the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to, had the sizeable support of 245 Members, displaying the strength of feeling about the trauma and hardship of the Chagossian community that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to.
The all-party group on Chagos is a strong and active group that has long campaigned to right, in so far as is possible, the wrongs of the 1960s when, having resisted independence from Mauritius, of which Chagos was part, Britain secretly acceded to an American request to make one of the islands, Diego Garcia, available on a long lease as a “communications hub”. Of course, it later became notorious as a site for rendition flights. Anyway, the then British Government of, I am afraid, Harold Wilson, detached Chagos from Mauritius and then emptied Chagos, chucking out its inhabitants. This appeared, apparently, to be compensation for the Americans for the UK declining to get involved in the Vietnam War.
The saga is littered with lies and about-face. The UK told the UN that the Chagos Islands had no permanent population and the Chagossians were merely contract labourers. The British Indian Ocean Territory—BIOT—comprising all the Chagos Islands was detached from Mauritius and, between 1968 and 1973, the entire population of Chagos was removed. Some 2,000 people were deported to Mauritius, some went to the Seychelles and some arrived in the UK, particularly in Crawley, perhaps because it is near Gatwick, in Sussex.
As was discussed this morning, the purpose of Part 1 of this Bill is to address long-standing discrimination in British nationality law. I put to the Committee that Amendment 11 fits perfectly in this context. The original appalling injustice of the late 1960s and early 1970s perpetrated against the Chagossians has been compounded ever since, not only by their continuing enforced exile from their homeland but by the deprivation of their descendants of their citizenship rights. Had they not been evicted but had stayed in BIOT, they would have passed British Overseas Territory citizenship from generation to generation and some would have had the entitlement to be registered as British citizens or at least benefited from the Home Secretary’s discretion to so register them.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, Ministers in the other place have provided no justification for resisting the rectification of this injustice suffered by the Chagossians. The Government simply rely, in a sense, on the injustice of eviction to perpetuate the injustice. Because we had chucked them out, they were not BIOT citizens and so they cannot benefit from any subsequent citizenship rights. The Government now have an opportunity with this new clause to make substantial amends—hardly complete amends—for the wrongs done half a century ago. I suggest that it is wrong to seek to assert that correcting the nationality law consequences of this wrong would create any wider precedent, as the noble Baroness said.
By the way, if anyone wants to read the history of the UK’s perfidious treatment of the Chagossians, I recommend this booklet of a lecture by Professor Philippe Sands QC entitled Chagos: The Last British Colony in Africa – A Short History of Colonialism, a Modern Crime Against Humanity? and I will give this to Hansard so it can correctly identify it. I urge the Minister to give a positive response.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, I apologise for not being able to speak at Second Reading. I strongly support Amendment 11, which has cross-party support. I speak as a vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Chagos Islands.
My noble friend Lady Lister explained powerfully and clearly the position of this small number of people, whose ancestors were wrongly deported from their island homes and who have been caught up in big-power politics, denying them the basic human rights that we in your Lordships’ House enjoy. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, gave the whole context.
The fact is that, although all UK Governments agree that the exile of the Chagossians from their island homes 50 years ago was wrong and unjust, the present Government continue not to allow resettlement. They cite a range of reasons for continuing this injustice, including conservation, finance, feasibility, security and defence. This is irrespective of the fact that it is well known that the American base on Diego Garcia would not be threatened or impeded by resettlement on the 54 outer islands. Indeed, the UK Government committed in their 1965 Lancaster House agreement to returning the territory
“to Mauritius when no longer needed for defence purposes.”
The outer islands are not part of the defence framework. Conservation could be maintained by the Chagossians, as happens in other marine conservation areas, and there are various avenues for assistance with resettlement costs.
It is political will and respect for human rights that are lacking. This Government are acting in defiance of the UN charter on decolonisation and United Nations General Assembly resolutions, and contrary to the opinion of the International Court of Justice and the decision of the tribunal of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, in their obdurate refusal to countenance resettlement for this, I repeat, small number of people.
The all-party group strongly supports the international rule of law and the right of return. In respect of this amendment, which follows from all the events we have set out, we firmly believe that, until resettlement is permitted, Chagossians should not have to endure having loaded on them the further injustices that this amendment would remove: the separation of families, deportation and the unreasonable costs of excessive fees. The Government adopting this modest amendment, Amendment 11, would at least go some way to ameliorating the acknowledged injustice that Chagossians have endured by their exile.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, as I did this morning, I express great sympathy for the point of view expressed so eloquently and passionately by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. As she rightly said, the amendment moved in the other place was voted down because it contradicted one of our long-standing, century-long principles for who becomes a British citizen. However, as she pointed out, the new amendment deals with the point made in the other place by putting a limit on the applicability of the proposal, which is good. So we are in a better place than we were then. The noble Baroness also offered to talk, if possible, to see whether there is any other way forward on this problem.
I am also a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on the Chagos Islands. I have great sympathy for their position; it is indeed a terrible plight. An evil deed was done to those people. We are talking about perhaps only 500 people now in this context; there are more Chagossians in history, but there are only about 500 of them in this particular category at the moment.
Of course, the real villain here—my noble friend the Minister will be glad to know this—is not the Home Office; it is the Foreign Office, which, frankly, behaved disgracefully. When it examined this matter, the International Court of Justice voted 116 to six against us. For heaven’s sake, you can hardly have a bigger majority than that; I suppose you could have 192 to one or something—that is how many nations there are in the United Nations—but it was a comprehensive defeat. Not only that but, as previous speakers have pointed out, the United States Government are helpful on this matter, and the Mauritian Government have pointed out that they are willing to give the US Government a 99-year lease if they wish to carry on having a base on the island. Every base is covered. There really is no case for the Foreign Office to resist doing the right thing. Frankly, it is costing us in the international arena when we are so completely in the wrong on this issue.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady Ludford and Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Woolley, on laying this amendment. I was not familiar with this issue until it was brought to my attention, but I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will be able to take it seriously and address it.
I understand that the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 granted British citizenship to Chagossians who were resettled, but only if they were born in the 13-year window from 1969 to 1982. This has left families divided. For example, Jean-Paul Delacroix was born in 1968, and is the oldest of his siblings. At the age of 64, he wants, but cannot obtain, British citizenship; his siblings can. Having been refused, he is now here illegally and cannot even work to support himself.
In 2017, my honourable friend in the other place, Henry Smith, introduced a Private Member’s Bill—which has still had only its First Reading—and then laid in the other place the amendment to the Bill that has been referred to by noble Lords. As has been said— I find it difficult to understand their argument—the Government’s rationale for rejecting Chagossians’ right to British nationality relies on the cause of the injustice while refusing to correct it. Having forcibly resettled 3,000 individuals at the time, the injustice seems to be being compounded by refusing the small number of people who want, and I would argue deserve, to be in receipt of citizenship that opportunity. This Bill represents a chance for the Government to act on a long-standing injustice.
Amendment 11 would correct the nationality law consequences of exiling the Chagossians. Only those born there or born in that 13-year window can currently claim citizenship, but the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, would give the opportunity to all those who were born there. The five- year, time-limited window tries to address the Government’s concerns. Like my noble friend Lord Horam, I understand those concerns, but the Chagossians represent a unique case. It is hard to see this setting a precedent. I urge my noble friend the Minister to consider this concession before Report.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle signed the amendment and has asked me to speak in her place as she is unable to be here.
This is obviously a 50 year-old injustice, inflicted by the UK—by the Foreign Office, as the noble Lord, Lord Horam, suggests, so it might have been good to have a Minister from the Foreign Office here to answer our points. What was done to the Chagos Islanders—deprivation of their lands, dispossession of their community, chaos brought to individual lives—was not limited to one or two generations; it has gone on and on. True reparations would involve the right of return. This is not special circumstances or special treatment. This is justice that we can deliver, albeit very, very late. Simple justice ensures that we take responsibility for people whose lives we took control of without their consent. I hope the Minister can take this back and ensure that it becomes part of the Bill.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a founder member and, like the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, a vice-chairman of the Chagos Islands All Party Parliamentary Group. Having once had the pleasure of meeting the Chagos Islanders based in Mauritius, I rise to strongly support this amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Horam, have explained, this issue is an international scandal for which the Government are entirely responsible.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine (CB)
My Lords, I did not have the opportunity to speak at Second Reading and I apologise for that. I declare my interests in the register and want to clarify that I am speaking in a personal capacity, and I will keep my intervention very brief. I agree with every speech that has been made today, but I particularly want to reference some points made by the noble Lord, Lord Horam.
I gave a speech at the Mauritian Foreign Ministry in 2019 in advance of the United Kingdom’s court case. While my speech was wide-ranging about international affairs and Britain’s role in the world generally, I was astonished by the strength feeling that the people present, mainly civil servants working in the Foreign Office, had about this issue. They were not all affected by the Chagossians’ claims—some were, some were not—but there was a national sense of disbelief that a law-abiding, rules-abiding great power in the world was behaving in this shabby manner towards a very small number of people.
I want to pick up on one point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about the reason given by the Minister in the House of Commons as to why he would not support the amendment moved there. He said that it would overturn, and set a precedent over, years of British nationality law. My simple response to that is: the Government profess that we are increasingly bringing rights home, in terms of their assessment of the Human Rights Act and so on. But, as the noble Baroness knows very well, our courts are increasingly taking account of precedent with regard to Ministers’ intentions when they speak in both Houses of Parliament —and Parliament’s intentions when it decides to do whatever it decides to do.
So, if she has concerns similar to those expressed by the Minister in the House of Commons about setting precedent, all she would need to do when this Bill comes back to the Chamber on Report is to make it clear in her speech that she does not intend this Act—a humanitarian Act—to set a precedent in any other way. That is all she has do to reassure the House, and the courts will take account of that. I hope she will listen with great sympathy to the speeches on this matter across the House today, because that is what this small number of people deserve from us.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard from my noble friend Lady Ludford, the Chagos Islanders were evicted by the UK Government in the late 1960s and early 1970s to make way for a US naval base, and they are still exiled from their homeland. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, there are two separate and very distinct issues here. The first, as the noble Lord quite rightly says, is giving the Chagos Islands back to the islanders, which is very much an issue for the Foreign Office. This amendment is about giving Chagos Islanders nationality, and that is very much the responsibility of the Home Office, not the Foreign Office. I would also say, in response to the last speaker and to the noble Lord, that century-long precedents are not necessarily good precedents.
One impact of the eviction has been to deprive descendants of their citizenship rights. The Chagos Islands remain a British Overseas Territory and, as we have heard, were it not for the eviction, they would have passed British Overseas Territories citizenship from generation to generation. In certain circumstances, they could have acquired entitlement to be registered as British citizens and, since 2002, they could have benefited from a general discretion from the Home Secretary to register as British citizens.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, said, the Government’s objection in the other place does not hold water. The situation of the Chagos Islanders is unique and, while the other measures in this part of the Bill to address historic injustices are welcome, they are incomplete without the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, which we wholeheartedly support. As the noble Baroness explained, it is narrow in scope, focused exclusively on the Chagos Islanders’ direct descendants and limited to a five-year window, either from the date the amendment comes into force or five years from when the eligible person turns 18. The Minister will have to do more than simply repeat the words of her colleague in the other place to convince noble Lords not to pursue this matter further on Report.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I would like to express our support for this new clause. I wish to be clear about its objectives and will read from the Member’s explanatory statement:
“This amendment would allow anyone who is descended from a person born before 1983 on the British Indian Ocean Territory to register as a British overseas territories citizen. They may also register as a British citizen at the same time. Both applications would be free of charge. The application must be submitted within 5 years, or in the case of a minor born before the date of coming into force, before they reach 23 years old.”
As we have heard, the proposed new clause is intended to rectify a long-standing injustice which impacts descendants of the Chagos Islanders who were forcibly removed from British Indian Ocean territory in the 1960s. I too wish to express my appreciation and admiration of all those who have been raising and pursuing this issue over a number of years, not least my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker—although I know they are not the only ones who have been working on behalf of the Chagos Islanders.
The issue has significant cross-party support, and the case for this change was powerfully made by a Member of the Minister’s own party in the Commons, Henry Smith MP, who was supported by Members across that House. The clause, as I have indicated, would extend the right to register for citizenship to the grandchildren and other descendants of this population, and it would, as has been pointed out, apply to only a small number of people.
In the Commons, the Minister’s response was not too encouraging, suggesting that this would be too significant a departure from existing law. However, he did say that the Government had heard the strong points made and would
“continue to consider what more we could do, particularly given the low uptake of the £40 million Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office fund designed to assist this diaspora community, and we will certainly be keen to look at that and, potentially, at how it could allow those people to settle here in the UK.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/21; col. 258.]
What consideration of this issue has since occurred across Government? What have Ministers settled on as to
“what more we could do”?
In recent years, we have raised significant concerns about this Government’s ongoing foreign and defence policy as regards the Chagos Islands. The Bill provides an opportunity for a distinct and limited change to our own law—one which would have a significant impact for those affected by half a century of injustice. This is surely a unique case. Frankly, we are not setting a precedent, which is what the Government seem to have been arguing to date.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I hope that, at the end of my response, they will feel that I have at least given a partly positive response. I am aware that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, did not refer to this at Second Reading, but I am very grateful for the discussion we had—I think only yesterday—about this and other matters. I found it very helpful.
I, too, understand the strength of feeling being expressed. I both sympathise and empathise with the residents of the Chagos Islands about how they were treated back in the 1960s and 1970s. I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that return and citizenship are two different matters in relation to the Chagossians.
We recognise that some former residents of what is now the British Indian Ocean Territory missed out on rights to British nationality when legislation was last passed in 2002 to address the nationality of the Chagossians. Section 6 of the British Overseas Territories Act 2002 granted British Overseas Territories citizenship and British citizenship status by descent to any child born on or after 26 April 1969 and before 1 January 1983, where the mother was a citizen of the United Kingdom and colonies by virtue of her birth in the British Indian Ocean Territory. This measure reflected the removal of the Chagossians from the British Indian Ocean Territory and the fact that the mother of a British Overseas Territories citizen could not pass on her citizenship to a child born outside of the UK or a UK territory. The Chagossian community, however, has criticised this provision because it did not provide for circumstances where women left the BIOT before 26 April 1969 in anticipation of being required to leave, nor did the provision allow children to inherit citizenship from an unmarried BOTC father.
Here is the partly positive response to these concerns. I am pleased to say that the Nationality and Borders Bill currently makes provision to extend BOTC and British citizenship rights to any second-generation Chagossians who were not able to acquire citizenship through their mothers or unmarried fathers, due to discrimination in nationality law.
The issues are complex. As one noble Lord pointed out, some family members in the same generation hold British nationality while others do not. I agree with my honourable friend the Minister for Safe and Legal Migration, who stated in the other place that the Government are keen to consider what more we can do to support families seeking to settle here under the current system. Minister Foster has said that he is open to considering how we might use the FCDO £40 million fund package to support the Chagossians settled in the UK.
I must point out the position that successive Governments have expressed on this point. Amendment 11 would undermine the principle in our nationality law that applies to all other descendants of British nationals. Second and subsequent generations, born and settled outside the UK and its territories, do not have a right or entitlement to register as British nationals. I know that the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, seeks, as she said, to limit the right to register as a British national to current generations who must apply within a limited timeframe. This does not alleviate the Government’s concern that offering this right is contrary to long-standing government policy. It goes further than the rights available to many other descendants of British nationals settled elsewhere around the world.
The noble Baroness requested that I meet her and others interested in this matter. I always follow up on requests from noble Lords and I am very happy to meet her. We will consider the point raised by my noble friend Lord Horam about what more we can do to address concerns about the Immigration Rules. My noble friend Lady Altmann raised a point about citizenship. Of course, those without citizenship become overstayers. These are complex issues. As I said in reply to my noble friend Lord Horam, we are happy to consider what more we can do through the immigration system.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
In the light of the eloquent and compelling speeches made in this debate, does the Minister concede a distinction between people who leave a territory to settle elsewhere and people who are forcibly evicted from that territory?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I do not think that anybody in this Committee would say that what happened to the Chagossians was, by any means, acceptable to them personally. I do not think I was trying to make that case.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate. It is fair to say that there is unequivocal support across the Committee—perhaps not for the exact wording of the amendment, but for what it is trying to achieve. Noble Lords spoke very strongly. It is unusual for nothing to be said in opposition to what is trying to be achieved.
The Minister expressed her sympathy and empathy. I am afraid that butters no parsnips when it comes to what the Chagossians rightly want. As other noble Lords have said, this is a question of justice and human rights. My noble friend Lady Chakrabarti asked a pertinent question about the distinction between those who choose to leave a British territory and those who are forced out. The Minister has accepted that a wrong was done. Whichever Government were in power—I know it was my party—we share the shame. Here is an opportunity, not to put it right but at least to do something tangible that will go some way towards putting one aspect of it right.
I am desperately disappointed that the Government are still using the argument that, because the Chagossians are in the wrong place, they are subject to a long-standing principle of British law. What other group of people has been forcibly evicted in this way? As I said, we are not setting a precedent because I assume we are not planning to evict anybody else.
I thank the Minister for the offer of a meeting. Perhaps we could take a cross-party delegation to reflect the strength of feeling across the House. I hope she will think again. If not, I shall want to bring this back on Report.
My noble friend Lady Whitaker has been supporting the Chagossians for many years; I am relatively new to this issue and the legal position is extremely complicated. I may not have it completely right but there is a principle of justice and human rights, which has been recognised across the Committee. We must use this legislation to put it right. As a number of noble Lords have said, there is no better place than this part of this Bill, which is about putting right historical discrimination in nationality and citizenship law. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for now.
Baroness Hamwee
“(1A) In section 1 (acquisition by birth or adoption), in subsection (5)—(a) in paragraph (a), for “minor” substitute “person”, and(b) after paragraph (b), for “that minor shall” substitute “that person or minor (as the case may be) shall”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to bring British nationality law in line with adoption law in England and Wales. In those nations, an adoption order made by a court may be made where a child has reached the age of 18 but is not yet 19. Yet such an adoption order currently only confers British citizenship automatically where the person adopted is under 18 on the day the order is made.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I beg to move Amendment 14, in my name and that of the name of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and will speak to Amendments 15, 16, 19, 20, 23 and 24 in this group. The noble Lord apologises to the Committee—he is unwell and had really wished to be here—but I hope that the discussion this afternoon will not be an end of the matter. He and I are keen to rectify an anomaly of which he became aware through his association with Coram, and it is also a concern of the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association. There are not a large number of people affected by the point we raise but, as the noble Lord says, that is no reason to ignore a matter of principle. He suggested that we flag this up and that we might discuss it with the Minister before Report. We are lucky enough to have a Minister whose diary secretary must go mad when she hears the commitments being made during Committee days.
The issue is another anomaly. British nationality law in England, Wales and Scotland—Northern Ireland is in a different situation—is not in alignment with adoption law. In England and Wales, an adoption order may be made where a child has made an application before reaching the age of 18, as long as they are not yet 19. In Scotland, an adoption order may be made in respect of someone over the age of 18, as long as the application was made when the person was under 18. An adoption order confers British citizenship automatically only when the person adopted is under 18 on the day it was made. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said very forcefully earlier, citizenship is significant: it is about belonging as well as being a technical matter.
Coram gave the example of a young woman who completed her degree at Oxford after her mother had died of cancer, and her maternal aunt, a British citizen resident here, applied to adopt the young woman before she turned 18. The High Court ordered the adoption when she was 18 but not yet 19. I understand—and this must be quite unusual—that the Secretary of State for the Home Department was represented and did not oppose the adoption order, but the relevant section of the British Nationality Act did not operate to confer British citizenship on her, so she was left with student status due to end shortly after her degree was obtained, no basis on which she could continue to enjoy family life in the UK with her adoptive mother, and Immigration Rules making no provision for someone in her position because she did not have 10 years continuous lawful residence in the UK. I have been given other examples but I am sure noble Lords get the point—and I can see from the Minister’s face that she does.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I would like in particular to add our support for Amendment 14 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We hope that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, is feeling a lot better very soon.
Labour’s shadow Minister raised this issue in the Commons and received disappointing answers. As we have heard, the amendment would put right a discrepancy in our nationality law and adoption law. Currently, an adoption order can be made where a child has reached the age of 18 but is not yet 19, but the same adoption order can confer British citizenship only where the child is under 18. In the same order, our law provides that a person is a full member of their adopted family but also that they are not, because they cannot share citizenship with them.
The answers given by the Minister in the Commons were that 18 year-olds are
“capable of making their own life choices”,
that they can
“purchase alcohol, accrue debt, join the Army, or vote in an election”,
and so they are
“fully fledged and can theoretically live independently of other family members”.—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 19/10/21; col. 190.]
On that basis, is the Government’s argument that at 18 someone is young enough to be adopted and provided for in our adoption law, but at the same time too old to really be an adopted child and be recognised in our nationality law?
The Minister in the Commons also argued that this change would be “out of step” with existing nationality law. One can only comment that this amendment is not seeking to make a general change to our law. By its nature, it is a completely limited, clearly defined provision for a small number of children who are going through our adoption system. It is difficult to see why this would be controversial rather than a common-sense change.
I also welcome the amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and her questions to the Government. We await the response with interest. We welcome Clause 7 and recognise that its aim is to provide a means to correct further injustices, but our concerns are, first, to make sure that the clause is used and is not just a token power which the Secretary of State “may” choose to action. That is probed by Amendments 16 and 20. Will the Minister clarify whether it is the Government’s intention that the Secretary of State may choose not to allow for a person to be registered as a citizen in a case where they have been subject to a historical injustice?
Secondly, we wish to be sure that this clause is rightly a reactive and fleet-of-foot mechanism to respond to newly identified problems but that it is not an excuse to avoid making further changes in the law where these are necessary. Where a further injustice or any flaw in our nationality law is identified, the Government must amend the law to rectify that. No doubt, the Government could say in their response whether that is their intention.
On the question of the inclusion of British overseas citizens in the provisions of Clause 7, addressed by Amendment 24, the ministerial response in the Commons was unclear. At the same time, the Minister seemed to claim that the clause needed to be as flexible and unfettered as possible but also that it was right to put limits on it; to not include cases which may arise on British overseas citizenship. That would appear somewhat contradictory.
We support the amendments and await answers to the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I hope the Minister will also respond to my questions on this group of amendments.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank noble Lords for tabling these amendments to Clause 7, which will allow the Home Secretary to grant British citizenship to those who would have been, or been able to become, a British citizen, but for historical legislative unfairness, either an act or omission of a public authority or their exceptional circumstances. It also creates a similar route for governors in overseas territories to grant British Overseas Territories citizenship on the same basis.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I agree with the Minister that Clause 7 is positive and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that it must not be just a token. I am obviously disappointed with a good deal of what the Minister had to say. With regard to guidance, which I am glad to hear is proposed, the reference to consultation in our amendment was not accidental. It is important, particularly when we are told that the point of this is to allow flexibility for the Secretary of State, to have the input of stakeholders.
On the point of capacity, if the current discretion is sufficient, I should have said that working on the basis of experience one should put something discretionary into statute, so that everyone is quite clear where they are. As to the transitional nature of British overseas citizenship, there are still people who are affected. The fact that there are very few does not change the position.
With regard to adoption and the need to go through a registration process and for it not just to be automatic, the Minister said that this would be considered on its merits. Just repeating those words indicates how different this is from automatic citizenship, which is part and parcel of whole adoption arrangement. She mentioned the need to be consistent with other nationality provisions. I should say that this amendment would be consistent with the arrangements for adoption that we have in the different parts of the UK. I am particularly disappointed about that, but I hear what she says and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment deletes the proposed new sections 40(5A)(a) and (b) in the British Nationality Act 1981.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I will speak also to Amendment 26 in this group and I look forward very much to hearing other noble Lords speak to their amendments in this group, which are very much on the same theme.
My amendment is perhaps a little more radical than some in this group, so, for the purposes of clarity, I am seeking to delete from the amendment to Clause 9 that was carried in Committee in the other place the proposed subsection (5A), which states that the notice to be given to a person to be deprived of citizenship, thereby notifying that their citizenship is to be withdrawn,
“does not apply if ... the Secretary of State does not have the information needed to be able to give notice under that subsection”
or if it is not
“in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country”.
I will set out my reasons for doing this.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment 27 in my name. I declare at the outset that I was born both a British citizen and a citizen of the Irish Republic.
I am sympathetic to the remarks made by my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering. She described them as radical but in my view they could be more radical, because they address what is essentially a symptom rather than the underlying disease. To understand that disease, it perhaps helps to go back a little in history. As the First World War went on, there were fantasies in this country about German spies who were everywhere. The belief grew up that the Kaiser had for many years been planting German agents here who had a remarkable ability to look like us, talk like us and infiltrate the highest levels of society. The late Lord Tweedsmuir’s novel The Thirty-Nine Steps may read to us today as a Boy’s Own story but it tapped into and encouraged a widespread national anxiety.
In 1917 the MP Noel Pemberton Billing claimed to be in possession of the Kaiser’s “black book” containing the names of 47,000 prominent figures in government and society at large who were German agents or had been blackmailed into becoming so. It was the subject of a sensational libel trial and made headlines throughout the land. This was the background to the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1918, which introduced for the first time the power to deprive naturalised British citizens, and only naturalised British citizens, of their nationality.
At Second Reading, noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, stated that the power of deprivation was introduced in 1914, but the 1914 Act merely allowed deprivation in the case of naturalised citizens who had obtained that status by fraud, making statutory a power that was always implicit. It was the 1918 Act that made the radical change. Until that point, the bond of British nationality had been indissoluble. Now it could be removed, from naturalised subjects only, in the event of disloyalty or disaffection to the monarch, for trading with the enemy in time of war, for being subject to a prison sentence of over a year in His Majesty’s dominions, and on some other essentially similar grounds.
The British Nationality Act 1948 maintained substantially the same deprivation provisions but introduced a new right for British citizens whose nationality was not wholly clear to register the British nationality that they were entitled to. I shall come to the relevance of that in a moment. The great consolidating and modernising statute that still governs our nationality law, though much amended subsequently, is the British Nationality Act 1981. It is essentially the original language of that Act that Amendment 27 in my name seeks to reinstate. Noble Lords have already recognised the historical roots of the grounds on which the Act allowed the Government to deprive a British subject of their nationality: fraud, of course, but also disaffection towards Her Majesty, trading with the enemy and serving a one-year prison sentence within five years of naturalisation, though now anywhere in the world, not merely in Her Majesty’s somewhat shrunken dominions.
Regarding deprivation, the Act made one change of capital importance. It extended the Government’s power to deprive from naturalised citizens to those registered as having a right to British citizenship. If the 1918 Act made naturalisation a sort of provisional business, the 1981 Act extended that for the first time to the small number of British citizens by right—not by birth or descent, admittedly, but those who had vindicated their nationality through registration.
We move on rapidly to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, in his place. This Act radically altered the position, extending the Government’s power to deprive to all British citizens by birth, descent, registration or naturalisation. The flowery language about disaffection and trading with the enemy was diluted to any conduct
“seriously prejudicial to the … interests”
of the United Kingdom. In a subsequent Act in 2006, it was further diluted to allow deprivation if it were merely
“conducive to the public good.”
These measures were introduced by a Labour Government but no party in your Lordships’ House has wholly clean hands in this regard, because the Immigration Act 2014, introduced by the coalition Government of Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, went even further, diluting the one constraint that the Government faced in exercising this power, namely that it could not be used if it rendered a person stateless. Under the 2014 Act, being rendered stateless is no protection if the Home Secretary reasonably believes that the person could acquire another nationality.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak to oppose the Question that Clause 9 stand part and to my Amendment 28, with my thanks to noble Lords from four different parties who have added their names. Unlike Amendments 27, 29 and 30 to 32, my proposals would not affect the grounds on which citizenship can be withdrawn, though, in partial sympathy with those amendments, and subject to hearing the Minister, I suspect that the current “conducive to the public good” criterion, introduced in 2006, as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, has just said, is broader than it needs to be.
My stand part amendment gives effect to proposals of the Joint Committee on Human Rights and your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. Grateful as I am to the Minister for her letter on Clause 9—and I really am—it does not allay my profound concerns about a new power to remove a person’s citizenship not just without giving reasons, but without ever having to tell them that you have done so.
I would like first to probe rather further the need for Clause 9, by which I mean the practical need rather than the theoretical points set out in the letter. A Written Question in my name of 5 January asked in how many cases the need to give prior notification had prevented use of the deprivation power. The Minister replied:
“Prior to the recent High Court decision in the case of D4 ... there had been no cases where the notification requirement had prevented deprivation action from taking place.”
That is an interesting admission. For a short period between August 2018 and July 2021, the Government thought they had the power to notify by merely entering a note on the subject’s Home Office file, a route which the High Court and now the Court of Appeal have declared in the D4 case to be outside the statutory requirement that a person be given written notice.
The Minister’s answer shows that not only during this period but before it, when the Government did not claim to be able to notify simply by “putting the document in a drawer”, as Lord Justice Baker put it yesterday in the Court of Appeal, there were no cases in which the requirement to give notice prevented them removing citizenship. That is perhaps not surprising, since it is enough under the existing rules, which are very broad, for notice to be sent by post or email to the person’s last known address, or to a parent, or to the parent’s last known address.
What of the one exception, the case of D4? Her own lawyers told the High Court that her whereabouts in a Syrian camp were known to the Government at the time of deprivation—government agencies had been there to talk to her daughter—and that her family continued to live at her previous address in England. If that is right, the problem was not that the ordinary rules were inadequate but that the Home Office sought to use a procedure that turned out to be unlawful. The case for Clause 9, therefore, even in a case such as that of D4, has yet to be made. I urge the Minister to remedy that defect, if she can.
I question, secondly, the scope of application of Clause 9. Amendments 25 and 26 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, would remove some of the alternative grounds on which notice can be withheld. However, with great respect, they do not address the ground that is so broad as to make the others almost redundant: the power to withhold notice whenever it appears to the Secretary of State that this is in the public interest. With or without the noble Baroness’s amendments, Clause 9 permits notice to be withheld even when notification would be perfectly feasible and when no national security concerns are in play. Its effect would be to give the Home Secretary the simple option of telling people or not, as she pleases.
The Home Office has suggested, on social media, that the power would be used only in exceptional circumstances, or only if other means of service are not practicable, or in cases of a threat to national security. If that is the case, it should say so in the Bill. Tweets and videos do not bind current Home Secretaries, let alone future ones—neither, so far as the courts are concerned, do statements from the Dispatch Box. I say to the Minister: please put it in the law.
Thirdly, there is a remarkable absence of safeguards, even by comparison with the two countries I have found whose Parliaments have been prepared to give Ministers a power to withhold notice of citizenship removal: Australia and New Zealand. In Australia, the power to withhold notice applies only to deprivations on national security grounds, and only if the giving of notice would harm security, defence, international relations or law enforcement. There are no such limitations here—and there is accountability: the Minister must regularly table a report to Parliament on his use of the power and brief the Australian Intelligence and Security Committee in writing as soon as practicable after doing so. The Australian equivalent of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, the even more indigestibly titled Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, has a standing own-motion power to review citizenship deprivation laws, something that successive Home Secretaries have refused to permit here. The withholding of notice must be reviewed by the Minister personally every 90 days, and cannot be extended indefinitely, as Clause 9 proposes, keeping the subject in the dark and rendering nugatory his right of appeal. The previous Australian independent monitor, the former military lawyer, James Renwick SC, has proposed that notice should be given as soon as reasonably practicable and always within six months of the deprivation.
New Zealand has in place a stronger safeguard still. If the Minister wishes to dispense with notice, she must apply to the High Court and, if the High Court accepts her application, it will then carry out a full merits review of the decision to deprive. Prior judicial authorisation is hardly alien to our national security culture: we apply it to TPIMs, temporary exclusion orders and a whole range of intrusive surveillance powers. Why should it not apply to this most life-changing of executive measures—the cutting of the bond between citizen and nation?
My Amendment 28 would subject the citizenship removal power on “conducive” grounds to annual review, like the other powers used to combat terrorism. The current triennial review applies only to citizenship removal resulting in statelessness, as provided for by the Immigration Act 2014—removals which, one would hope, are unlikely ever to be more than a tiny proportion of the total.
Why? A recent Written Answer said there had been 14 citizenship deprivations on conducive grounds in 2016, rising to 104 in 2017 and falling back to 21 in 2018. No further breakdown, I was told, could be provided. Why the variation? Why the huge number in 2017, and why has there still been no publication of the figures for 2019, 2020 or 2021? A security cleared independent reviewer—why not the one we already have?—needs to be able to ask those questions, hold feet to the fire and report regularly to Parliament. How else are we to know what is going on in our name?
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we are told that the provisions of Part 1 overall seek to remove historical anomalies and to remedy areas of historical legislative unfairness in British nationality law that have prevented citizenship being available to a range of people deemed to have the right to it.
Although we have already discussed some of the problems today, and possible improvements to Part 1, on the whole this part of the Bill is full of positive aspirations, and I welcome it. However, Clause 9 as presently framed stands out as jarring and negative, as it confers on the Secretary of State even more ill-defined and overreaching powers to make citizenship-stripping orders without notice and effectively without appeal, as we have heard. However, it builds on a prior problem of treating citizenship as contingent—a gift of the Home Secretary. We have a chance here to build on the theme of the intent of Part 1, which is to be able to remove historical injustice. That is why I have put my name to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, which strips back powers to the 1981 Act, as he explained.
I will not give as long a rendition of history as the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, did—his was ever so interesting —but I want to go a bit further back to look at how we got here. Way back in 1870, William Gladstone proposed a plan to require the ability to revoke the naturalisation of any individual who
“acted in a manner inconsistent with his allegiance as a British subject.”
What is interesting is that this was vigorously opposed by Lord Houghton as a
“transcendental power—more than ought to be entrusted to any man.”
Lord Houghton added that not only was this to place too much power in the hands of the Executive but that the law would also be discriminatory in dealing
“differently with naturalized than with British-born subjects.”—[Official Report, 10/3/1870; cols. 1616-18.]
Parliament then agreed with Lord Houghton, and I hope that today’s Parliament will agree with the noble Lord, Lord Moylan.
Parliament and Lord Houghton then rejected the proposal by arguing that citizenship is a right that should not be arbitrarily removed by the state—“Hear, hear” to that. Now, sadly, this Government and previous Governments enjoy far greater transcendental power than Mr Gladstone ever dreamed of. They are treating citizenship as a privilege, not a right, and they carry on apace.
Following some points made by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, on 1918, I find it extraordinary that, in 2017, more Britons have had their citizenship revoked than in both world wars combined. Since 2010, more than 150 people have been stripped of their citizenship; although, as the previous speaker already described, it is entirely unclear why and when, and what explains different figures at any time. But of course this is not just about numbers.
This amendment is drafted to undo an increasingly used power, and it would prohibit the Secretary of State making anyone stateless, other than those who have obtained citizenship through fraud or misrepresentation. I note that anyone who has obtained citizenship through fraud or misrepresentation is not a citizen at all. In other words, this is about protecting people who are citizens.
Clause 9 and the present powers are justified by the Government and in popular discussion on this issue as reserved for those who pose a threat to the United Kingdom or whose conduct involves very high harm. They are associated especially with jihadists—key dates form around 9/11, 7/7 and the rise of ISIS—and violent criminals. That explanation seems dangerous, as it allows the state to use the withdrawal of citizenship as a tool of punishment.
I make the point that citizenship is a legal status for individuals in perpetuity, with no ifs and buts. It enshrines a set of rights and responsibilities. As always when we have this discussion about the control of national borders, there is a spotlight on those trying to cross them and get in, as it were, but we do not give enough attention to the virtues of national borders for those within them. They allow the creation of citizenry with rights and the foundations of social bonds and solidarity.
Any nation state is not just an arbitrary grouping of individuals or made up of members of an abstract entity of humanity; national laws are made on behalf of citizens within a given territory and they do not apply to citizens of other nations. Democracy makes sense only within a specific place. Politicians in the UK are accountable to British citizens, not French or Australian citizens or what have you. UK citizens are then treated equally to each other within the boundaries of that nation state. They are treated equally at the ballot box or before the law. Whether bishop or builder, corporate CEO or cleaner, whoever or whatever your parents are, before the law and as voters, you are equal. That equality between citizens of any nation state means that they have different rights and duties from non-citizens.
For these special citizenship rights to mean anything, that equal treatment is crucial. Even when some of our fellow citizens renege on their duties and break the law—sometimes committing the most heinous transgressions of national law—we still do not renege on their citizenship.
We should not be squeamish about punishing British citizens who, for example, join a barbaric army such as ISIS, any more than when punishing British citizens who are child murderers or rapists. What we do not and should not do is wash our hands of our citizens because we deplore the vile crimes they have committed. Does it not exhibit moral cowardice if the state pretends it has no responsibility for dealing with the reprehensible actions committed by some of our own citizens? That is true for Stephen Lawrence’s racist murderers, Sarah Everard’s murderer or Shamima Begum’s active involvement in a death cult committed to destroying western free societies. What they all have in common, whether we like it or not, is that they are British citizens.
If ISIS and Islamist terrorism are considered special cases, as some argue, the Government should bring special legislative solutions to Parliament. Instead, the Home Secretary is given a general power to outsource British criminals to third parties, such as countries they have never set foot in, while allowing a practice that undermines and damages the very precious citizenship that British jihadis so grossly betray.
The truth is that this power given to Home Secretaries does not keep citizens safe in the UK. Instead, it creates a citizenship framework in which some are second-class citizens, their rights contingent and provisional. To those who say, “Don’t worry. Trust the Home Office not to abuse these powers. They’ll be used in only a very narrow way, directed at very particular people”, I reply: Windrush.
How counterproductive all this is. It is inevitably racially divisive and has caused huge worries and anxieties, as we have heard, among millions of British citizens, or would-be British citizens, especially those from ethnic minorities. As we noted at Second Reading, Part 9 sends a message that certain citizens, despite being born and brought up in the UK and having no other home, remain migrants in this country. While so many of our own fellow citizens feel their citizenship, and therefore all their rights, to be precarious, it makes an absolute mockery of demanding of them the duties of citizenship, such as loyalty, law-keeping, obligation to the life of the national community, and taking responsibility for the democratic future of one’s own society.
To conclude, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, cited British Future’s excellent report, Barriers to Britishness, which notes that, at a time when society can feel fragmented and atomised, when there are new challenges to a unified citizenship in the form of, for example, divisive identity politics, or in the context of many institutions that once bonded us all as citizens together having a less powerful hold and, to be honest, a trust deficit, then surely the common bonds of secure citizenship are more important than ever. In preference to this, this clause’s message—that citizenship is a privilege and that many possess it only under sufferance, depending on what a particular Home Secretary of the day, of whatever party, considers acceptable or unacceptable behaviour—is very damaging.
Let us take the opportunity of this Bill to reset the narrative. I will support a later amendment proactively promoting a positive citizenship agenda, but this amendment is a good start to this endeavour. I am also sympathetic to Amendment 32 and anything radical that secures the rights of British citizens, whoever they are, whoever their parents are and wherever they are from, and not the power to the Home Secretary.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have already spoken. It is heartening to hear voices from across the Committee raising concerns about the proposed powers in Clause 9. My contribution will be very short.
I can well imagine variants on our current conversation happening time and again, ever since the British Nationality Act 1981, which has already been referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, brought in deprivation of citizenship. Indeed, a look through Hansard would confirm that.
Since 1981, these deprivation powers have been amended and extended, including in 2003, 2006, 2014 and 2018. Each time, the rationale provided by the Government is the same: that these are relatively minor tweaks made for pragmatic reasons, with the security of the nation in mind, and that these powers will be used only in extreme circumstances, with great caution and restraint on the part of the Government. Yet it seems that these powers are never quite enough. The argument that they would be used in only the most extreme cases seems somewhat at odds with the 104 cases reported in 2017, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. At some point, it must surely become necessary for us to say that the Secretary of State has more than sufficient powers, given the gravity of what it means to be stripping citizenship away from people. Instead, it seems we are being asked to allow for the goalposts to be moved yet again—for the third time in less than a decade.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have been very pleasantly surprised to see the level of public anger that has been expressed against Clause 9. People are rightly absolutely furious to learn that there is a two-tier system of citizenship in this country, where if you have a second nationality you are at risk of the Government withdrawing your British citizenship. That is pretty grim. However, it is concerning that some people are suggesting this is something new. It is not new; it is already the law that dual citizens can have their British citizenship revoked with the very wishy-washy legal test of it being conducive to the public good.
That is why my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle has tabled Amendments 32 and 33. These will revoke the power of the Government to remove people’s British citizenship unless their citizenship was obtained by fraud or deception. Clause 9 extends the power, but simply defeating Clause 9 will not remove the power. I hope that we can work with noble Lords to remove the power on Report to eliminate this two-tier system of citizenship.
While we are discussing numbers, since 2006 the legal website Free Movement has found that at least 464 people have been stripped of their British citizenship. For comparison, in the 30 years before 2003 no one had been stripped of citizenship. So much for transparency —this could be discovered only through research, as the Government do not provide any sort of regular reporting on the figures. I ask the Minister if the Government will start doing that, so we can keep track and be fully aware of what they are doing.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, reference has understandably been made to one of the Acts which came to fruition when I was Home Secretary, and I do not resile from that. I speak this afternoon because this is a critically important debate, and the contributions so far have been both informative and enlightening.
Amendment 28 from the noble Lord, Anderson, has a great deal of merit. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for whom I have the most enormous respect and good will from working together on a whole range of other issues, that simply going back to day zero is not necessarily the best answer for the solution we are seeking. If we could find a way forward on Report that takes away the genuine fear from millions of people who believe—erroneously, but they believe it—that Clause 9 as drafted and the implementation of further measures will put them and their families at risk, then we will have done a good job in clarifying the situation.
To put things in perspective, the reason that there was a change from the early 20th century onwards has a great deal to do with the nature of dual citizenship, the way in which global movements have changed quite dramatically and the consequences of global franchise terrorism, which did not exist before. Our main threat, as we all know, up to the beginning of this century, was seen to be from the conflict in Ireland.
To be fair to the Minister, an effort to try to bring the present situation up to date is understandable, but the way it is being done is not. I do not think that the 2002 legislation, implemented in 2003, actually went too far. It was done on the back of the attack on the World Trade Center and beyond, and it was necessary to take into account the dangers that were foreseen and the people who were known to be a danger to our country. I thought that the measures taken at the time seemed to be proportionate. We can debate whether they were or were not, but it is absolutely clear that simply going further and further without justification is not appropriate in our democracy. A step back and a reflection on what it is we are trying to achieve, and why, would be beneficial.
By the way, I do not consider that the measures I was involved in were about punishing anybody. They were about protecting people from those embedded in the community who were no longer committed to our democratic society; in other words, those who had forfeited this part of their dual citizenship—citizenship of our country—because of the actions they took or were prepared to take. These were the actions of individuals, not actions imposed by government.
Let us try, if we can, to get this right on Report. If we can do that, we will take away that fear, which I think is the main reason why we should remove Clause 9.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, first, I apologise for being unable to speak at Second Reading. I have put my name to Amendment 27 in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan, who laid it out so well.
Clause 9 has shone a spotlight on legislation concerning the deprivation of citizenship—legislation that has essentially been in existence since 1918, as has been pointed out. However, the degree of power that this legislation wields has evolved over decades, most notably in 2002, 2006 and 2015. The current attempt to deprive a British person of their citizenship without even informing them in advance takes these powers to a wholly unacceptable and sinister level; powers that we would not expect in a modern democracy and, as has been said, more akin to archaic banishment laws.
As my noble friend Lord Moylan stated, this amendment would allow us to row back from the damaging legislation of recent years to the British Nationality Act 1981. It is by no means perfect, as it has certain aspects that one could question, but it is perhaps the most pragmatic and acceptable legislation that we have currently. At the very least, this amendment would go a long way to providing some degree of security to the many people who feel that they are vulnerable under the current legislation, and certainly the proposed legislation. Such legislation has crept in, often as a knee-jerk response to a single event or individual.
The Minister may argue that what I say is an over- reaction and that these powers would be used only in exceptional circumstances. But if Clause 9 is enacted into law, there is a very real danger of its misuse. The open- ended term
“conducive to the public good”
flashes red. If citizenship is revoked without notice—perhaps while someone is abroad, with the Home Secretary considering them unreachable—it is highly unlikely that that person would have any recourse to appeal by the time they found out their predicament. On a more basic level, you cannot appeal a decision of which you are unaware.
As a person cannot be made stateless according to international conventions, by default this clause has a disproportionate impact on people from ethnic- minority backgrounds who have a connection to the Commonwealth or a country where they are entitled to dual nationality. It also has an impact on people from Europe, and it impacts Jewish communities who are entitled to citizenship in Israel.
There are already examples of wrongful revocation of someone’s citizenship, in effect destroying years of their life, as in the case of the British man known as E3. He was stripped of his citizenship while in Bangladesh and stranded there for five years. He only recently had his citizenship reinstated, with no explanation by the Home Office as to its actions, no shred of evidence against him and eventually no charge. There needs to be greater transparency as to how this power is used, as the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, pointed out. Surely we cannot have a society made up of degrees of citizenship, where some are full citizens while others are half-citizens and some are perhaps a bit more than half-citizens.
Being British should not mean that people are expected to deny their ethnicity or renounce their religion, their culture, the country of their birth or that which gives them their identity. We should all be able to celebrate every aspect of who we are and still be a citizen of the state able to vote, work, contribute, raise our families and live in freedom and free from prejudice. I understand that this is not what is being disputed, but there are many people in our country right now—good, law-abiding, loyal citizens—who feel threatened, let down and even scared because they feel that they are the target of this legislation due to their ethnic heritage. There is real disquiet among minority-ethnic communities about the impact of this proposed legislation. Certainly, it does not give confidence or engender loyalty and a sense of belonging, which is what I hope the Home Office would wish to see from all those who live here.
Today, expulsion is for extreme crimes. Tomorrow, it may be for wrongfully accused postmasters or for those exercising the right to peaceful protest on some issue. After all, expulsion may be deemed to be
“conducive to the public good”.
On a personal level, I feel utterly disappointed. If your Lordships will permit me to digress, I do so by way of illustrating how others like me feel. I came to this country as a child of six in the 1960s and was subsequently naturalised—yes, I am associated with that dubious term. My late father served in what was then the British Indian Army during the Second World War. He came from Pakistan. His loyalty to the UK throughout his life was without question and his contribution notable, both in wealth creation and in public service. He was a first-generation immigrant familiar with the language and culture of his country of birth.
We now have a significant population of second, third and even fourth-generation people from the Commonwealth who know no other country than the UK. They have local accents, and they are relaxed with local cultural norms. They feel themselves to be 100% British. They are, nevertheless, in a category of those who have links to another country: that of their parents’ or grandparents’ birth. Therefore, they are potentially vulnerable to having their citizenship revoked and—if Clause 9 is enacted into law—perhaps without even the courtesy of being informed beforehand.
I believe that there is a wider debate to be had over whether citizenship deprivation as a whole is in the interests of our country. I support Amendment 32 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, in this regard.
I understand that the broad objective of this legislation is aimed at only a handful of extremists and criminals, but legislation has to be more wind-tight and watertight. What is essentially at stake here is the principle of the rights of all citizens. Are we really going to let a handful of criminals dictate our very values of fairness, justice and equality? I hope that we would trust in our justice system, one that is the envy of the world, and not perhaps a whim and a flick of an administrator’s pen.
As a six year-old newcomer, unfamiliar with the language or customs of this country, I was acutely conscious of any prejudice or discrimination, however subtle. Human beings are good at detecting such subtleties. Unlike my carefree school friends, I grew up very mindful of immigration legislation whenever it was being debated. I was also conscious of the attempts by our various Governments to address inequalities and to establish good race relations. Having recently served in the European Parliament, I can say that I am proud that the UK has done more in the area of equality, inclusion and diversity than any other country in Europe.
We have so much to be proud of as a nation, so let us not bring into law such a blatantly illiberal and divisive piece of legislation. It is not in accordance with our values and will not serve us well. I agree with the conclusion of the Constitution Committee that Clause 9 must be removed from the Bill.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Moylan and the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, to oppose Clause 9; I have added my name to both. I also lend my support to all other amendments in this group. We should support anything that allows us to think again, row back and reset in an area that has developed in ways that we could not have envisaged, and take any opportunity to put it right.
The consequences of Clause 9 are, once again, incremental changes but with far-reaching consequences. I do not intend to rehearse the arguments I made at Second Reading on the history of the state’s power to strip UK citizens of their citizenship. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Moylan, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, for comprehensively and clearly stating the history of this issue, the background, the policy, the changes and its impact.
Each change has been sold by successive Governments as small, incremental, narrow and necessary. But each change has widened further the net of who, how and why the state can strip our fellow countrymen and women of their right. Clause 9 removes the requirement for the Secretary of State to notify someone when they are being deprived of their citizenship in a broad range of loosely defined circumstances, including when it does not appear to be “reasonably practicable”. I am grateful to my noble friend for her recent correspondence, but I am afraid it provides little justification for this change, as the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said.
Today I want to make three points. The Government have stripped hundreds of citizens of their citizenship over the last decade. Indeed, as recently as 2017, we heard that over 100 people were stripped of it in one year alone. The requirement for notice was, of course, fulfilled in all those cases. The lack of a Clause 9 power did not prevent the Government acting in hundreds of cases. The case of D4, which has been mentioned by other noble Lords, was what led to this clause at the 11th hour, with little debate in the Commons. To help the Committee understand the rationale behind this clause, can my noble friend start by publishing in a single document the numbers of people deprived, the reasons for the deprivation and the ethnicities of those deprived from, say, 1981 to 2010 and 2010 to date?
Secondly, I want to talk about stripping someone of their citizenship. It strips them of their right to live in their country and of their home, their job and their right to family. It often deprives them of the only place they know and forces them to find another place in the world that may or may not accept them—often a place with which they have little if any connection and where their life may be at risk.
Clause 9 seeks to do this without even notifying the person of such a radically life-altering decision. This in reality removes the person’s right to challenge the decision, the basis of it, the accuracy of the facts on which it was based or, indeed, even whether the person stripped is the right person. My noble friend’s explanation in her letter, I am afraid, goes no further in giving any reassurance that appeal rights will be preserved with Clause 9. As the Constitution Committee said in its report on the Bill:
“The House may conclude that this clause is unacceptable and should be removed from the Bill.”
Thirdly, I want to move to a fundamental principle that we are equal before the law, entitled to equal protection and equal treatment. I think the whole Committee can agree on that. In this country, we legislate for what is a crime and publish the law, including sentencing guidelines. If we break the law, we know the consequences that will follow—and follow equally for all citizens. Yet it seems that these fundamental principles are now being eroded.
So perhaps I may ask my noble friend: if an act, a crime, carries the penalty and sentence of citizenship being stripped, should it apply to anyone convicted of that crime? Do my noble friends on the Front Bench agree that sentencing should be linked to crime, not where your grandparents or great-grandparents were born, and that a sentence should not change based on heritage or race? If my noble friends agree with that principle, they will think again and, I hope, before Report they will strike Clause 9 from the Bill, because to do anything else would mean that we further the appalling situation in which we find ourselves now in Britain that seeks to sentence predominately a minority black and brown community differently from the majority white community. Yes, that is hard to listen to, but it should disgust and disturb us in this House.
Being a citizen of this country means that, when you commit a crime, you are arrested, tried and convicted by our laws and our courts. I therefore disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett. I accept that it is hard for him to revisit his time, but it is punishment and cannot be protection, as he says it is. If the laws, as he says, were brought in as a response to the challenge of terrorism and an international terrorist franchise, surely that required an international response. So how will dumping our citizens who have shown support for that international franchise in another country—likely with less resources—protect us? I would argue that it makes us all less safe.
Finally, this clause has had a chilling effect in our country. It has provoked debates in homes in settled, established communities such as mine and those of other noble Lords. I want to mention a very personal story. When I was growing up, there were two things I remember acutely. The first was a Hitachi case containing everyone’s papers, passports and naturalisation certificates. When anything happened in our home, for example if we moved, that Hitachi case was rescued first, because the fear was real that, without that case, we might be asked to leave.
The story that I heard from my parents was this. My dad is an optimistic guy who always thought that he would build a house in the north of Pakistan in the way that many of us dream of having a villa in the south of Spain. But my mum, like many women, was more realistic and cynical. She worried that one day we would be asked to leave and go back home. I did not envisage that here I would be at 50, not quite dreaming my dad’s dream but definitely worrying my mum’s worry.
So I say to my noble friend that opposition to this clause is widespread. Most of our inboxes are full of briefings and correspondence. The clause is broadly opposed in this Committee. Today we have seen the House at its best; across it and across political divides we have had noble Lords raising their concerns. So I hope that my noble friend will think again before Report.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I want to say just a few words because I have listened very carefully, looked at all these amendments and heard some extremely good speeches from colleagues on all sides of the House. However, I am a former Immigration Minister and, looking back at legislation that I was involved in in the 1990s, there were certain Bills in which clauses came forward, we looked at amendments and, frankly, we concluded that, however good the amendments were, the clauses were unamendable and should be removed when they were not effective and where it had been clearly shown that they would have had bad effects.
I am grateful to those who have moved or spoken to their amendments, but I can think of few proposals that can offend as widely and as profoundly as the removal of people’s citizenship. Clause 9, sadly—to me, anyway, as a lawyer—is an affront to our common law, to international legal standards and understandings, and to our various human rights commitments. Critically, it could have appalling consequences for those affected.
As I stated at Second Reading, stripping people of their citizenship—secretly and unilaterally, on vaguely defined grounds such as “in the public interest”—exposes us to actions that fall short of our normal democratic standards, both at home and abroad. It also predicates many legal proceedings.
We all know that the first rule of government is to protect our citizens. I took that very seriously then, as I do know. Clause 9 would place already vulnerable people at greater risk. There are plenty of examples of this. A person may be deported to a country where capital punishment is practised, or where other inhumanities might present themselves. This proposal could hardly be described as protective, as it would open us up to accusations of double standards, which would undermine our efforts to speak out against issues such as the death penalty or cruel and inhumane practices elsewhere.
The UK has a very good and proud record of calling out injustice when it applies to other countries that show a lack of respect for human rights and international standards. At times—not often, but occasionally—we are also good at sporting spurious justifications to mask unsavoury policies. I fear that this clause would grant the UK the same sort of cover and ability to employ the same sorts of excuses to enforce policies that are otherwise indefensible and might be misused.
Citizenship is a valuable status and a clear constitutional right. The issue of revocation is, therefore, to be taken seriously. Any attempt by the state to withdraw an individual’s citizenship must have a clear and robust basis in law. It must assert the primacy of due process, including the right of appeal. Above all, it must be transparent, where the basic rights of notification of action to a subject are followed.
I fear that Clause 9 will create a process that is arbitrary and fundamentally unjust. That is why it should not be supported. I hope that my noble friend can rectify the situation before Report. I listened particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. He was quite correct; it is very difficult to see that any form of amendment could put this clause right.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, it is important to situate Clause 9 within the breadth of our immigration law as it stands. For obvious reasons, deprivation powers available to a Secretary of State to strip a person of their British citizenship were historically very tightly drawn indeed. In 2003, 2006, 2014 and 2018, these powers were significantly expanded. They may now be exercised in relation to any British citizen who is a dual national—including British citizens from birth—where the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good.
If we want to grasp how broad a power that is and how broad are its implications, we need only recall what the Supreme Court said in the Begum case last year—that this includes a situation where the person does not even know that they are a dual national and where they have little or no connection with the country of their second nationality.
The power can also be exercised in relation to naturalised British citizens even where they are not dual nationals if the Secretary of State is satisfied that the conducive to the public good test is passed because the person has acted in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK. If the Secretary of State has a reasonable belief that the person is able to become a national of another country and that belief turns out to be unfounded, the individual will become stateless.
The leading immigration law silk, Raza Husain, has said:
“This progressive extension over the last two decades has meant that it is no longer necessary to demonstrate that someone is a terrorist or a traitor before stripping them of British citizenship. Individuals may be deprived of citizenship on general public interest grounds of the sort usually invoked to justify deportation, rather than on the basis of their severing the bonds of allegiance that are the hallmark of nationality.”
It is no doubt because of the lowering of these procedural safeguards that the exercise of deprivation of citizenship is now relatively common. In the period from 1973 to 2002, there were no deprivation orders at all. I am told that, since 2011, the power has been used in at least 441 cases, with 104 in 2017 alone. Of course, Clause 9 has the potential very significantly to increase the use of this power. The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, has spoken very compellingly about the disproportionate impact that this will inevitably have on non-white British citizens.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, we have benefited from the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, because he has reminded us that, although we have heard some very moving speeches going a little wide of the mark, Clause 9 is all about how you notify the unnotifiable.
I will go back to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and declare the interests that I have in the register. We as a House have to decide what we do about the criminals who wish to do us serious and long-lasting harm in the context of this. Perhaps it is too wide-ranging, but it is a necessary bid to try to ensure that, where we have people who wish to do us harm, they are somehow prevented from our giving them, under existing legislation, the ability to do so.
I have very carefully read the judgment of the Court of Appeal, and the key question that we now have to turn our minds to is whether we wish to empower the Secretary of State to deprive a person of citizenship without giving notice. In many ways, this debate should be all about that because, speaking I suppose as a practising solicitor, I cannot find Clause 9 as a change in the policy of deprivation of citizenship—the change proposed is all about notification. So Clause 9 does not allow the Home Secretary to remove citizenship on a whim, it is not targeted at particular ethnic minorities and it does not change the reasons why a person might be deprived of their British citizenship. Clause 9 does not remove the right to appeal a decision to deprive. I cannot see that law-abiding British citizens have anything to fear from Clause 9.
We are charged by the court in the following terms. Lady Justice Whipple said this in the ruling delivered yesterday:
“There may be good policy reasons for empowering the”
Home Secretary
“to deprive a person of citizenship without giving notice, but such a step is not lawful under this legislation. If the government wishes to empower the Secretary of State in that way, it must persuade Parliament to amend the primary legislation. That is what it is currently seeking to do under the Nationality and Borders Bill”.
She concluded, which brings us back to where we are now, that
“it is for Parliament to decide,”
This has been a valuable debate, but I think we have strayed too far from the key question: how do you notify the unnotifiable?
There are evil people. I am probably one of many Members of this House who has received letter bombs and death threats. When I was in the Cabinet, I had death threats from three separate organisations. Fortunately, the Post Office intercepted the letter bombs. There are people who wish to kill us, to injure us and to destroy the fabric of our society, and we must try to focus on how we are to stop that happening.
Baroness Blower (Lab)
My Lords, I did not speak on Second Reading, but I am delighted to have been here today to have heard the speeches from noble Lords, and what an interesting debate it has been. I have learned a good deal, and I am indebted to the Bingham Centre, whose publications I now read avidly to inform myself about legislation that comes before this House.
I am rather pleased to be following the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, because I was persuaded of the problems with Clause 9 by one of the paragraphs in the analysis from the Bingham Centre:
“Clause 9 departs from the requirements of the Rule of Law by allowing a British citizen to be deprived of their citizenship without even being warned about it, or told the grounds for it. There is zero judicial or parliamentary oversight of the dispensation of notice, and the grounds can be as insubstantial as the mere administrative inconvenience that it is not reasonably practicable to give notice.”
If that is what is intended by the legislation before us, there is definitely a chilling effect, as referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, in the suggestion that this is how we should operate. I do not do demur from the argument that there will be difficulties at some point, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, but these are very wide powers and they have, as the Bingham Centre says, no judicial or parliamentary oversight at the point at which they would be invoked. Giving these powers to the Home Secretary—any Home Secretary—is unacceptable. In the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, they would be divisive and would, in my view, not accord with the values of fairness, of justice or of equality before the law.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hunt narrowed the debate to the issues that are in the clause, but the noble Baroness, Lady Blower, has widened it again by discussing broader powers. I do not have my name to any of the amendments, but I have been listening carefully to the speeches; indeed, we have been listening for the last hour and a quarter. Like other Members of your Lordships’ House I have had a volume of briefing, some of it arriving very late—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, earlier in our proceedings. It is quite hard to take it on when it arrives the morning before you are due to participate. Some of that briefing seems to be fairly hyperbolic, and I am not sure it is in terms that help a calm discussion of what has at its core the really serious point that my noble friend made about keeping people safe. Phrases such as “two-tier citizenship” do not help us to establish in a calm way what the underlying effect, impact and purpose of the clause is as presently drafted.
That said, when you pick up the Financial Times of 21 January and see that the president of the Law Society has the lead letter with the headline,
“Legal changes will put UK rights culture in peril”,
while other submissions suggest that the rule of law is being undermined, one has to sit up and take notice. I am not a lawyer, as the House will be aware, but I absolutely, comprehensively and unequivocally support the rule of law as a cornerstone of our society. So, in the couple of minutes that I have, I would like to try to pierce the fog of claim and counterclaim to see if one can reach any sort of firm ground. My respect for the rule of law stems from a lecture that I heard 50 years ago. It is our fate in this House to listen to an awful lot of speeches and an awful lot of lectures, and many of them disappear from one’s mind almost as soon as the speaker sits down, but this lecture from 50 years ago rings as true to me today as it did then. It came about because for a time after I finished university I went to live in the United States and Canada, and nearly stayed there. I went to do an MBA at the Wharton School of finance in Philadelphia. The school used to arrange for outside speakers, eminent people in various fields, to come and talk about their experiences.
One such person was a Cambridge University professor called Peter Bauer, later a member of your Lordships’ House as Lord Bauer, of Market Ward in the City of Cambridge. Peter Bauer was Jewish, born in Budapest in the closing years of the Austro-Hungarian empire, 1914-15, and his great contribution was looking at the role of development economics and how we manage to deal with it. That afternoon, he explained how no country could hope to survive without two things: the rule of law and respect for property rights. He went on to say that the rule of law was not an absolute; it was relative, and it depended on what he called the informed consent of a population—that is, if a large proportion of the population, having heard the arguments, had an informed position and did not agree with it then the rule of law was not assisted but undermined. In his view, to use an oft-quoted phrase, the law is too important to be left to the lawyers. In considering the difficult issues raised by the speeches and by Clause 9, I would like to test them against the Bauer “informed consent” test. In that sense, I have drawn certain conclusions but I am not on the Front Bench, so I hope my noble friend can reassure me that the interpretation I have made of the clause is in fact in accordance with reality.
Let us assume that we are on the lower deck of the Clapham omnibus. The passengers on the Clapham omnibus are our fellow citizens. They are a questioning crowd. They do not think the Government always have a lot to offer, and they think political parties of all persuasions probably have rather less. If we were to begin by explaining to them that our wish was to discuss the issue of the deprivation of citizenship, they would begin by asking, “Are the Government proposing to change the basis on which citizenship can be removed?” As I understand it, the answer is no. “If there is no change to that,” they would say, “then what is the change going to be?” The answer would be that if, after reasonable effort, the person who had done terrible things to our country could not be found, citizenship could be removed without notice being given directly to the person affected.
The people on the bus might then ask us, “If this change were not made, would people be able to hide themselves away to evade justice?” The same question might be asked about people who happened to live or ended up in war zones or areas of conflict. We would have to tell them that that would mean that they could not have their citizenship removed, because we could not reach them. Because they are suspicious of the Government, the travellers on the bus would ask, “Could the new procedures be appealed against, or are they just a fiat, without any appeal?” I understand that they can be appealed against. Because it is a Clapham omnibus, there will be people from all parts of our community, minority as well as majority, and they would want to be reassured that this was not going to be used, as my noble friend Lady Warsi suggested, against one particular part of our community. There is no evidence that I have seen that it is so designed.
Finally, I think they would say, “How big a problem is this?”. In particular, the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, “How many people have had their citizenship removed on the grounds that it was not conducive to public good?” That is a big catch-all. I understand that fewer than 20 people on average have had their citizenship removed in recent years. Will my noble friend confirm that? If we had informed consent of what was planned on the Clapham omnibus—if Peter Bauer’s test was used—I think people would understand why this was being done.
We have heard a lot about the important moral case for protecting the position of everybody in our society, including that very small number of people who set out deliberately to do us terrible harm. However, as we struggle to balance the conflictive needs of freedom and security, we must not overlook the moral case for the silent majority—the millions of our fellow citizens who look to the Government to keep them safe and who do not expect offenders to be able to evade the consequences of their actions.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am not a lawyer either, but like my noble friend Lady Blower I have read the Bingham Centre’s report on this. I want to draw your Lordships’ attention to one aspect of it, which I do not think has been mentioned—I apologise if it has. There have been so many good speeches, particularly from the other side of the House, and across the House.
According to the report, the clause includes a retroactive power which would allow what was not lawful at the time to be made lawful now. The report suggests that this is retroactive lawmaking of the worst kind and particularly offends the rule of law. I think we should do away with the clause altogether. I have also read an article by Dominic Grieve, the much-respected former Conservative Attorney-General, on the “ConservativeHome” blog, which I must admit is not normally at the top of my daily reading list. It is an instructive piece. I will not read at length, because time is getting on, but he calls it,
“using legislation as a form of propaganda”
That is from a former Attorney-General and worth taking note.
I also draw attention to the fears that this is creating in the wider public. I have just had an email saying that over 100 organisations have written an open letter to the Prime Minister asking that this clause be removed. I hope that, when we come to Report, the House will remove this clause, which offends the rule of law.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am also not a lawyer, but we have Amendment 29 in this group and we join the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, in opposing the Question that Clause 9 stand part of the Bill. I accept that Clause 9 is about giving notice, but the amendments in the group go beyond that. The main concerns that this group addresses are the significant increase in the use of the power to deprive British citizens of their citizenship and the new provision of dispensing with the requirement that the Secretary of State requires notice to be given to a person deprived of citizenship.
There have been many detailed and compelling speeches and I do not intend to repeat them, but I will refer to the powerful and personal speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, about how this provision is affecting some British citizens. This is not going to affect some British citizens, like me, at all, but when you hear her personal recollections of the fear that this clause is generating and about the importance of the family attaché case—reinforced by the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik—you understand that, although it may not be targeting particular communities within the cohort of British citizens, it is certainly causing distress among certain parts of that cohort.
To answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, on what we do with those people who wish to do us harm, I say that we prosecute them in the courts. We do not dump them on other countries.
Depriving someone of their citizenship is a very serious step to take and it is being taken with increasing regularity. To then do away with the requirement even to notify the subject is totally unacceptable. How can anyone take any steps to correct or challenge a decision that they know nothing about? The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, talked about how we notify the unnotifiable. Even in the case that he and other noble Lords referred to, which has been in the courts, the individuals were not uncontactable; they were not unnotifiable within the law. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, explained, notice could have been served on that individual, but the Home Office chose not to. In the figures he gave about how many times that has stopped the Home Office from serving notice on somebody of deprivation of nationality, the answer was zero. Clause 9 is not only unreasonable but, based on the facts, unnecessary as well.
With the increased use by the Secretary of State of the power to deprive a British citizen of their citizenship, we support Amendment 28 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, which says that reviews of the use of the power should be annual and not every three years. We also agree with Amendment 27 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, to restrict the circumstances in which someone can be deprived of their British citizenship. My noble friend Lady Hamwee will address our Amendment 29, which removes the power of the Secretary of State to directly deprive a British citizen of their citizenship, requiring an application to be made to a court.
We agree with the principle behind Amendments 32 and 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, that the powers the Secretary of State has to deprive British citizens of their citizenship need to be curtailed and the process made more transparent, but we believe that our Amendment 29 achieves those objectives.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I sense very well that the Committee would like to move on, so I will be much quicker than I had intended to be, but my noble friend Lord Paddick has asked me to speak to Amendment 29. Before I do so, I cannot resist rising to the challenge about my party’s involvement in the 2014 legislation. Perhaps after this debate I will explain to the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, the concessions gained in negotiation at that time in response to the agreement.
Amendment 29 would change the requirement from an assessment of conduciveness, if that is a word, to the public good to necessity in the interests of national security. I thank the Minister for her letter following Second Reading. I could not help thinking that the two examples she gave of where Clause 9 could apply probably were matters of national security. She says so for one example, and the other is where it is assessed to be
“in the interests of the relationship between the UK and another country”.
That must be very close to national security, unless the issue is a very long way away from the other country’s security, which would not be a good basis on which to move forward. The amendment would change the requirement of an order to allow for judicial involvement. These two examples actually show why the matter should go to a judge.
I am editing my speech as I go. Reference has been made to particular communities being especially affected by this provision. I say to the passengers on what, in my neck of the woods, is the 337 bus to Clapham that something does not need to be designed to have a particular effect. If it has that effect, it falls into the area we are concerned about.
Our amendment would also add to the exclusions a person holding British citizenship by birth, and where it would
“affect the best interests of a child in the family”.
That is looking at a fairly wide family. Use of the power would require an annual review, which I think is in the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened to this debate with enormous care. I have conflicting feelings about it. I do not know whether I am prouder of the quality, logic and humanity of so many of the speeches, particularly from the Benches opposite, or whether the more compelling emotion I feel is anger that the speeches even had to be made. Unsurprisingly, I will speak against Clause 9 standing part of the Bill and in favour of the various amendments attempting to dilute its pernicious effect—and even more in favour of the proposed new clauses that attempt to go further.
I almost feel as if I and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, have listened to two completely different debates. The absolute tour de force by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and other speeches on these new clauses were not wide of the mark, because they quite rightly acknowledged that Clause 9 deals just with notice. They conceded that point, but talked about the rot that goes further back in terms of two-tier citizenship and the more precarious version of citizenship that some people are coming to experience because of the increasing use of powers of deprivation, and because these will inevitably have to be used more against some groups within the citizenry than others.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her letter to all Peers of 25 January. If I understood correctly what the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, said, I rather gather that it did not make a great impact on her. I am probably in the same category. Nevertheless, I appreciated receiving the letter.
I have added my name in relation to Clause 9 standing part of the Bill, which was spoken to with such clarity and authority by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and will speak to that. No doubt there will be a need for some reflection on all the amendments in this group, as well as the stand part debate, as to what may or may not happen on Report.
Frankly, through Clause 9, the Government—metaphorically speaking, I stress—take no prisoners. They seek to amend the long-standing position, under the British Nationality Act 1981, that an individual must be notified if they are to be deprived of their nationality. That requirement of prior notice is removed by Clause 9
“if it appears to the Secretary of State that … the Secretary of State does not have the information needed to be able to give notice … it would for any other reason not be reasonably practicable to give notice … or … notice … should not be given … in the interests of national security … in the interests of the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country, or … otherwise in the public interest.”
The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, made particular reference to that last part on the basis that it is so broad and wide-ranging.
Yet, as we know, the present rules already allow for citizenship deprivation letters to be delivered to an individual’s last known address. As the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, pointed out—this was repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick—the Government said that there have been no cases where the requirement to give notice stopped a deprivation of citizenship order coming into being. Of course, that begs the question: why do we have Clause 9 at all? I do not think that we got an answer to that in the letter from the Minister of 25 January 2022.
The number of people deprived of their citizenship, which the Government can now do on the basis that it would be
“conducive to the public good”,
has risen over the past 12 years. We have heard a variety of figures during this debate as to the extent of that deprivation and the numbers involved. I have a figure, too. It does not tally with some of the figures that have been given but the figure that I have is that, between 2010 and 2018, around 175 people were deprived of their citizenship on the grounds that it was conducive to the public good. A significant number happened in 2017, as has been said; the figures certainly seem to be on an upward trend.
In that context, information on the Court of Appeal decision that has been referred to that upheld a High Court ruling—the D4 case—says that the Home Secretary
“argued that notification had been given to D4, who has been detained in the … camp in Syria since January 2019, by simply placing a note on her Home Office file, relying on regulations introduced without parliamentary approval.”
Under Clause 9, we are faced with even wider powers being given to the Home Secretary. In the light of a note simply being placed on a Home Office file, relying on regulations introduced without parliamentary approval, how are we expected to have any confidence in the provisions of Clause 9 being applied fairly and objectively when this kind of thing is going on and has been brought to our attention? In how many cases has this been done, with a note simply being placed on the Home Office file? It certainly does not inspire confidence in giving the Home Office the kind of powers that are provided for in Clause 9. I know that the Minister will tell me that these powers relate only to the notification of a decision to deprive, but it is the criteria against which the conclusion can be reached to give notification of a decision without notice that are of concern.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this late Thursday afternoon, and those who tabled Amendments 25, 26, 27, 28, 32 and 33, for their contributions, which have made it a very lively debate. Some 14 noble Lords talked about wider deprivation, which is obviously not in Clause 9, and five noble Lords spoke on Clause 9 itself. I would like to address some of the most irresponsible scaremongering surrounding Clause 9 that I have probably ever heard. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts says, there have been some quite overblown comments today.
It is very important to be clear about what Clause 9 is and what it is not. It is not, as my noble friends Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts and Lord Hunt of Wirral said, an amendment to the deprivation power that has been in force for 100 years. It does not allow the Home Secretary to remove citizenship on a whim. I look forward to a conversation with my noble friend Lady Mobarik, as I was concerned by her level of fear on this. Clause 9 will not strip 6 million people of their British citizenship without warning. It is not targeted at particular ethnic minorities, and it does not change the reason why a person may be deprived of their British citizenship. It does not remove the right of appeal against a decision to deprive law-abiding British citizens, like my noble friend Lady Mobarik, of their citizenship; they have nothing to fear from Clause 9, nor does the mother of my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, or the grandparents of my noble friend Lady Warsi. They could not be deprived because they have done nothing wrong.
I might add here that the people who need to declare any interest or concern are not those of the Windrush generation, not Jews, not Muslims, and indeed not Catholics such as myself with dual nationality, but terrorists—people who would actually do us harm. I glean from the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that she does at least support the removal of citizenship in fraudulent applications, if I understood her correctly.
I will start by addressing the amendments relating specifically to Clause 9, and then move on to the amendments that focus on the wider deprivation power. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for Amendment 28. I reassure him that the Government have repeatedly made clear that all deprivation decisions are taken carefully, after full consideration of the facts, and in accordance with domestic and international law. I do not think he disputes that. The decisions are, as he knows, already subject to judicial oversight via the statutory right of appeal, and individuals are also able to seek judicial review proceedings, where appropriate, on any aspect of the decision-making process not captured by the statutory right of appeal.
In addition, the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration has a wide remit to inspect any aspect of the immigration and nationality system, and at any time can review the use of deprivation powers. The Home Secretary can also commission specific reviews, as desired, which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, referred to, particularly with regards to their frequency. I look forward to speaking further with him on that that before Report. He will also be aware that the Supreme Court of Appeal and SIAC, the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, have recently affirmed the Home Secretary’s competence to decide on matters of national security.
The noble Lord commented, as did the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, on the number of cases in 2017 and the status of figures since then. The rise in 2017 is due to the large increase in global terrorism. More broadly, I want to assure the noble Lord that the Home Office is committed to publishing its transparency report into the use of disruptive powers, and will do so in due course. I look forward to continuing to engage with him on this matter and others pertaining to this Bill.
My noble friend Lady Warsi asked about the numbers, and I think others did, since 2010. There was an average of 19 between 2010 and 2018. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, also asked about the comparison with Australia and New Zealand, and kindly shared his papers on this with myself and my officials. I have listened to his points extremely carefully, and I intend to consider them carefully and to continue to engage with him outside this Committee.
Amendments 25 and 26 would mean that we could not deprive a person of British citizenship purely because we did not know where they were and could not get the notice to them. We would be reliant on people whose conduct is serious enough to warrant deprivation keeping in contact. It is not correct to say that we will not ever have to notify someone of deprivation. Of course, if they come back to the UK—and most of them are outside the UK—they will find out; if they do not, one presumes that they did not try to when they came back or do not care.
I move now to the amendments relating to the wider power to deprive someone of citizenship. This is an extremely serious matter and is rightly reserved for those whose conduct involves very high harm or poses a threat to public safety, or those who obtained their citizenship by fraudulent means. The UK Government are absolutely clear that no one citizen should have the right to destroy the lives of other citizens in this country.
As I have mentioned, it cannot be right that we risk the UK’s interests to make contact with dangerous individuals who wish us harm, nor is it right to allow them to exploit a loophole in legislation and retain the benefits of British citizenship simply by removing themselves from contact with the Government or relocating to a place where we could not reasonably send them notice. Amendment 32 would completely remove the ability of the Home Secretary to make a deprivation decision in relation to those high harm individuals. Deprivation would then be possible only where a person has obtained citizenship by fraudulent means.
We have sadly often seen the effect of terrorist attacks on our way of life or the impact of serious organised crime on the vulnerable. The threat picture, as noble Lords have spoken about, is in direct correlation to deprivation—in other words, an increase in the threat picture leads to an increase in the number of deprivations. The 464 figure that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, cited combines both the fraud and conducive to the public good figures. It cannot be right that these people keep their British passports and remain free to come in and out of the UK as they please. It is the Government’s duty to keep the public safe, and we do not make any apologies for seeking to do so.
But I understand the concerns about “secret” decision-making. Deprivation decisions are made following very careful consideration of advice from officials and lawyers and in accordance with international law. Some of that consideration involves sensitive information and evidence, as noble Lords might be aware, and it would not be in the public interest if that evidence were made public. For example, it could jeopardise ongoing criminal investigations or undercover operations and thus harm those working on behalf of the Government to keep us safe. That is why appeals against a deprivation decision relying on such evidence are heard by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, or SIAC. Amendment 33 would remove the ability to rely on this sensitive evidence, because with no means to securely air it at the appeal stage, the Government would not be able to take deprivation decisions in these cases. Also, removing the public interest test for certification of deprivation decisions into SIAC risks creating an anomaly within the immigration and nationality system as grounds for certification are the same regardless of case type, and the special advocate system and rules of court ensure that any evidence which can be heard in open court is done so.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, I think my noble friend has been misadvised in characterising Amendment 27 as imposing any new or further restriction on the power to deprive in the event of obtaining nationality by fraud. That simply is not so; they have misconstrued that clause. Can I ask her a very narrow question? She referred in her speech to the use of deprivation in cases of serious organised crime. Did she mean serious organised crime apart from terrorism?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It could encompass both, but in the context of what I am talking about, some serious organised crime is outside of terrorism.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Can I just a question that relates to that? A picture has been painted of a group of people darting over borders with their passports, getting away with serious organised crime and terrorism. I wondered why somebody did not stop them if they were involved in serious organised crime or terrorism and bring them in, as it were. What about those people involved in serious organised crime and darting over borders who do not have a parent or grandparent that means they are potentially able to live in another country? Are the Government suggesting that the harm British citizens are being protected from is all committed by people who are coincidentally related to somebody which means that they can go and live somewhere else? Are there no home-grown, with nowhere else to go types doing any of this harm that threatens British citizens?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Of course there are home-grown people trying to do harm to our British citizens, but this is one of a number of powers to try to reduce high harm activity against the people of this country.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
As a follow-on from the noble Baroness’s question, I have a question that I asked in my initial intervention. Why should they be treated differently? Say one person is involved in serious organised crime, such as major drug dealing, child trafficking or sex trafficking offences, and another person commits exactly that same offence, and say both of them were born in the United Kingdom, raised in the United Kingdom, have never lived anywhere else and have never taken citizenship of any other country. If they commit exactly the same crime, why should one be told to leave and the other not?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, what I think I have tried to explain today—and it will be obvious that are clearly differences between us—is that, where the highest harm individuals can rely on another citizenship, the Home Secretary has within his or her power the ability to remove that citizenship. Of course, the one citizenship that is protected is when someone is only a British citizen and of no other territory.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, this debate has been very moving in parts and extremely thoughtful, and I thank everybody across the House who contributed.
I, for one, am not unsympathetic to what the Government are trying to do. To tackle my noble friend Lord Hunt full on, I think he said that if Parliament does not accept Clause 9 then the Committee, or Parliament, will try to stop the Government from doing it. From what I have heard from the debate today, I think that is precisely the mood of the Committee and the conclusion that we have reached.
There are a number of alternative amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, have come to blows, if you like, as to the purport of Amendment 27. There are parts of the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, that I find attractive, in particular removing the whole of Clause 9.
Member’s explanatory statement
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure that, in compliance with Article 1 of the 1961 UN Statelessness Convention, British citizenship is only withheld from a stateless child born in the UK where the nationality of a parent is available to the child immediately, without any legal or administrative hurdles.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I again refer to my membership of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We have produced detailed reports on many aspects of the Bill, including on this matter.
It is surely a basic right that nobody should be stateless. This is fundamental. Stateless people have fewer rights—they have virtually none—and they are vulnerable. I have tabled this amendment to avoid statelessness.
As things stand, stateless children born in the UK are covered by this provision in the Bill. Prior to the British Nationality Act 1981, all children born in the UK were British under jus soli. As I said earlier, I served in the Commons at the time—indeed, I was on the Public Bill Committee which dealt with this Bill for many long weeks—and we had a long discussion about jus soli, and I only hope that the position I took then is the same as the one I am taking now—in other words, in opposition to the provision. I think I can claim that I have been consistent over 40 years; I hope so, but if anyone wants to look it up in order to disprove it, I will listen to them.
Clause 10 has a new requirement that will make it more difficult for stateless children to acquire British citizenship. It puts another hurdle in the way of acquiring that citizenship. The onus will now be on children—or, if they are very young, the people responsible for them —to produce the evidence, unless the Home Secretary is satisfied that the child is unable to acquire another nationality. The provision will effectively mean that a child born in the UK, or their parents or carers on their behalf, will have to prove that they could not reasonably have acquired another nationality—so the onus is on the child, or the parents or carers, to prove that. That may be quite a difficult point to prove, and the onus is switched in allocating the burden of responsibility. That could be especially hard for children who do not have significant support or access to the relevant documents. For example, the children of refugees might find it very difficult to have the necessary documentation or to be able to produce the evidence, so it would put a significant additional burden on them.
It is an anomaly that when children become adults they can apply. It remains an oddity that a child can remain stateless for some years until they become an adult, when they can then apply. What is the advantage to anyone of having a child stateless for that period? It certainly cannot be in the best interests of the child, and that surely must be the bottom line. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child always talks about what is in the best interests of the child; Article 7 says that a child should be registered as having a nationality immediately after birth. That is fairly clear. Furthermore, it says that a contracting state shall grant its nationality to a person born in its territory who would otherwise be stateless. With this clause, the Government are going against these provisions in the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
It is difficult to see how Clause 10 complies with the United Kingdom’s obligations under both the 1961 United Nations Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. It is an unnecessary measure that makes things even more difficult. I can see no argument, not even the security arguments that the Minister advanced in the previous debate, for putting this hurdle in the way of children who might otherwise be stateless. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Dubs and the proposal that Clause 10 should not stand part of the Bill. I put on record my thanks to the Joint Committee on Human Rights for the very helpful work that it has done on the Bill, with a whole raft of very useful reports. According to ILPA and the Bar Council, this clause contravenes the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, and that should give us pause for thought. Research by the European Network on Statelessness shows how some children in very vulnerable circumstances will be affected, as my noble friend said, and found that there can be good reasons for delays in registering a child’s nationality.
To my mind, the justification that the clause is needed because there has been a significant increase in the number of registrations of stateless children smacks of the culture of disbelief and suspicion criticised by Wendy Williams in the Windrush report. Surely it is to be celebrated that more children are exercising their rights—no thanks to the Home Office, which has been dilatory in making children and their parents aware of these rights and in removing the barriers to registering them. It is thanks to the hard work of organisations such as the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens that more children and parents have become aware of the right to registration. As I say, this is to be commended, not cracked down on as if it were some kind of crime.
As the JCHR observes, and Amendment 31 addresses —a point made also by my noble friend Lord Dubs—it is difficult to see how this clause is compatible with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. While the Home Hoffice human rights memorandum states that it has considered the best interests of the children affected, it is not clear from it how such a clause is in their best interests, so can the Minister spell out exactly how this clause meets the best interests of children affected?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I agree with the noble Baroness that we have done good work on the Bill. On a more serious note, perhaps I may say how much we appreciate the chairmanship of the right honourable Harriet Harman MP, whose recent bereavement has saddened us so much.
I will speak to both Amendments 30 and 31. As has been said by other noble Lords, Clause 10 amends the British Nationality Act to introduce new requirements for the registration of a stateless child—a child born in the UK—and could make it even more difficult for them to acquire British nationality, to which there are already significant hurdles. I could not agree more with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. Why should it be a problem that children are becoming stateless and ceasing to have the security of nationality?
Under Clause 10, the Home Secretary has to be satisfied that the child is unable to acquire another nationality. That puts that child in the position of having to prove that they could not reasonably have acquired another nationality. The policy rationale seems to be a suspicion that parents are wilfully causing their child’s statelessness—the culture of disbelief that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to. As colleagues and the JCHR say, it is difficult to see how the best interests of the child, as required by the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, are served by the new test in this provision. How is it in that child’s interests to be left stateless?
Indeed, asserts the JCHR, Clause 10
“risks punishing the child for a perceived failure”
on the part of their parent or carer, which is obviously through no fault of their own. However, the UN convention does not impose a requirement on the parent to exhaust all avenues to seek the citizenship of another state. So Clause 10 could move the UK away from the convention. I was interested that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, quoted ILFA and the Bar Council as saying that they do indeed think that this is a contravention of the convention, and I can see why. Amendment 30 is an attempt to move the UK back towards the intention of the convention by saying that British citizenship could only be withheld
“where the nationality of a parent is available to the child immediately, without any legal or administrative hurdles.”
Amendment 31 aims to make the best interests of the child central to the decision-making.
Finally, in addition to the risk of alienation from our society of individual children, it cannot be in the interests of British society as a whole for young people born here to be excluded from sharing citizenship and thus rootedness in their community.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support the amendments and the proposal that Clause 10 should not stand part, and my noble friend Lady Bennett of Manor Castle has also signed them. We should be making it as easy as possible for children to obtain a nationality if they are already stateless. Quite honestly, who dreams up these cruel clauses at the Home Office? Do they not have a heart when they are writing these things? Do they not understand the impact that they can have on children through no fault of the child? The decision should be made purely in the best interests of the child, as provided by Amendment 31. I hope that the Government change course and make this as easy and straightforward as possible. People outside are looking in and are judging this to be cruel, unpleasant and perfectly horrendous.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I am trying to imagine how it could ever be in the best interests of a child born and raised in this country not to be given the right to be a citizen of this country. In what possible circumstances could we decide that it would be in the best interests of someone born and raised in this country to be decreed, at the age of 13 or 14, a citizen of another state? That is the situation. You could almost forget the 1961 convention, human rights and so on; we are simply talking about the best interests of the child. You can then back it up with all the international stuff on top. I support these amendments.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, Clause 10 talks about, to quote the Explanatory Notes,
“cases where parents have chosen not to register their child’s birth, which would have acquired their own nationality for their child, which means that the child can register as a British citizen under the statelessness provisions.”
I seriously question how many parents have such a detailed understanding of nationality law that they choose not to register their child’s birth in order to register their child later under statelessness provisions to give them British citizenship. That is just not credible. How many cases can the Minister cite where parents have deliberately not registered the nationality of their child in order for that child to get British citizenship under the statelessness provisions?
This strikes me as a cynical attempt to tighten the law, in a similar way to that in which the Bill tightens the provisions around modern slavery, to give the impression of being tough—bordering on xenophobic —on immigration, when there really is not a problem. It should not be part of the Bill. The power in this clause given to the Secretary of State to deny British citizenship to a child, unless she is satisfied that the child cannot reasonably acquire the nationality of its parents, needs to be qualified at the very least.
Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights
“to ensure that British citizenship is only withheld”
from a stateless child born in the UK
“where the nationality of a parent is available to the child immediately”,
without any legal or administrative hurdles. We will support this amendment if this clause stands part of the Bill.
These are decisions being taken by parents and the Secretary of State about an innocent child who has no influence over what is being decided about their future—decisions about something as fundamental as citizenship. For that reason alone, we strongly support Amendment 31: that the best interests of the stateless child born in the UK must be central to any decision whether to grant or refuse British citizenship.
This is what we have come to: seeking to deny stateless children born in the UK British citizenship. As I said on a previous group, British citizenship has benefits to society as well as to the individual concerned. This is not just about the best interests of the child, although it should be; it is about what is in the best interests of society. Keeping children stateless as they grow into adults surely increases their chance of being radicalised and becoming a threat to society. On the last group, the Minister kept talking about high-harm individuals. All the evidence points to one of the most important factors in radicalisation being people not feeling part of society or of this country. Keeping a child stateless surely will increase the danger of that person growing into a terrorist.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, my name has been added to the proposal to oppose Clause 10 standing part of the Bill, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. As has been said, Clause 10 is intended to disentitle stateless children in the UK from their statutory right to British citizenship. It proposes amending and restricting a vital safeguard in British nationality law that prevents and reduces childhood statelessness. Under our international obligations, we have safeguards that mean that a child who was born in the UK and has always been stateless can acquire British citizenship after five years of residing here.
Through Clause 10, the Government now propose to restrict and amend that obligation. Clause 10 requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a child was unable to acquire another nationality before being permitted to register as a British citizen. That creates an additional and unjustified hurdle to stateless children’s registration as British citizens, which could be difficult for a child or those acting on their behalf to prove.
Rather than helping such children attain citizenship, the Government are intent on putting up more barriers and making it more difficult for children under 18 to be registered. They seem to want to try to deny citizenship, particularly citizenship of the place where the child was born and lives—in fact, the only place they know. No doubt the Government will explain what substantial wrong they consider this clause addresses and what hard evidence there is that that wrong is actually significant, as opposed to it being claimed as such.
Clause 10 can only be highly damaging to a child’s personal development and their feelings of security and belonging, with this exclusion and potential alienation being inflicted in their formative years. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to the serious implications that can have. There has been no assessment made by the Government of the impact this proposal will have on those children affected, which suggests that this issue does not trouble the Government. As my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett said, how can this be in the best interests of the child? This issue is addressed in Amendment 31, reflecting a JCHR recommendation.
In the Commons, we supported an amendment to Clause 10 which sought to ensure that the Government act in compliance with Article 1 of the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness, the Government having failed to protect the existing safeguards, which are in line with international law, in this Bill. The amendment altered Clause 10, so that British citizenship was withheld from a stateless child born in the UK only when a parent’s nationality was available to the child immediately, without any legal or administrative hurdles. That is as per Amendment 30, moved by my noble friend Lord Dubs, which also reflects a JCHR recommendation.
I am probably being overoptimistic in hoping that there will be a positive government reply to this stand part debate. At the very least, if my fears are justified and we do not get a positive reply from our point of view, I hope that we will be told what the hard evidence is that Clause 10 actually addresses a significant wrong, rather than one being claimed as such.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for tabling Amendments 30 and 31 to Clause 10, which requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a child aged between five and 17 cannot reasonably acquire another nationality in order to be registered under the stateless child provisions. I also note the opposition to and concerns about this clause of the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, should they not be satisfied by my response. In an ideal world, we would not need to include this clause, but current trends mean that we feel we must.
That goes to the question that the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, asked about the figures. In 2017, in the case of R v Secretary of State for the Home Department, even though the applicant was eligible for the grant of British citizenship under paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 to the BNA 1981, and despite the fact that they could acquire the nationality of their parents, the judge recognised that his conclusion
“opens an obvious route to abuse”.
The figures bear that out. In 2010 there were five cases; in 2018 they peaked at 1,775. There is obvious evidence that this is happening. I rest my case there.
Clause 10 has been developed in response to concerns that a number of non-settled parents, many of whom did not have permission to be in the UK at the time of their child’s birth, have chosen not to register their child’s birth with their own authorities in order to qualify under the current child statelessness provisions. This in turn can impact on the parents’ immigration status.
Amendment 30 would add a new condition to Clause 10, so that a child is defined as being able to acquire a nationality from birth only if there were no legal or administrative barriers to them doing so. That would mean that the parents I have talked about could, in theory, benefit from the stateless child provisions by not registering their child’s birth. In answer to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, it is very easy to register a child’s birth. The parents simply need to complete a form and provide supporting information about their identity, status and residence and the child’s birth. I do not think that is difficult.
I appreciate that the noble Lord’s use of the term “barriers” might have been intended to suggest something more significant and assure him that the clause already reflects our expectation that children who cannot reasonably acquire another nationality should not be excluded. The UNHCR’s document Guidelines on Statelessness no. 4: Ensuring Every Child’s Right to Acquire a Nationality through Articles 1-4 of the 1961 Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness recognises that the responsibility to grant nationality to children who would otherwise be stateless is not engaged where a child could acquire the nationality of a parent through registration or a simple procedure. The genuinely stateless child will not be affected. This is about those who can reasonably acquire another nationality. It is not about the Windrush generation—they are entitled to be British.
We do not think it is fair that parents can effectively secure a quicker route to British citizenship by choosing not to register their child’s birth. In doing so, they are depriving their child of a nationality, which is not only about identity and belonging, as I heard one noble Lord say, but can allow them to acquire a passport or identity document and the ability to travel overseas to see family, for example.
They are also taking advantage of a provision intended to protect those who are genuinely stateless. We want them still to be able to benefit, but we want to change the registration provisions so that parents cannot effectively choose statelessness for their children and then benefit from the provisions. We think it is appropriate that families should take reasonable steps to acquire a nationality for their child. We will set out in guidance the sort of steps that we think are reasonable, and applications will be considered on their individual basis.
Amendment 31 would mean that we could not regard a child as being able to acquire another nationality, and so decline their British citizenship application, if it would not be in the best interests of the child to gain that nationality. Noble Lords have pointed out the value they see in a child being able to secure and acquire a nationality, and it is difficult to see why parents might argue that it is not in their child’s best interests to share their status. We have already taken into account that some countries’ nationalities may be problematic for a child to acquire. The proposed clause reflects our expectation that a parent should not need to try to acquire a nationality for their child if it is not reasonable for them to do so.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, can the Minister clarify something? She gave us some figures; I did not have a chance to write to them down. She talked about the figures peaking at, I think, somewhere around 1,700 cases. Is that the number of stateless children born in the UK who are granted British citizenship, or are they cases where parents deliberately chose not to register their child’s birth in order to take advantage of the system?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I assume that it is the latter, but I will write to the noble Lord with the details of the figures I have here. In particular, I will give him more detail about the countries from which these cases derive.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I want to follow up, because the Minister has answered the question I was going to ask. She mentioned that the 1,700 figure—I cannot remember what year it was for—was evidence of abuse, and as she just replied to my noble friend, she is assuming that the parents in those cases could not apply. It seems to me that there is no evidence of abuse. I am thinking of the strengthened safeguards in Amendments 30 and 31, especially Amendment 31. The Home Secretary must be satisfied that “in all the circumstances” it is reasonable, et cetera. The Minister referred to circumstances where parents cannot access the authorities of the relevant state. One can think of dozens of countries around the world in conflict, civil war or whatever chaos. Adding the words
“without any legal or administrative barriers”
would go with the flow of the Home Secretary having to be satisfied that it is reasonable to refuse, and I really cannot see why the Home Office cannot accept Amendment 30, even if it is claiming that Amendment 31 is unnecessary because it already cares about the best interests of the child.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I shall write to noble Lords about this in more detail, because it is quite detailed, and explain where the figures have derived from. I was actually quoting the judge in his conclusion that an “obvious route to abuse” would be opened. I shall send the figures to the noble Baroness. On case sampling, many of the cases have a poor immigration history, with 79% of the parents having no leave at the time of the birth and only 16% having such leave, but I will outline it to noble Lords in greater detail and they can draw their own conclusion.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I have tried to follow the Minister’s reply, and I am bound to say that I too am a little confused about these figures. I think she has just not yet made her case. Please could she give us more information before we get to Report? If not, we will not be persuaded by this. I may not have been quick enough to pick up all the nuances—I do not think any of us were, really; it was quite difficult. I look forward to getting more information from her; we shall have to listen to what she has to say. I am grateful to noble Lords who contributed to the debate, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Tuesday 1st February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (1 Feb 2022)
Baroness Ludford
“Acquisition of British citizenship by birth or adoption: comprehensive sickness insurance
(1) The European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 is amended as follows.(2) After section 15, insert—15A Comprehensive sickness insurance(1) For the purposes of any decision taken by a public authority under this Part after commencement of this section, a person is to be treated as having met a requirement to have held comprehensive sickness insurance, whenever they—(a) had access to the NHS in practice, or(b) held a comprehensive sickness insurance policy.(2) This section applies in particular to any decisions taken under residence scheme immigration rules.”(3) The British Nationality Act 1981 is amended as follows.(4) After section 1(3A) insert—“(3B) A person born in the United Kingdom after commencement who is not a British citizen is entitled, on application, to register as a British citizen if the person’s father or mother would have been settled in the United Kingdom at the time of the person’s birth, if Assumption A had applied.(3C) Assumption A is that, in assessing whether the person’s father or mother met a requirement to have held comprehensive sickness insurance, this is to be regarded as having been satisfied whenever they—(a) had access to the NHS in practice, or(b) held a comprehensive sickness insurance policy.(3D) Registration under subsection (3B) is free of charge.”(5) After section 50A insert—50B ExceptionsNotwithstanding any provision of section 50A, for the purposes of an application for naturalisation or registration made under this Act, a person—(a) is not to be treated as having been in the United Kingdom in breach of the immigration laws during a period of time that has been counted as part of a continuous qualifying period in a grant of leave to that person under Appendix EU of the Immigration Rules, and(b) is not to be treated as not being of good character on account of a failure to hold comprehensive sickness insurance during some period of residence in the UK.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause provides that a person seeking to naturalise as a British citizen, seeking to exercise family reunion rights as a naturalised British citizen, or seeking to have their UK-born children recognised as British at birth, need not have had comprehensive sickness insurance prior to naturalising or prior to the birth of their child.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I hope not to have to detain the Committee for too long on this admittedly complicated subject of the anomalous historical legacy of comprehensive sickness insurance—hereafter CSI—because I am hoping that the Minister will spring up, interrupt me and pledge that the Home Office will resolve all the left-over problems faced by some EU citizens today. She was kind enough to meet me virtually last week, and I detected a degree of thoughtfulness in her department on the subject. I cannot yet put it higher than that, but I am hopeful.
Attentive listeners might recall that some of us— especially, perhaps, I—banged on about the obscure issue of CSI at various points in the debates on EU withdrawal and, in particular, on the UK’s EU settlement scheme. It is a long and, in my view, sorry history. I will recap as briefly as I can: in the EU citizens’ rights directive of nearly 20 years ago—which I worked on as a Member of the European Parliament, hence my long-standing interest—so-called free movers were required to have comprehensive sickness insurance; that was the term used. On the continent, health systems are often covered by state insurance systems. In the UK, we have the NHS or private health insurance. Although of course we have national insurance, people do not think of the NHS as an insured scheme. So there has been a long-running problem of EU citizens in Britain who are not employed, such as students, the self-employed and homemakers, being expected—although, crucially, not usually told—to have private insurance. This was a matter of legal dispute in Brussels, which rumbled on, and I do not think it ever got resolved.
Fast forward to Brexit and the acute issue of whether those lacking private health insurance were legally resident in the UK and could seek settled status under the withdrawal agreement. Fortunately, the UK Government wisely cut through that residual red tape and said, in an admirably pragmatic decision, that they would let everyone get settled status. However, often unbeknownst to individuals, they fell into one of two groups: the true cohort and the extra cohort. The significance of this distinction arises only—indeed only becomes known —when a settled person seeks to register a child’s birth, to naturalise themselves as British or to bring a family member to join them in this country. Then they face a veritable series of snakes and ladders, because any historical gap in CSI—private insurance—may make them slide down into a pit of reptilian problems. Only when they seek to register a child, bring in a spouse or become a British citizen might they be told: “Aha! Your historic lack of CSI is a bar.” Noble Lords will recall that it was not a bar to them getting settled status, but it raises its ugly head at this later stage. At the risk of mixing my metaphors, it is Kafkaesque.
Certainly, in the case of bids for naturalisation, caseworkers have—but only through guidance—been given discretion to waive this historic need for CSI to meet the lawful residence requirement. On Report in the other place, the Minister, Kevin Foster, said that
“no one has been refused British citizenship purely on the basis of the CSI requirement in free movement regulations.”
The trouble is that if an applicant has to stump up around £1,300, without the certainty of the outcome because of the discretion for the caseworker, that is a gamble—potentially an expensive one.
I am asking the Government to carry through the pragmatic logic whereby they decided to ignore the past lack of CSI for settled status and now to wipe the slate entirely clean for subsequent immigration applications and statuses. On 7 December, Minister Foster told the other place
“we are considering how the issues could be picked up as part of our work on simplification”.
He hoped that MPs would
“be pleased to hear that we are looking closely at that work.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/21; col. 260.]
That was a bit encouraging.
Perhaps the Minister could give us a more solid basis of hope, in relation not just to naturalisation but to the other applications, such as the registration of a baby’s birth and family reunion. I am sure that millions of EU citizens, resident in and contributing to this country, would be immensely grateful for the peace of mind they would thereby secure. Who knows? Their gratitude might rebound on this Government. I hope for good news. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I hesitate to follow my noble friend, who is an expert on this issue. I declare an interest as a British citizen seeking a residence permit in Norway, where I have lived with my husband for the last 14 years. I have always had access to the Norwegian national health system. My application for a residence permit—the equivalent of settled status—has been outstanding for over 12 months because of issues with comprehensive health insurance.
I start by thanking the Government for their generous approach to EU and EEA citizens seeking settled status in the UK. The Government have taken the general approach that, if someone has been living here for years and was legally accessing the NHS when the UK was part of the EU, they do not need to have, to have had or acquire comprehensive health insurance, even if—as with me in Norway—they are not working or studying. This goes beyond the Brexit agreement, but is entirely consistent with the principle that EU and EEA citizens living in the UK prior to Brexit should be able to continue to live here on the same terms after Brexit. It is the right thing to do. I am grateful to the Government for taking such an approach. I wish Norway would do the same.
My understanding of this amendment is that it goes a step beyond settled status—where EU and EEA citizens who have qualified for settled status seek to be naturalised as British citizens, to exercise family reunion rights as a naturalised British citizen, or to have their UK-born children recognised as British at birth. Even though they do not have to have comprehensive sickness insurance for settled status, it currently appears that they may have to have it for citizenship purposes. This amendment seeks to rectify that anomaly between settled status and citizenship. I am getting a nod, so that is okay.
What this amendment seeks to achieve follows on logically from the generous and welcome stance of the British Government on settled status in relation to comprehensive sickness insurance. We support the amendment.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we support Amendment 34, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. We raised this issue in the Commons and pushed it to a Division in Committee. I will not repeat all the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, have made.
I want to make a few observations. This is an opportunity for the Government to clear up an obscure, largely technical anomaly which is having real-world consequences for a number of people. CSI was not required for any EEA or Swiss citizen to live in the UK and to be able to access the NHS. However, it was not generally communicated that this was an additional requirement. Most people now being impacted by this relatively obscure provision had no idea about it.
I do not believe that this should be controversial; it is a sensible change. There are two reasons for that. First, when the Government designed the EU settlement scheme, they chose not to include CSI as a requirement, so they have already decided that this requirement was not necessary and to waive it entirely. Secondly, the Government openly acknowledge that this is causing problems because they have introduced guidance, as we have heard, for caseworkers that some degree of discretion might be exercised where there are compelling grounds for granting citizenship. The amendment simply but constructively builds on that, rather than leaving it up to a vague discretionary power, the flaws of which have been discussed.
This is a simple, clear change to the law to reflect the reality of the situation that prevails in the UK. It is very much in the spirit of rectifying obscure anomalies and barriers in our nationality law, which the early clauses of the Bill, notwithstanding those that are controversial, attempt to do.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for their comments and, in particular, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, for tabling this new clause about comprehensive sickness insurance, or CSI, which, under EU free movement law, was needed by EEA nationals in certain circumstances in order to reside lawfully in the UK. I was most grateful to have the chance to discuss this with the noble Baroness last week, as she said.
The EEA regulations set out the requirements that EEA nationals had to meet if they wished to reside here lawfully as a qualified person exercising free movement rights. Those who were working in the UK, or indeed who were self-employed, did not need CSI to be here lawfully, but students, the self-sufficient and their family members did. That requirement was set out in published guidance.
I note the noble Baroness’s comments about EEA nationals being able to access the NHS. Under UK legislation, all EEA nationals here under free movement had the ability to access state-provided healthcare on the basis of their ordinary residence, but the requirement to hold CSI ensured that the financial burden of providing free state-funded healthcare did not fall on the host member state, as is the clear objective of free movement law. Therefore, having access to the NHS did not equate with the requirement for CSI, although it could include the European health insurance card, otherwise known as the EHIC, issued by the EEA national’s home state.
The first part of this amendment would amend the European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 so that a person is treated as having had CSI if they had access to the NHS in practice or held a CSI policy. However, there is no mention of CSI in the rest of that Act, nor is there any requirement for CSI in the residence scheme immigration rules—the rules for the EU settlement scheme in Appendix EU—for an EEA national to obtain status under the scheme.
Consistent with the citizens’ rights agreements and the relevant EU case law, a so-called Lounes dual EEA/British national can currently sponsor relevant family members under the EU settlement scheme where that national was living in the UK in accordance with free movement law, including any requirement for CSI, before they also acquired British citizenship. However, I am pleased to be able to inform the noble Baroness that the Government have decided that, as a matter of fairness, they will amend the Immigration Rules for the EUSS and the EUSS family permit at the next appropriate opportunity to disapply any requirement for a Lounes dual national to have held CSI in order to sponsor applications by relevant family members.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think that is one of the only times I will get a “hear, hear” over the course of this Bill, so I will milk it for one small second.
This will mean that such family members will in practice be treated in the same way as an EEA national or their family member in applying to the EUSS or for an EUSS family permit. Their eligibility will not be affected by any past lack of CSI on the part of their sponsor.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I do not want to sound churlish at all by asking this question. The “Hear, hears” were probably not as loud as they might have been for Hansard to pick them up; I hope that it does. My question will display my lack of grip of the EU settled status scheme. The Minister said that the Immigration Rules will be changed at the next appropriate opportunity. Am I right in thinking that 29 March is a significant date for those with pre-settled status? As I said, I have a lack of grip of this and an even greater lack of grip in pulling the bits together in my head but, if it is a significant date, then it is a significant question to ask whether the change will be made before 29 March.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I do not have the exact detail on the date. I understand her point about 29 March being a significant date; noble Lords will all be informed in due course of when the changes will come about and I will let the noble Baroness know.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, just to follow that up, the Minister will understand that I am concerned that some people may fail to qualify because the rules are not changed by that date, so I wonder whether she could come back to us well before then.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I certainly welcome a great deal of what the Minister had to say, and I thank her for it. I will have to read Hansard just to make sure that I have mastered every detail of her response. This is an incredibly complicated subject; I think I have forgotten almost everything I thought I knew about settled status. It is one of those things that has become a bit of a blur over the last six years. Certainly, she said some very positive things, and was very clear, in particular, about family reunion rights. I was not entirely sure about the registration of a birth. The Minister maintained the need for discretion and the caseworker guidance for naturalisation. I was not really sure why that was necessary.
With the slight caveat that I will want to read in detail what she said on this complex subject, there is, indeed, room for considerable congratulations and gratitude that the Minister has grasped this issue by the horns. I had better stop the metaphor there. She has made progress, and there is cause for considerable rejoicing. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“European Convention on Nationality
Her Majesty’s Government must within six months of this Act coming into force ratify the European Convention on Nationality 1997.”
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this might scramble our brains a little less than the last amendment. Amendment 35 would require the Government to ratify the 1997 European Convention on Nationality. This is a Council of Europe treaty, signed, obviously, in 1997, originally by 15 countries. It now has 29 signatories and 21 ratifications. The UK has not followed through on it. In 2002, the then Labour Government said that they planned to ratify it “in due course”, but “due course” has apparently not yet arrived.
The convention sets out the principles to which each country’s nationality laws should conform. The key principles are that everyone has the right to a nationality; statelessness should be avoided; no one should be arbitrarily deprived of his or her nationality; and neither marriage nor the end of a marriage, nor a spouse changing their nationality, should change someone’s nationality. The key part relates to the deprivation of citizenship, preventing states making people stateless unless their citizenship was obtained through fraud, false information or concealment.
The convention sets the bar for deprivation at acts that are seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the state. This was deliberately mirrored in our legislation in 2002, but with the test being lowered in 2006 to cases where the Home Secretary is satisfied that it is conducive to the public good to order a deprivation. Does the UK believe that, as part of a global community, it would be good to be part of a worldwide group of countries in its approach to nationality? Do we want to be an outlier? I beg to move.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I shall be exceptionally brief as we had a number of significant debates on statelessness last week and we are only too aware of the crucial issues that we need to reach today.
As we have heard, the 1997 convention provided a series of general principles relating to nationality, including non-discrimination and governing principles on statelessness. I gently point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that no Government of any complexion have ratified it since 1997. The Labour Government in 2002 was referred to, but no Government since have ratified it either. That is just a general point.
It would be helpful and constructive for the Committee at this stage of the debate, if the Minister could confirm the following points. These are very detailed, so, to be fair, the noble Baroness may wish to write to us. Do the Government have any plans to consider ratifying the treaty or intend to do so in the near future, and is that under consideration? Have the Government made any assessment of the specific elements of the treaty that they may be opposed to and, if so, could the Minister tell us what they are? Lastly, what are the existing provisions in UK law that are currently outside the provisions of that treaty? It would be helpful to have a bit more detail about the convention, where it relates to existing law and where there are any gaps or points that we may wish to consider in future.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for their brief and succinct points in speaking to the amendment.
British citizenship affords benefits and privileges; the vast majority of us enjoy the freedom that they bring, while of course respecting the rights of others and the rule of law, but there are high-harm individuals who do not share our values. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is right that no Government since 1997, including the coalition Government of 2010-15, have ratified the convention, and he is right that we are not going to. The convention does not address the modern threat from global terrorism, among other things, and I would add that Spain, Belgium and Switzerland have not signed it either, perhaps for the same reasons.
The convention on nationality is at odds with domestic law. The Government do not consider it right that our sovereign powers to deprive a person of citizenship should be constrained by signing the convention, as the amendment would oblige us to do. That would severely limit the ability of the Home Secretary to make a deprivation decision in relation to high-harm individuals and those who pose a threat to public safety. Sadly, we have seen too often the effect of terrorist attacks on our way of life and the impact of serious organised crime on the vulnerable. It cannot be right that the Government are not able to use all the powers at their disposal to deal with today’s threats to our way of life.
It is the Government’s duty to keep the public safe and we do not make any apology for seeking to do so. I hope that, with that, the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I shall be brief because I regard this amendment as an amuse-bouche, if you like, before the very substantial groups to come. I am sure the Minister recognised that this was a probing amendment, as I was asked to find out what the Government’s view was. I think that together we have fulfilled that task. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
“Smuggling
(1) Not less than six months before this Act comes into force, the Secretary of State must publish a report to Parliament regarding discussions with the governments and authorities of other countries, including those bordering the English Channel and the North Sea, concerning the steps taken or proposed to prevent or deter a person from—(a) charging refugees for assistance or purported assistance in travelling to or entering the United Kingdom;(b) endangering the safety of refugees travelling to the United Kingdom.(2) The report must focus on steps other than the provisions of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish a report on the actions that are being taken to tackle people smugglers.
Lord Paddick (Lab)
My Lords, I shall also speak to the other amendment in this group. The group is about probing what the Government should be doing in the asylum and immigration space instead of this appalling Bill. As I said at Second Reading, the Bill does lots of things that are unnecessary, unhelpful and unreasonable—in fact, some of it is arguably legal—while it does nothing to directly tackle the real issues, one of which is people smuggling.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will say a little more than I have on the two previous groups. I think Amendment 36, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has tabled with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and to which I have added my name, is a brilliant amendment.
Amendment 129, which I have signed with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, seeks to give a practical illustration of what may be done and should be done. Frankly, most of us would believe that it is a no-brainer type of amendment that we would expect the Government to approve with the stroke of a pen. I will speak just briefly to this amendment, because I want to come back to Amendment 36, which is a better amendment than mine, to be frank; it is more wide-ranging and encompassing. I am sure that noble Lords have looked at it with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who has apologised for being unable to be with us today. The amendment proposes a new clause, headed:
“Advertising assistance for unlawful immigration to the United Kingdom”.
Social media platforms are advertising how they can help illegal immigration into our country. Sky News googled it and came up with a list of the adverts.
No wonder sometimes people stop you in the street and say, “Do you know what you’re doing?”, because we would assume that the Government would stop illegal activity, published on a website for people to use while being exploited. The Minister should at least respond by saying, “Lord Coaker, you are quite right. Nobody condones that. We don’t condone it, and this is what we’re going to do about it.” I know that social media companies are difficult; there are platforms and there are ways around it. But we should at least make the effort to say that we are doing everything within our power to stop social media platforms being used in such a way by these criminal gangs.
Therefore, Amendment 129 speaks for itself. The explanatory statement says:
“This amendment would provide it is an offence to advertise illegal routes to the UK.”
Who could object to that? The amendment may be flawed—it may not be right or accurate or it may not meet the test of the lawyers who could look at it—I have no idea. But I do not think that anyone would disagree with an attempt to do that. So, if it is not right, perhaps the Government could tell us what they are doing or what amendment they will bring forward to do that, and we could look forward to that on Report or some other government action. I know that the Minister and the Government will disagree with that, so the question is: what will we do about it?
Having spoken to my amendment, also signed by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, I will come back to that of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I apologise; I know that we want to get to Clause 11, which we will oppose and which is a shocking part of the Bill. But the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was quite right when he spoke about Amendment 36, which deals with the people smugglers—where else in the Nationality and Borders Bill are they actually being dealt with by the Government?
I do not know whether noble Lords saw it, but, today and yesterday, the Times, the Telegraph and other newspapers reported the latest statistics on migrant crossings. I make no comment on what is causing them, but it is a statistical fact that the Home Secretary promised that she would sort this out and deal with it and the Government promised that they would be tough on the borders and said that the point of leaving the EU was that we would take back control. There is all of that, but then we look at the statistics: the number of migrants crossing the channel this January has gone up six times compared with last year. There should be a Statement by the Home Secretary in the Commons. Whatever the rights and wrongs, and whatever the causes, this is an astonishing increase. We find out that this means that there have been 46 boats, compared with 15 last year. By the way, it is also pointed out that the French stopped 29 boats last month. I know that we do not think that they do anything, but they did stop 29. Perhaps they should have stopped more, but they are doing something.
We find out something else here—this is why I am spending some time on this and why the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is quite right in her amendment. We find out that part of the Government’s plan, announced in the Times and the Telegraph—not here, unless it was put in a Written Ministerial Statement or Question that I cannot find; it may have been, and I apologise if it was—is locking up all single male migrants. This is according to the Secretary of State for Defence, who outlined further details of the plan for dealing with this—perhaps that is what would appear in a report that would come forward under Amendment 36. This may be the right policy, but I would have thought that that would be a subject for debate in Parliament. It is a fairly major thing to say that you are going to do—it must be a change, and it must be government policy because the Secretary of State announced it in the Times and the Telegraph today and yesterday. I saw it in the Times only about an hour ago—noble Lords may be better informed than me—while I was reading the sport section. I just flicked through the paper and there it was, and I thought, “Goodness me.” But, seriously, that is a really serious policy initiative that will be part of the plan to deal with migrants crossing the channel. The only point that I am making is that we should debate and discuss whether we believe that this is an appropriate way of dealing with this.
I was further shocked. I also deal with defence, and I asked the Defence Minister in the Lords about this. Tom Pursglove, who is a Member in the other place in the Home Office, said in the Times that the Bill will
“strengthen the powers of Border Force to stop and redirect vessels”.
This is how a Home Office Minister in the other place described what is in the Bill.
I thought that this was not the Government’s policy any more. Certainly, the Defence Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, who spoke for them on this—I do not mean to misquote her—told me that. That is push-back by another name. Redirecting boats or strengthening the powers of the Border Force to stop and redirect boats is push-back. This is simple: it is either yes or no. They are not going to use a destroyer—nobody is that stupid about this; they will not have a naval destroyer pushing a dinghy back—but is a naval commander going to be able to direct a smaller Border Force vessel to redirect a dinghy, as Tom Pursglove MP said in the papers today? I thought the Government had given up on that policy. Certainly, as I understood it, the Ministry of Defence’s understanding was that it was not going to require the Border Force to do that. I apologise if I am confusing noble Lords but I am confused by the Government’s policy. I thought it was one thing, but now, according to the papers, it appears to be another.
All I am saying is that you can see why the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is so important, because it would require the Government to publish reports on what is going on regarding discussions with Governments and authorities, not only of our own country but of others, to tackle the smugglers. These people are not finding the dinghies themselves, collaborating with 30 other people—or whatever the numbers are—and deciding that they are all going to pile on. These people are exploited by the people smugglers, yet this is mentioned hardly anywhere in the Bill. Indeed, instead of dealing with the smugglers, the Bill changes the way we treat refugees and victims fleeing war and persecution, who are being loaded on to these boats. They are regarded almost as the criminals rather than the real criminals. That is what noble Lords will come on to when they discuss Clause 11 and other parts of the Bill. I cannot tell the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, how important this is. That is why I am labouring this: Amendment 36 is really important.
If noble Lords get the chance to have a look, Amendment 36 also says, quite rightly, in proposed new subsection (2):
“The report must focus on steps other than the provisions of this Act.”
What sensible person, in seeking to deal with people smuggling, refugees and asylum seekers, does not also believe and understand that part of the solution lies in dealing with the situations that individuals are fleeing from? I have not spoken to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about this, but I suspect that what she is also trying to do through this amendment is say that you deal with asylum seekers and refugees not through sanctions, provisions, criminalising people and making them afraid but by addressing the problems in the countries, areas and regions they are fleeing from.
I tell your Lordships this: if I was living with my family and we were being bombed, I would flee. If my family was in a place where there was starvation, no water and poverty, and where we were threatened by criminal gangs or torture, I would flee, and I would go anywhere. I would want to protect myself, my family and my children. If you want to deal with asylum seekers and refugees, of course you must have a policy that deals with them when they arrive, but you also have to understand why they are fleeing and escaping from the country in which they were born and do something about it there.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Russell, is on the Council of Europe; he and I have spoken about many of these things. I think I am right in saying that the noble Lord and I went to Jordan, near its border with Syria. We say about countries such as Jordan, Turkey and others, “Oh, it’s about time somebody else did something”. We went to a refugee camp in Jordan where there were hundreds of thousands of people; I went to a refugee camp in Angola where there were more than a million people.
Some of the poorest countries in the world are dealing with some of the biggest refugee crises, and sometimes with almost more resource and compassion than we do. There are astonishing numbers of people displaced and moving between these regions and countries. The thousands whom we deal with are a problem—I am not decrying that or saying that we should not do anything—but some of these other countries are having to deal with things in biblical proportions. I could not believe what I saw in Jordan when people were fleeing war and persecution, but I will tell you what the Jordanians did not do. When nearly 1 million people came across the border, they did not turn round to them and say, “We’re going to split you into different groups” but “We’re going to do what we can to help you”, while recognising that the problem in Syria or elsewhere also needed to be addressed.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I agree with the noble Lord—he made the point comprehensively—except that he pulled his punches. Yes, the last line of Amendment 36 is very important, for the reason he gave, but it is a paradox because the effect of the Bill, if we pass it in its present form, will be to increase people smuggling. It will produce more deaths in the channel because, instead of opening safe routes, we are criminalising unlawful arrival. We are criminalising people who come undocumented and seek asylum. We are putting into group 2, where they are to be discriminated against, people who come indirectly even if they come by a regular route—say, on an airline. Tell me: how do you come directly from Kabul? How do you come directly from Syria, if that is your country of citizenship but you are one of the 3 million Syrians who are in Lebanon and Turkey?
It is a Catch-22 situation, since 90% of asylum seekers who come to this country do so from countries where we insist that the people coming must have visas or entry certificates, but we do not issue entry certificates to people who want to come and seek asylum. The effect of this Catch-22 is to make safe routes impossible and close them down. The only way to stop deaths in the channel is to create more safe routes but the effect of the Bill, if passed in its present form, will be to produce more deaths there. I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, when he says that we do not solve the problem by passing laws but, if we pass the Bill in this form, we will make the problem a lot worse.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I rise to briefly support what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has just said to the House about the importance of creating more safe routes and dealing with the Catch-22 he described. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, will recall that I raised with her the position of British embassies in parts of the world of the sort the noble Lord has just referred to and the role they might play in sorting out genuine asylum claims, which people cannot make. I gave the noble Baroness examples of the Yazidis and others in northern Iraq, which I visited in 2019, who, if they could have gone to a British post or embassy and had the matter dealt with on the ground, would have been saved much misery. I appeal to the noble Baroness to look at this question of safe routes and how we bring about a way in which incredibly vulnerable people are able to be sorted out and given a chance to come to places of safety and sanctuary.
I want to support what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said as well. So much in this Bill is about what can be described as the pull factors that the Home Office always refers to, but we have failed to give sufficient attention to the push factors that bring some of those more than 80 million who are displaced or refugees in the world today. There was a Cross-Bench debate only last month where Members from all sides of your Lordships’ House called for greater international efforts to be made, co-ordinating a campaign by the great nations in the way we have done over issues from COP 26 to Covid. Eighty million people displaced or refugees worldwide requires international action. We should be convening an international conference on that subject alone, and I would love to see this country taking the lead on that.
I would also like this country to take the lead in standing up to some of the internet companies that are referred to in Amendment 129, from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. It is outrageous that companies believe they can be above the law and do as they wish in enticing people—the kind of people the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, described—who feel they are destitute and at risk with advertisements for illegal routes to countries such as the United Kingdom. That is against the law; it should not require a new Act of Parliament to deal with it. I hope when the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, comes to reply to the debate, he will be able to tell us that more is going to be done about that now.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
My Lords, first, I would like to apologise to the House, the Front Bench in particular, the Minister and the movers of amendments in the next group, because I have a medical appointment, and under the conventions of the House, if I spoke in the next group, I would have to leave and be rightly reprimanded. I just want to say, under this group of amendments, just how much I have agreed with what everyone has said. I would have said something very similar in relation to Clause 11.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I rise first of all, briefly, to support Amendment 129, in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe. It is clear, necessary and relatively simple, at least in principle, so I trust that the Government will consider it very carefully.
Our asylum system is already overwhelmed, with a backlog of cases approaching 125,000, which is, I think, rather more than the British Army. So we have to do everything we can to reduce the inflow of those entering by illegal means. In brackets, I say to the Minister that I hope he will take this opportunity to deny that the Government now intend to bury the statistics and emerge only every three months to tell us what is happening.
That said, I would like to speak briefly about the points that have just been made by other noble Lords about the need for safe routes for asylum seekers wishing to come here. I think we need to be a lot more careful about how we address this. My noble friend has just referred to the 80 million refugees in the world. The numbers are huge, even if these are only a third of those who are actually going to move from one country to another. Is it really being suggested that we have a system whereby any who would like to leave his own country has only to purchase a ticket to London and will then be accommodated, et cetera, and his case will be heard? Is that really what is proposed? What about those who fail? Some 70% of the people now arriving across the Channel are young males. I suspect that they are not, in most cases, the ones who are most in need. If this is not to fly completely out of control and reach a level at which the public will react rather strongly against the sheer size of the inflow, we have to be a lot more careful.
It has been suggested that one way to tackle this would be to have missions overseas to take the applications. I am sure that is being considered very carefully, but I am sure that the outcome of that consideration will be that it just will not work. Those posts—whether embassies or some special posts set up in the third world—would be overwhelmed in a matter of weeks. Then you have to ask the Governments of the countries concerned what will happen to those who turned up, quite often from neighbouring countries, did not get the permission that they were hoping for, and are hanging around the embassy or wherever it is in ever-growing numbers. The host Governments would not care for that at all, and it would not achieve anything as far as we are concerned; it would simply mean that the inflow would become, in principle, pretty unmanageable. I really think we have to be careful about this talk of “safe routes”. We keep hearing it all the time; we never hear what is actually meant. I would like to hear from colleagues in this Committee how they propose to organise 30 million people who would like to come here. It cannot be done; there is no public support for it on that scale, and we really need some clear and logical thought.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Can I just ask the noble Lord about his assumption—it seemed to be a stereotype—that young single men are not at risk? I do not claim to be an expert on the profile of asylum seekers, but one can imagine that, because a young man might be seen to be less vulnerable than a young woman in a dangerous journey towards safety and, perhaps, also vulnerable to recruitment into ISIS, for instance, actually it is not that surprising that it may be young single men who are arriving on our shores in greater numbers than young single women. I just think that it is probably important to avoid prejudicial stereotypes that, somehow, young men are not at any risk and therefore can be locked up—I just looked at the Times article that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, mentioned. It sometimes seems to me that we are at risk of demonising young men.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, it is not demonising; it is common sense. The routes that now exist are dangerous and difficult, and the people who are capable of getting through them are the young. But they are by no means the only people, nor necessarily the most deserving of our help. This is why I ask that we have a little more logic and thinking before we simply rattle off about safe routes for asylum seekers.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Can I just point out that the Refugee Council, for example, has made the point that cutting back and restricting family reunion rights, which the Bill will do—this is one of the key safe and legal routes—will particularly affect women and children? Plenty has been written about what safe and legal routes might look like—it is family reunion; it is humanitarian visas. Is the noble Lord really suggesting that we have no responsibility to the kind of people that my noble friend talked about? No one is suggesting that everyone comes over here, but much poorer countries than this country are taking responsibility for asylum seekers, and we will not take any responsibility.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
I certainly accept the last part of that. Many countries in the third world are doing far more for people in serious difficulties than we are, and certainly far more in relation to their own incomes. But I would turn that round and say that if our aim is to help people in serious difficulty, of whom there are plenty, our money would be much better spent on the ground, on the food, shelter and medical attention that could be provided, rather than doing something fairly similar here at five or 10 times the price.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Can I ask my noble friend to return to the point about what might constitute a safe route? The specific example I gave the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, was about Yazidis and other minorities in northern Iraq who were faced with genocide. That was a category of people who could have been helped by our posts on the ground by dealing with their claims. To turn that into 80 million people all applying at British consulates and embassies around the world—that was not what anyone was suggesting. My noble friend asked for realistic proposals. Is this a proposal that he himself would be prepared to have a look at?
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, on the question of safe routes, which has just been touched on from both sides, the point is that by definition, they tend to include the whole family: a whole group of people tend to come together. That is part of the point of safe routes. The problem with illegal, unsafe routes is that 80% of the people who use them are young men, below the age of 34. That is a fact of life we have to put up with. We hope by means of this Bill to improve the rights of people who come by safe routes, and to discourage those who come by illegal routes who, by definition, are a dysfunctional family group.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
If I may answer my noble friend’s point, my answer to the Yazidis or particular problems of that kind—you will find them in Africa as well, of course—is to examine the situation that has developed, see how many people there are, where they are and how best they can be helped. That is certainly what our aid programme should be doing and what our missions should be advising on. I do not think that is the same as saying that we should consider shifting an entire community from northern Iraq to southern London.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Before my noble friend concludes, does he also agree that instead of constantly going on about the pull factors, we should be doing more about the push factors and maybe co-ordinating the kind of international conference that I was calling for?
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
I think there probably is scope for discussion between Governments as this problem becomes an increasingly serious one for countries, certainly throughout Europe. Yes, I would not be opposed to that but what I am calling for is some realism and not slogans.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
May I just suggest to the Committee that we proceed with the Committee? I occasionally have nightmares about these issues and I am probably too sensitive to engage in human rights debates, but the die is cast—what can I say? I can think of nightmares I might have about who would be at the Dispatch Box to answer to my questions. At the moment, the little “question time” I have just heard is exceeding the worst nightmare. Can we perhaps hear from the Minister we have, rather than the potential Minister of my nightmares?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I will take that as an invitation. Thank you very much indeed. I will try not to be a nightmare.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I thank those who have been complimentary about this amendment and make it clear that it is a team effort on our part. I really did not expect it to provoke such debate, but the thoughts that are teeming round people’s minds are bound to burst out at some point.
I want to ask about Amendment 129, and I will return the compliment to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. It makes an immensely important point but reading it, I wondered whether there was not already an offence—an inchoate offence, possibly, under the existing immigration legislation, or possibly even conspiracy. I do not want to anticipate Clause 40, but are there any problems in using Sections 25 and 25A of the Immigration Act 1971?
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I shall comment briefly on the discussion we have been having. Why is it young men? I talked to some of the Afghans who got to Calais—this was before the Taliban took over Afghanistan completely—and they said to me that the Taliban were trying to recruit young men into their fighting forces, so the family clubbed together to help them escape, because they were the ones who, at that time, were most vulnerable. Today, it may be that the women in Afghanistan who are more vulnerable, except that they cannot find their way out. But that is one of the reasons why more young men than young women have fled. Indeed, if one looks at the people who got to northern France, quite a few of them have connections with this country, and quite a few are seeking to establish family reunion. That is an argument why we should be able to provide safe and legal routes for people from northern France to come here: so they can achieve family reunion. We should recognise what they have fled.
My noble friend Lord Coaker described the terrible conditions. My comments are going to go a bit wide of the amendment, but I hope that your Lordships will allow me to continue. I think that if we actually explained to people in this country what it is that people are fleeing from—the awful circumstances, the terrifying persecution, war, people being killed in front of them, and so on—they would be much more sympathetic to refugees coming.
The majority of the refugees who reach France claim asylum in France. A small proportion of those claim asylum here—if they can manage to get to this country. In relation to the number of refugees in the world, we are talking about rather small numbers, but there are some very important points of principle, because we are talking about people who are very vulnerable. That is why I am keen on Amendment 36 and I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Green.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank all noble Lords who participated in this wide-ranging and powerful debate. We did perhaps stray slightly off the subject of the amendments, and some of the debate has bled into the next group and was, I suppose, more philosophical, about the Bill in general. I will confine my remarks to the amendments, if I may, because I know that many of the matters debated will come up again—not in their “proper place”, because that would be to demean the arguments, but in their more appropriate context.
I will begin with Amendment 36, a new clause proposed to be inserted before Clause 11 on the issue of smuggling, from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I will then address the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on advertising illegal routes to the UK. As I said, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions.
The UK takes smuggling and illegal migration extremely seriously. We are absolutely committed to tackling organised immigration crime, or OIC, in all its forms. We work closely with near-neighbour countries such as France, Belgium and the Netherlands, and key international partners beyond Europe to address this exploitative crime and tackle smuggling networks. To tackle this threat, we have in place a multi-agency OIC taskforce which brings together law enforcement, border guards, immigration officials and prosecutors to tackle organised crime groups involved in people smuggling. This taskforce is currently working with partners in some 17 source and transit countries.
In addition, there are already agreements in place to tackle smuggling and illegal migration. For example, in November 2021 the Prime Minister signed an agreement with Belgium reaffirming the two countries’ close partnership and commitment to tackling shared threats such as serious and organised crime, including human smuggling. The two countries are committed to strengthening the legal framework for co-operation between our law enforcement agendas with a co-operation agreement and a focus on information exchange. The UK is committed to working with France to maintain the security of our shared border and to tackle illegal migration. This relationship is long-standing, supported by the Sandhurst Treaty.
Most recently, in 2021 a bilateral arrangement was reached between the UK and France. The UK pledged to make a further financial investment of approximately £54 million in 2021-22. Last year’s investment saw the French doubling the numbers of officers patrolling beaches.
Addressing the organised crime groups that facilitate illegal migration to the UK remains a UK priority. In July 2020, the Home Secretary and the French Minister of the Interior signed an agreement to create a joint intelligence cell to crack down on people-smuggling gangs. In 2021, over 23,000 crossing attempts were prevented by French law enforcement, to which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred. Since the UK-France JIC was established, along with France we have dismantled 17 small-boat organised criminal groups and secured over 400 arrests.
I stress that the UK has a strong stance on smuggling and illegal migration and has agreements in place with near neighbours to reflect this. This amendment will not be helpful in the Government’s continued efforts to tackle these crimes. It may hinder the fruitful and open dialogue on these issues between the UK and its international partners, many of which would not agree to their discussions and domestic activity aimed at reducing people smuggling to be published to a domestic UK audience.
I cannot support Amendment 36 because it is not appropriate to provide a running commentary on the actions that are being taken to tackle people smugglers, much of which will be sensitive activity, particularly from an operational point of view, and based on intelligence sharing with the aim of protecting vulnerable people.
If I may be permitted a personal anecdote, I have some experience in operational sensitivities. When I served in the Royal Hong Kong Police Force, I spent much of my time on the border and was heavily involved in matters of migration. Some of it was profoundly harrowing, particularly the Vietnamese boat people, who were helped by Hong Kong and the Royal Hong Kong Police Force, but much of it was organised by criminal gangs. This was not a multinational but a multi-agency approach. However, the principles remain the same. If the smugglers, who in colloquial Cantonese were known as snakeheads, got wind of our countermeasures, they changed their methods, and changed them very quickly. Unfortunately, these people may be evil and prey on others’ vulnerability but they are not stupid.
During the debate we discussed safe and legal routes, and my noble friend the Minister sent a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, outlining some of them recently. If more detail is required, we will write again. Without going into all the detail, I shall highlight the headlines of the various safe and legal routes that are available. It is slightly off-topic but, given the tone of the debate, it is worth doing.
Obviously, there is a UK resettlement scheme, which commenced in February 2021 and prioritises the resettlement of refugees. There is a community sponsorship scheme and a mandate resettlement scheme. There is a refugee family reunion scheme, which many noble Lords referred to. The Bill does not cut down on family reunion. On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, we have granted over 39,000 refugee family reunion visas since 2015. There is the well-known Afghan citizens’ resettlement scheme, the Afghan relocations and assistance policy and the immigration route for British national overseas status holders from Hong Kong. As I said, that is slightly off-topic with regard to these amendments, but I hope that noble Lords appreciate that brief digression.
Turning to Amendment 129, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for raising this important topic. We agree unreservedly with the need to target those who assist unlawful immigration to the UK. It is imperative that we take action to prevent and prosecute people smuggling. We are taking steps to combat illegal migration and the activities associated with people smuggling by increasing the maximum penalty for facilitation from 14 years’ imprisonment to life imprisonment. This aligns with the maximum penalty for human trafficking as contained in the Modern Slavery Act. By doing so, we are emphasising to the courts the gravity with which the most serious offenders should be treated.
We have also turned our attention to Section 25A of the Immigration Act 1971. Currently, Section 25A relates to helping the arrival or entry for gain—I stress that—of an asylum seeker into the UK. Clause 40 removes the current requirement for the facilitation to be “for gain”. Removing the “for gain” element from Section 25A will allow for successful prosecution of those facilitating the arrival or entry into the UK of asylum seekers where the “for gain” element cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt.
To be absolutely clear, the focus of Clause 40 is on criminals who act to exploit and endanger people. We have made it clear that persons do not commit an offence of facilitation if the act is done by, on behalf of, or co-ordinated by, Her Majesty’s coastguard or overseas equivalent. This provides protection not only for organisations such as the RNLI, but for individual seafarers who respond to mayday relays.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It was rather longer and broader than perhaps we expected but it was a debate that needed to be had at some stage so we might as well have had it now. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his Amendment 129, which we of course support, and for his support for our amendment.
I also thank the noble Lord for drawing our attention to the Times article, which does indeed say that the Government’s intention is to arrest all single male migrants crossing the channel. The newspaper estimates that, on the basis of the number who crossed last year, that would mean 20,000 people being put in prison. Now, I know that the Government have a prison-building programme, but I thought that that was to accommodate those people who would be spending longer in prison as a result of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill; so, this does not seem to make much sense. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, said, the pull factors are completely overwhelmed by the push factors. When you are being bombed and persecuted, you do not worry about pull factors—you just want to get out of there. You want to get to safety and get your family to safety.
As far as the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, is concerned, bombs do not differentiate between men and women. Young men, or families, probably feel that they stand a better chance of making this very hazardous and dangerous journey to get to the UK because there are no safe and legal routes. Of course we are not saying that every eligible refugee should make their home in the UK. We are saying that the UK should take its fair share of asylum seekers—and, by any measure, we do not do that at the moment.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
Would the noble Lord like to say what he thinks the fair share should be?
Lord Paddick (LD)
Yes, I can give the noble Lord an example. Let us look at the number of asylum claims per 10,000 people of countries across the whole of Europe, take the average and say that the UK should significantly increase the number of applications in line with the average number for European countries. That would be a good start, because we are nowhere near the European average in taking people who are seeking asylum. I hope that that answers the noble Lord’s question.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
In giving that figure, will the noble Lord take into account the relative density of population of the country?
Lord Paddick (LD)
The number of applications per 10,000 population, I think, takes into account the population in each country.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I cannot have been clear. There is a relative density of population. This country is about to overtake the Netherlands as the most densely populated country in Europe. We are already three times as densely populated as France and about one and a half or two times as densely populated as Germany. All I am asking the noble Lord is whether, in giving the figure to the noble Lord, Lord Green, he will allow for relative densities in making that assessment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am not in the Government. I do not set what the policy will be in relation to the number of asylum seekers that can be brought into this country. The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, asked whether, rather than rhetoric, we could give examples of how we might set the number of asylum claims that this country handles. I gave an example of the sort of thing that could be considered in setting the number of asylum seekers that could come. The noble Lord has suggested something else that might be taken into account, and that may well be something that can be taken into account. However—
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
This will be my last intervention on this matter. We have resettled more than 25,000 people since 2015—the most in Europe.
Lord Paddick (LD)
No—I am afraid that the note that the noble Lord was just passed by the Minister is not accurate. That is the number of people settled through resettlement schemes, not the number of people who have travelled to various different countries under their own steam to claim asylum. Therefore, that figure is absolutely, totally misleading.
As far as the Minister is concerned, he says that the Government take people smuggling seriously but do not want to give a running commentary on what they are doing, yet the first half of his response was a running commentary on what the Government were doing. I do not understand that at all. What we want to see is the strategy—the Government’s overall plan—to tackle people smuggling directly. At the moment, the Government’s entire focus appears to be on the victims, the asylum seekers, and not on the people smugglers. The whole purpose of this amendment is to try to refocus the Government’s attention on the real villains of the piece, the people smugglers, rather than on the persecution of asylum seekers, which is what this Bill is about. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures equality of treatment by removing the distinction between Group 1 and Group 2 refugees.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in place of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and welcome the opportunity to speak on the amendments she proposed. I wish she could be here to speak on Amendments 37, 38, 42 and 49. I hope to do justice to her concerns and offer a bipartisan dimension to our treatment of the Bill.
It is perhaps important for me to say before launching myself into the amendments that my clear preference would always have been to propose the elimination of Clause 11 in its entirety. Having said that, however, I respect the intention behind the amendments in seeking to eliminate the distinction between two tiers of refugees. I hope that nobody groans when we cite the 1951 convention, which prohibits the penalisation of refugees
“on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened … present themselves without delay … and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”
The Bill before us purports to change the way in which the provisions of the convention are applied, with important divergences from hitherto accepted practices.
I am a member of the Council of Europe. I was asked to compile a report to commemorate the 1951 convention; my report was endorsed by the Council just a few weeks ago. In writing it, I worked in collaboration with UNCHR officers in London, Strasbourg and Geneva. This has led to my conviction of the vital importance, in seeking a way through these critical issues, of maintaining the closest possible working relationship with UNHCR. Everyone I consulted in writing my report agreed that the key underpinning tenets of the convention are non-refoulement, non-discrimination and non-penalisation. Those are the principles that must be upheld at all costs, however much circumstances may have changed.
Although I am hugely critical of the Bill, I must, in reality, acknowledge that the United Kingdom is only one of a number of nations in search of new ways of dealing with what is undoubtedly a global crisis. A wide variety of measures has been put forward across our continent. In my report, I cited the following; some were mentioned in our previous debate. There are those who are pushing asylum seekers back, or else denying them disembarkation. Others are protecting their borders, building fences, sometimes deploying their military and even using live ammunition. Some are transferring their protection obligations to other—usually poorer—nations and isolated islands, detaining asylum seekers in poor conditions indefinitely. There are those set on criminalising solidarity and life-saving activities: making the saving of lives, the feeding of starving people and providing shelter to families in need a crime. Nor must we forget those who resort to the use of Covid-19, economic challenges or irregular arrivals of migrants as cover for disproportionate measures, restricting access to asylum and rights. The proposals in the Bill, set alongside the proposals of other nations that I just cited, would effectively undermine the very principles and obligations of the 1951 convention.
It is my view that our consideration of these important questions should seek always to be in harmony with the advice of UNHCR. That commission provides authoritative guidance in a manner consistent with the 1951 convention’s ambition to ensure,
“the widest possible exercise of these fundamental rights and freedoms”
by refugees. UNHCR, incidentally, has responsibility for all the 80-plus million refugees spread around the world.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I would like to say a word in support of the spirit of these amendments. Specifically, I would like to speak in support of Amendments 37, 38 and 42, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, introduced brilliantly by the conscience of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths. Yet, my heart is not in this game. This is what Americans call “putting lipstick on a pig”—it is still a pig.
The only element of this group which I can whole- heartedly support is that Clause 11 should not stand part of the Bill. Our Constitution Committee gave us a choice: it said that we should either remove or redraft Clause 11. I understand what all these redrafting amendments are trying to do, but it is not a good idea. This is not a case for “death by a thousand cuts”; it is a case for a “short sharp shock”. We need to take Clause 11 out of the Bill.
Why? Because the refugee convention matters; it is an important plank in the international legal order. Clause 11 flies directly in the face of the refugee convention, because it creates two classes of refugees: one with convention rights, and one without convention rights. The charge that it is a breach of the convention is put authoritatively not only by our Law Society and the Law Society of Scotland, but by UNHCR in its 72-page memorandum. That is a pretty authoritative source; indeed, it is the authoritative source. When we set up the refugee convention, we asked UNHCR to be its guardian, to supervise its application, and to report to the Secretary-General on laws on refugees in the signatory states. Therefore, it was not interfering, but doing the job which we, when we wrote the convention, asked it to do. I find it a shaming thought that its report on this Bill will have been seen by all 147 signatory states.
Why is UNHCR so sure that the Bill undermines the convention? Clause 11 is the heart of the matter. UNHCR believes that creating a two-tier system for handling asylum seekers—one class legitimate, one illegitimate—conflicts with the simple definition of a refugee in Article 1 of the convention. A refugee, says the convention, is someone who,
“owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country”.
That is all: he is outside his country of origin. The definition says nothing about any requirement to seek asylum in a particular place, and nothing about regular or irregular routes; it contains no suggestion that he is out of order if he does not seek asylum in the first safe country—there is no such requirement anywhere in international law.
A refugee is a refugee is a refugee, and must be treated as such, according to the provisions of the convention, however he got there. That is what the convention says and that is what we have believed down the years. Stretching the meaning of Article 31, as the Government seek to do, cannot change or qualify what Article 1 says, or add something that it does not contain. I have set out the definition of a refugee. There are no two categories; the definition is very simple.
I am no lawyer, and here I am surrounded by eminent, terrifying legal expertise—even including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham; as his former private secretary, I am horrified to see him there—but the definition of a refugee, and of our sin in this Bill, from the UNHCR and the law societies, must be right, because I cannot see how 147 countries would have signed up to the convention if they had thought it meant what the Government now say it means. Four in every five refugees are in developing countries adjacent to their country of citizenship. Would host countries have agreed that guests should never move on, and that they should be required to apply for asylum only in their first host country? Would the developing world have agreed that the developed world could wash its hands of the problem of looking after refugees because they were going to have to stay in the first safe country they reached on fleeing over a frontier? I do not think so. It plainly was not what those who signed up to the convention thought it meant, and the attempt to have an expansive reading of Article 31 and so change the meaning of the convention as a whole, in particular Article 1, looks quite a legal stretch. I agree with our Constitution Committee, the law societies and, importantly, the UNHCR.
I feel for the Minister, because the case she is asked to make on the legal position and the convention seems as eccentric and unconvincing as the claim of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, that you can extinguish the role of the CJEU in Northern Ireland by using Article 16 of the Northern Ireland protocol. I will stay away from the law—this is a rash foray—but I will stick with the UNHCR, the law societies and the conventional reading of the convention, which is how 146 countries still read it, and say that we really need to get rid of Clause 11.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, Clause 11 is the most objectionable clause in this whole objectionable Bill. It has to go, and not just because of what the convention says, our having signed and supported it and so on. It is not just because there is a convention but because the convention is right. However, we have to pick at the Bill. We will have the debate that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has started us off on so well on Report, but this is our opportunity to see whether there is any give in the Government’s position and whether there is anything we can, quite bluntly, take apart on Report in a way we have not yet thought of.
My noble friend Lord Paddick, the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Blunkett, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham have indicated their objection to the clause standing part. Had we been able, under the procedures of this House, to add more than four names, I think there would have been a very long list.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I would like to introduce into this debate a subject about which we have heard almost nothing so far: the views of the British people. We are, after all, the upper House of the British Parliament. Their views should be heard.
I have some figures here from the latest YouGov poll on the subject of immigration. The interesting thing is that immigration is now regarded as the third most important subject after health and the economy—even more important than Covid, curiously; I am not sure about that but, none the less, that is what it says. A previous YouGov poll said that 70% of people thought illegal crossings were a serious issue, so the public are well aware of the issue; indeed, they have been seeing it every night on television, particularly during last summer. Some 63% said that illegal immigrants should not be allowed to settle here while 60% said that they should be removed. In a June 2021 YouGov poll, 60% said they thought that illegal immigrants should be banned from claiming asylum, while only 20% thought they should be allowed to claim asylum. Some 64% thought it was fair to remove people who come from safe countries, while only 15% thought it unfair. Those are opinion polls so take them for what they are worth—we all have our views about opinion polls—but they are a snapshot of opinion in the recent past.
My own view is that, on an emotional subject such as immigration, you need to develop a policy with which the British people are comfortable. If you do not have a policy with which the British people are comfortable, it will not be sustainable in the long run. I point that out to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, who understandably made a point about our international obligations. If we had had a policy on immigration more widely that the British people had been comfortable with in the last 20 years, we might not have had Brexit. Sadly, whether we like it or not, immigration was a huge issue in the Brexit debate. I put it to the noble Lord that the extent to which people’s views on immigration were ignored was a factor leading to the decision that we took. I am a remainer, so I regret that.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I wonder if I could ask the noble Lord two questions. First, obviously public opinion is always relevant, but does he concede that, by definition, someone who is a genuine “refugee convention” refugee is not and never was an illegal immigrant? Secondly—again, this goes to the comments made about opinion—does he agree that opinion is something that the people with the privilege to be in this place, and certainly those in government, play a role in shaping and leading as well as hearing?
Lord Horam (Con)
My point is that we should pay regard to opinion but it is rarely mentioned in debates about immigration—almost never, in fact. There is a case for putting forward what the British people think about this, whether you think it is right or wrong. I do not think it is wholly right but, none the less, we have to take it into account. We have eventually to reach a position where the British people are comfortable with the Government’s policies; in my view, that is what the Government are trying to do.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I agree that public opinion is incredibly important but, at the same time, we are meant to be leaders; even here, we are meant to lead. Quite honestly, if you asked the British public, they would probably want hanging back; that is still very popular in some parts. Then, of course, there has been a lot of scaremongering by right-wing groups of all kinds, including parts of the Tory party—the ERG and so on—that have misrepresented a lot of what is happening with the refugees who are crossing the channel.
I am one of those people who agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Kerr—actually, is he learned? No, sorry—that a lot of these amendments are picking at a scab and there is no point in doing that because it just makes it worse. We have to get rid of Clause 11 because it just makes life harder for refugees and, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, we are not—
Lord Horam (Con)
I think there has been plenty of leadership on this issue over the years. People who have supported a pro-immigration policy—or a relaxed immigration policy, whatever you like to call it—have been pretty vociferous over the years; they have not been quiet. We have known what they think. There has been lots of leadership. Leadership is an issue at the moment but I had better not go too far into that. None the less, the people who support an expansive and comprehensive immigration policy have been vociferous; it is the people who are against it who have had their views ignored.
I read a book about Dagenham the other day, written by a Labour activist, which pointed out the comprehensive effect of immigration in Dagenham over a 10-year period. It went from being 85% white British to less than 50% white British and the local joke was whether if you went into a shop anyone there would speak English. People appealed to the Labour Party, because it was the Labour Party that introduced these policies, and were ignored. Dagenham, a long-standing Labour seat, nearly voted Tory in the last general election—and would have done, if not for the Brexit vote—because people had been ignored on the issue of immigration. For them, immigration had simply gone too far, too fast.
Lord Horam (Con)
I will not take another intervention, if the noble Baroness does not mind, as I have given way twice and want to finish what I am saying. I do not want to go on too long.
This House has to take into account that the silent majority have very clear views about this which they have held consistently for a long period and which have not been heard, and this has had a major effect on the policy positions of the country. In my view, it has had a deleterious effect, unfortunately; I would rather we had stayed in the European Union, but that is the fact we have to face.
It is generally admitted that we are now dealing with a very difficult, specific problem, one aspect of the whole immigration problem, namely illegal crossings of the channel. It is a small part of the problem that creates a bigger problem. Many people have raised wholesale migration, which I understand is a huge issue which is tackled in many different ways—through international development policies, as well as immigration policies, and so forth. However, there is a specific problem here which any Government of any colour would have to tackle, namely people smuggling people—not brandy, tobacco or commodities, but people—into this country illegally, day after day, against the law. That is something that no self-respecting Government can ignore; they simply cannot.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Horam, makes a fair point: we must certainly take account of public opinion. But I think he should take account of the extent to which political leaderships affect public opinion. The history of the last decade is a history of one of our great parties swinging right on issues of immigration. It is a history of a referendum campaign, where one side argued that 80 million Turks were going to come and there was nothing we could do to stop them. It is a history of a period in which we have constantly been told that we are beleaguered and the target of innumerable people who wish to come here. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, explained earlier in the debate, we are well down the league table in per capita terms for hosting immigrants of any hue. It is not good enough just to say, “There go my people. I am their leader; I must follow them.” We are capable of influencing public opinion and that is what we should be trying to do. I will give way in a second—
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am not sure who is interrupting whom. If I am interrupting the noble Lord, I will stop.
Lord Horam (Con)
With due respect to the noble Lord—I really do have great respect for him—I do not think we want to go through the whole business of Brexit again. My point is a simple one: we have to pay regard to British opinion. It is not as though people are manipulated; they have their own views. They are perfectly capable of taking a sceptical view of some of the people who have tried to make them do things in the past, frankly. They can form their own views—I am sure the noble Lord would agree. I was trying to narrow it down to this particular point on the problem of illegal immigration which, in my view, any Government would have to deal with, whatever their nature or colour.
As the noble Lord who initiated this debate said, many countries are tackling this problem in quite horrific, awful ways. In comparison with what they are doing, what we are doing is completely rational and sensible. It is trying to make a distinction. There are those who are coming in legally and properly, by the routes which are well known. We have a very good record on that, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, in comparison with the rest of Europe. We have not only a reasonable number of people coming in by the normal asylum-seeking routes each year but also the consequences of the Commonwealth, for example our links with Hong Kong, with up to 90,000 people having already accepted the chance to come here from Hong Kong. That is something which Germany, France and so forth do not have the same problem with.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, since an illustration I gave has been added to the discourse of the noble Lord, I feel I must interrupt. While I was painting the pig with lipstick—a squirmy pig, very difficult to hold fast to—I certainly listed a number of the horrendous ways in which countries are departing from the principles of the 1951 convention, but also added our own, which are equally nefarious and certainly not to be presented in a positive way.
Lord Horam (Con)
I think that is a matter on which the Government will no doubt make their position plain. As I understand it, they do not believe that they are departing from the international convention of 1951. Of course, many other countries have taken similar positions. Australia, for example, has divided people into those coming in in the normal, legal way and those coming in illegally, and that has not been denounced by the United Nations. Japan has done the same thing and, interestingly, the Social Democrats in Denmark are about to too. In Australia, they have a cross-party agreement on the immigration policy. I think the Labour Party ought to be more careful in its view of this because it may well become the Government in future and it will face the same problems which the present Government face. These are not only problems which the Government must face simply to be responsible and give people a sense that they control things and that borders mean something, which is their bottom-line responsibility, but also the issues of immigration.
With what we have here, if we can reduce it to the particular problem which the Government face on illegal immigration across the channel, the approach they are adopting helps, first, to deal with the pull factor, by pointing out the advantages of the normal asylum-seeking methods of getting into this country, on which this country has a good record; and, secondly, to dissuade people from adopting the illegal methods which they are at present forced into using.
The noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Kerr, made the point that they are economists, and I am an economist too. The problem is that, if you expand safe routes, you can never expand them wide enough to take account of all the people who want to come here. That is a simple fact of demand and supply, if I may say so, well known in economics. That is the problem which the Government face. As the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, mentioned in a previous debate, you have to have some limit on the number of people coming to this country for good population control reasons. If you decide on a limit and people are comfortable with that, you can decide how many immigrants will be allowed into the country in any one year and then deal with the problem of illegal immigration. In my view, that is the right order in which this should be dealt with, and I believe the Government are following exactly that policy.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
Sorry, I thought the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, gave way to me.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
I am not accustomed to the practices of this place; I am quite happy to see the debate alternate between different sides. I arrived at this debate—I regret that I have not got to the earlier debates on this difficult Bill—intending to listen but not to speak. I was hoping it would help to resolve the dilemma I face, which turns out to be exactly the same dilemma that has just been addressed by my old and noble friend Lord Horam.
I dare to venture that no one sitting in this Chamber has more liberal instincts than me on the subjects of race, xenophobia, multiculturalism and so on. In fact, one of the satisfactions of finding yourself elevated to the peerage is that you can come into this Chamber, where I suspect 99% of Members have perfectly sound liberal instincts. I have seen society in this country change considerably in my lifetime in the post-war world, and I have said publicly more than once that I think the multi-ethnic and multicultural society in which I now live is a much healthier, stronger and more enriched society than the rather narrow and insular all-white society in which I was born and raised.
The 1951 convention was one of the great contributions that British lawyers and politicians made to the post-war world, and it was obviously highly desirable after the horrendous shock of finding that a European country had organised—or tried to organise—the industrial genocide of a whole race. That is the context in which it was drafted. So my instincts are of course, first, that we should comply with the convention and, secondly, that this is a suitable place to accommodate the many people who need refuge. We have done so very successfully as a country. Although race relations are a problem in some places in this country, I think that our society has handled this better than any other European country. We do not really have the serious problems that quite easily break out in other countries.
But the circumstances have changed worryingly and dramatically. As has been pointed out, because of the horrendously dangerous state of the world, about 80 million people are now displaced, are looking for a better life and would take desperate measures to get it. If my noble friend Lord Horam and I were a couple of 18 year-olds living in Nigeria, I suspect that, if we had more than averagely prosperous families, we would hope that they would raise the money for us to take the horrendously difficult journey of leaving Nigeria to make a new and better life for ourselves. We would then hope for a family reunion and that our family could come and join us once we had made our way in Britain.
Among that 80 million—an extraordinary number—the favourite destinations are probably the United States, this country perhaps second and then France and Germany. They will want to go to these countries because, in the modern world of communications, they can see and know perfectly well that they are where the quality of life is likely to be best for them, if they can get there. The tenor of the debates that I have listened to so far is that we should make sure that there are legal and safe ways in which, in one place or another, we can consider all of these applications and make ourselves at least as attractive as any other country, particularly at a time when many other, previously normally ultra-liberal countries are setting up very considerable barriers to going there.
But we have to reflect on the impact that that might have on our society and culture, because things have been deteriorating recently. The growing public reaction to immigration—albeit expressed in perfectly civilised ways by most people at the moment, fortunately—is one of the reasons why our politics is deteriorating so badly. Every democracy in the western world is seeing the rise of right-wing populist nationalism, which I deplore wherever it occurs, including within the Conservative Party. It is rising—that is the reaction—and it is leading to developments of a kind that have gone further in other countries. In France, the position of Marine Le Pen, who now even has a right-wing competitor for the vote, shows what can happen when you get the wrong public reaction.
Among the public, the overwhelming reaction to the publicised symbol of these worries at the moment—the dinghies coming across the channel and being picked up—is that the Government are failing to stop them. The Government do not have the first idea how to do so, and, actually, neither do I. Plainly, you have to rescue these people and bring them here when they are in our territory—and then they are an asylum and refugee problem.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I speak solely as a lawyer. I did not speak at Second Reading; I would have needed to apologise for and explain that a few years ago. Consistently, we have been permitted to engage at a later stage, and that is no longer so.
I confess that I have been working hard to try to catch up with the legal appreciation of the effect of this Bill. I wish to respond to the noble Lords, Lord Kerr and Lord Horam, as a lawyer and in terms of the consistency of the Bill with our international obligations under the refugee convention. Under Article 35, we and our courts are required to have regard to what UNHCR says on the proper interpretation of the Bill in applying it in this country.
Although my views on the Bill overall are still not fully formed, as a lawyer I have come to the clear conclusion that Clause 29 and the clauses that follow Article 31 most directly for present purposes are simply impossible to reconcile with the clear jurisprudence of our courts of the most authoritative nature. For that, reason, I take essentially the same root-and-branch objection to Clause 11 and say to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, that I wonder whether this large proportion of people who, understandably, object to the problems this country has with asylum—and who would wish to exclude, so far as possible, those who are trying to gain refugee status here—would add, “And we don’t care a fig if what we are doing to give effect to that policy flatly contradicts our international law obligations under the refugee convention”.
Intrinsically, the group of clauses to which I refer, including Clauses 31 and 36, bear very closely on Clause 11, which is of course the subject of this group of amendments. The centre of the Bill’s approach, and that of Clause 11, is to try to create a particularly disadvantaged subcategory of asylum seekers, essentially on the footing that they fall outside the protection of Article 31 of the convention. The fact is that Article 31 is addressed both in Clause 31 and, as it happens, in closely similar terms, in Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. So there it is: we are talking about Article 31 of the convention, Clause 31 of the Bill and Section 31 of the preceding legislation, the 1999 Act.
Clause 36, more particularly, seeks to override well-established case law most directly. All this is explained in the series of authoritative legal opinions that have been addressed, certainly to me and probably to other lawyers in the House, by the Bingham Centre, the UNHCR and Amnesty—and by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is a very authoritative body of both Houses.
The Bill now seeks to overcome the effect of a divisional court case known as Adimi. I confess that, way back in the last century, I gave the leading judgment in that case but, much more importantly, it was approved explicitly on the critical questions—of coming here without delay and so forth—by the Appellate Committee of your Lordships’ House, presided over by the late and much-lamented Lord Bingham of Cornhill, in a case called Asfaw. The reference is 2008 1 AC 1061. It is a compelling leading judgment and indicates that the position, authoritatively decided in accordance with UNHCR advice and all the earlier indicia, is not compatible with what Clause 11, by reference to Clauses 31 and 36, seeks to do: to create this category B, to be regarded as illegal entrants to this country. It is on that basis, and not the narrower although well understandable objections to Clause 11 from other quarters, that I shall particularly resist the inclusion of Clause 11 in the Bill.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, in rising to support the proposal that Clause 11 do not stand part, to which I have added my name, I declare my interest in relation to both RAMP and Reset, as set out in the register. Along with colleagues on these Benches, I looked carefully at the possibility of making amendments to Clause 11 along the lines of those proposed, and reached the conclusion that the only thing we could fully support was the removal of the clause.
The proposal to separate refugees into two groups depending on how they arrived in the country, and whether it was their first country of arrival, are inimical to the whole basis on which the refugee convention is built. It is a betrayal of the letter and spirit of it. The idea that asylum must be claimed in the first country of arrival has no basis in international law; this is the view of the UNHCR and of the legal community. If imposed, it would place an unsustainable burden on a small number of nations, most of which are already under immense strain. The whole purpose of an internationally agreed convention is to recognise that the responsibility for the care and support of refugees needs to be carried by the whole global community. We recognise this as a nation by setting up and running resettlement schemes, working with the international community. So to try and declare this for those who claim asylum on arrival here, even if they have passed through other nations, does not logically fit with our recognition of the need for global collaboration and a global sharing of the demands.
I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, that the danger is that we go into a wider refugee debate rather than debating the clause. The vast bulk of the 80 million refugees have no desire to go anywhere other than back into their own country. That is where most of them wish to go; I have seen that and talked to them first-hand.
However, let us for a few minutes work with the idea of claiming asylum only in the first nation of arrival, and see how this would work with the proposals in Clause 11 for our nation. We are an island nation; therefore, no one could ever make a first arrival here by land—no one in group 1. We are an island nation, so arrival by sea is a clear option, but none of us wants to see arrivals by sea in unsafe boats. So the safe ways must be via ferries, or cargo or passenger ships coming from longer distances away. The likelihood that such journeys could be undertaken in a way that is deemed legal under the Bill is very slim.
Those fleeing persecution, domestic violence, war and the impact of climate change may well have to do so without all the relevant paperwork, and certainly with no valid visa. They might just secure a paid-for passage without all this but it is highly unlikely. It is more likely that they will find themselves having to stow away in a van, lorry or container, or somewhere on the boat, so they will arrive having travelled illegally—hence they go into group 2. The number who would travel in complete fulfilment of the Bill in a legal manner would be minimal—almost no one in group 1.
We are an island nation, so arrival by air is the other clear option. Stowing away on an aeroplane is decidedly harder than on a ship but might just be possible. However, I think we all understand it is illegal, so such arrivals would go straight into group 2. Perhaps someone somehow manages to purchase a ticket and travel with their own passport but with no visa. As it happens, I was nearly refused entry to a plane when returning home from Portugal last autumn because of an issue over my Covid vaccine passport, so how one would succeed without a valid visa is an interesting question. It might just happen; however, on arrival, there is no visa so they could easily be deemed an illegal arrival, therefore in group 2.
Perhaps they have a visa as a student, so entry happens legally. But this student is not simply studying; they are fleeing because they are gay and know that they will be persecuted in their home nation if they come out. That will be made worse for them because they also come from a minority tribe who already feel put down, so on arrival they claim asylum on the basis of their sexuality and the likelihood of persecution. However, this was not the purpose of their visa. This is not theory: it is the story of Azmat, who I, along with several other Peers, met online last week. Such people do not qualify for group 1 but go into group 2.
The UK resettlement scheme and the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme are not open to all the nationalities most commonly accepted as refugees by the UK Government. Vulnerable people requiring protection will therefore become group 2 refugees. People cannot jump a queue where there is simply no queue to join.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I feel profoundly uncomfortable with Clause 11, and I am very tempted to vote for it to be completely removed. But I wanted to listen to the debate, and I am afraid that the people who have argued for the removal of Clause 11 have given me pause for thought, which was not what I expected to happen when I arrived. The reason is the way that this discussion has taken a particular form politically.
I am somebody who voted to leave the EU from the left—in the Tony Benn tradition—and I have historically been liberal on immigration. I have fought on many anti-deportation campaigns, and I am not somebody who thinks that one should close the borders. I am, more than anything else, a democrat; even in this House, I try to stay a democrat. I appreciated, with some irony, the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Horam, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke—Conservative remainers with whom, to be honest, I have not historically had a great deal in common but who raised some important issues that should inform this debate.
My concerns about Clause 11 were very well expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who explained in great detail where I was finding difficulties with this. But I have a problem with the solution and the way in which this debate has been conducted. I think it is important to consider the British public’s opinion. It was interesting that a lot of people have asked us to walk in the footsteps of asylum seekers; I think empathy is hugely important and humane. But I also ask noble Lords to walk in the footsteps of the British public, who, if you ask them their opinion, do not all want hanging. Leadership is, broadly speaking, not the same as usurping their perfectly reasonable concerns.
What are their concerns? They are not that they do not meet any asylum seekers and, when they meet them, they change their minds; not that they lack generosity; not that they are xenophobic, mean spirited or narrow minded; and not that they want to close the borders and hate foreigners, as is often implied. Their concerns are that they would like control over the borders, which I think is a perfectly reasonable demand. A visceral illustration of a lack of control over the borders has been given to us by those arriving in boats, and we are all trying to untangle what to do about it as humanely as possible. That includes the British public, millions and millions of whom are incredibly generous of spirit towards all sorts of people and do not need lectures from here about how they have to open their hearts to people. They are full of heart-brimming generosity in all sorts of ways. Why do we have an issue here?
This is the bit that I cannot untangle. There are people who are seeking asylum legitimately, and one wants to welcome them. There are people trying to come to the country who are undoubtedly illegal immigrants, as anyone would understand them, but because there are very few ways to arrive as an economic immigrant, they may choose to describe themselves as asylum seekers. On a different set of amendments I will say that we should have more liberal immigration rules that would allow unskilled people to come as economic immigrants to this country.
We can see, and it is perfectly reasonable, that you cannot just say to people that everybody who arrives on a boat is obviously an asylum seeker, and that everybody who worries about them arriving must be a mean-spirited, horrible person who hates foreigners. That is my concern. I am trying to untangle that, because I genuinely do not know what to do. As I said, I would be liberal about economic migrants coming to the country, as much as I would about asylum seekers coming to the country, but I feel as though everyone is being forced to declare that they are asylum seekers because it is the only route in where you will not get kicked out. So I think that we are in a mess.
The Government need to answer this. What happened in relation to Brexit—for noble Lords who are interested in this—was not that people did not want any foreigners to come into the country but that they were told that freedom of movement was a non-negotiable international agreement that nobody could ever debate. So as democrats, people said, “Well, I live here; I’m a British citizen”—many of them from ethnic minorities, before anyone goes down the racist road—and they said, “Shouldn’t we be able to control who are British citizens who come here?” That is what happened. Other people said, “No, we can’t because we’re in the EU; we’ve got no choice”. So they got annoyed. My concern here is that if we say to the British public, “You either agree with us or you’re a xenophobe”, or, “You have to agree with us because we’ve got a refugee convention”—another international agreement from 1951, however good it is—“and it’s the only thing going; there’s no alternative”, that will also indicate that they have no democratic power.
I cannot understand why the Government keep trying to fit in what they are doing to the 1951 refugee convention, which, although one noble Lord described it as having been written in utmost liberality by British lawyers, was written by British lawyers—not by the British public. I want the laws to be written by the British public and for the British public, not just by lawyers—and in 2022, not necessarily referring back to 1951 all the time. I have no objection to that convention, but if it is not fit for purpose in 2022 to take control of our borders, the debate about immigration and asylum seekers will become toxic, if we just keep telling people that they cannot have this discussion. I believe I can convince my fellow citizens to be more liberal on immigration, but not when they are told that they cannot have the debate or that if they want to have the debate or to express worries about people arriving in boats, they must by their very nature be lacking in generosity and xenophobic. That is not the way to go. I am still likely to vote against Clause 11, by the way.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I think we have been having this debate all my adult life and probably all my life, but I am certainly happy to keep having it; there is nothing wrong with that. However, I do think that it is very important in the context of Clause 11 to make a distinction in Committee between immigration and asylum. If I may say so, I do not think that Brexit is terribly helpful to an analysis of Clause 11. It used to be said that for the French, a meal without wine is like a day without sunshine. Clearly, for some people the equivalent is a discussion without Brexit, but I am not one of them.
It is important to make this distinction between immigration and asylum, which are both big and important debates, but they are too often conflated—not just in our discussions in this Committee but to some extent in Clause 11 itself. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, did not have the opportunity to reply to my question—all sorts of people intervened in his speech, to be fair—but if somebody is a convention refugee, they are not and never were an illegal migrant. That is incredibly important.
I congratulate the right reverend Prelate, who I think gave the speech of this Committee, and not just because I agree with him. I do agree with him, and also the noble and learned Lord, Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. What was so important about the right reverend Prelate’s speech was its specificity to the refugees’ journey and the way that that would be affected by this differentiation. I congratulate him on that, because it is a very good way to analyse Clause 11: whether it works and whether it complies with the refugee convention.
Why is compliance with the refugee convention so important? It is not like choosing to vote in or out of something that began as a trading bloc but was always a particular grouping of countries rather than the whole civilised world. The reason why the refugee convention is so important is because, after two world wars, it was literally the world’s apology for the Holocaust. That is the best way that I can sum up why the refugee convention is so important. While Britain did wonderful things, not least standing up to Hitler with lots of Americans and Russians and people from the Commonwealth too, and there are very good things to be said about Britain’s contribution, there were also less noble things that have to be remembered—about the people who did not manage to get out, who did not escape the Holocaust, including people who were not allowed into this country and other countries around the world.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
The noble and learned Lord has an amendment and he wishes to speak to it.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I would like to speak to my Amendment 41. It is a very specific amendment relating to Clause 11 as it currently stands. Before I turn to that, however, I will take up the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Brown in relation to providing a legal structure for our discussion here. The first thing, which has been emphasised by a number of noble Lords, though not all, is that Article 31 is central to the discussion. This is because it is obvious that the Government, in relation to Clause 11 and the following clauses, are seeking to interpret and apply their view of Article 31.
It has been suggested that we can ignore the convention because we must have regard to what people think today, but I am afraid that we cannot do that. We are a party to this convention: if we do not like it, the Government will have to recuse themselves from it and try to get other countries to change it. At the moment, however, the convention applies.
Article 31 says that no penalty shall be imposed on account of illegal entry or presence on a refugee who satisfies three requirements. These are the three requirements set out in Clause 11. The first is that the refugee comes directly from the territory of persecution. The second is that the refugee presents themselves without delay to the authorities. The third is that the refugee shows good cause for their illegal entry or presence. That is what Clause 11 is about. However, you cannot read Clause 11 on its own because the subsequent clauses all have some impact on it. In particular, Clause 36 is critical because it seeks to give a definition of coming directly from the territory of persecution.
Noble Lords will see from what I have just described that, although Article 31 says what the Government cannot do—that is, they cannot impose a penalty if those three requirements are satisfied—it does not go on to say that, if they are not satisfied, you can have a differentiation such as that in Clause 11. That is a matter of policy, and I can certainly see the force of the argument for saying that this division that has taken place in Clause 11 is sufficiently inconsistent with the definition of a refugee to make it improper.
There is a more fundamental point: Clause 36, referred to by my noble and learned friend, in seeking to define “coming directly from another country,” says that the requirement is not to be taken as satisfied if the refugee stopped in another country outside the UK, unless they can show that they could not have reasonably been expected to have sought protection under the convention in that country. There is no such qualification in Article 31, and it appears that the Government believe they can, through legislation, elaborate on the meaning of Article 31 in whatever way would best suit the current asylum policy of the day. This, I am afraid, is entirely misguided as a matter of law.
As an international treaty, the convention has the same meaning for each and every member state that signed up to it. It cannot bear different meanings for each member state, according to the policy of the Government of the state for the time being. In England and Wales, the court has, pursuant to its constitutional role of interpreting legislation and written law, held that a refugee may still come directly to a member state, within the meaning of Article 31, even if the refugee passes through one or more intermediate countries, if the final destination of the refugee has always been the state in which the asylum is finally claimed and the halts in the intermediate country or countries are no more than short-term stopovers. My noble and learned friend Lord Brown referred to his judgment in the Adimi case, which decided that very point.
On the global picture, to cut matters short—before I turn to the particular amendment—I am against the division, the separation, between group 1 and group 2 in Clause 11 because it depends on a requirement, or the failure to meet a requirement, which is directly contrary to the convention. Therefore, I certainly object to the division between group 1 and group 2 so long as Clause 36 stays in its present form, with its present definition of coming “directly”, on both logical and legal grounds—quite apart from the matter of general principle, which other noble Lords have mentioned, about the demeaning nature of distinguishing between two different categories.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
I am very grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving way, and I agree with his analysis entirely. I just wanted to ask him this question, which the Committee might want to know the answer to: if his view, and the view of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, is right, what would be the consequences of some of these cases—were the Bill to become enacted as it is—if they reached the courts?
Lord Etherton (CB)
Strictly speaking, the legal position is that there is no basis for individuals to enforce the convention, but it is enforceable by other member states, which can complain that this country is not complying with its obligations. I would expect that that may well happen. So far as coming here illegally is concerned, my noble and learned friend Lord Brown referred to the Adimi case, which was about whether there was an illegal entry. He held that there was not, because although these refugees passed through intermediate states, they did in fact come directly. So, the individual is placed in a not very satisfactory situation, but the state can certainly be held accountable in the International Court of Justice, and that may well happen.
If I may now descend from the wider view to the narrower, I want to deal with a point I have raised in relation to Clause 11(3) and other similar clauses which impose a requirement on a refugee. The requirement, as it were, or even a breach of it can be overcome if
“they can show good cause for their unlawful entry or presence”,
and there are other provisions saying that this can happen where there is a “reasonable” expectation of something happening or where something is “reasonably practicable”. In all those cases, I have sought to table an amendment which says that, in deciding what is good cause, practicable or reasonable, the immigration officer should take into account any protected characteristic of the refugee within the meaning of the Equality Act which is innate or immutable. I do not want to get too involved in the legality of those terms; basically, that is relevant under decisions in our law to people who claim to be a member of a particular social group. Being a member of particular social group that is being persecuted is one of the categories of refugee in Article 1 of the convention, so I do not want to spend too much time on that. There are nine protected characteristics in the Equality Act, but only some of those will be innate or immutable.
That expression, “innate”, is used in the Bill itself in describing the meaning of a particular social group. Your Lordships will find it in Clause 32, which also expressly states that a
“social group may include a group based on a common characteristic of sexual orientation”.
I want to take up that point to explain why I suggest it is necessary that wherever there is a reference to reasonable cause, reasonable expectation or what is practicable—as I have said—there is an express statement in the Bill that the fact that the refugee has a protected characteristic which is innate or immutable should be taken into account.
I want to take the case of LGBTQI+ people to illustrate the reasons why. First, experience has shown that, all too often, difficulties arising from a characteristic such as that have not been taken sufficiently into account. The approach to LGBTQI+ refugees has often been woefully inadequate and misguided. It was not until the 2010 decision of the Appellate Committee of the Supreme Court in HJ (Iran) that it was established that the Home Office could not refuse an asylum claim from a gay man or lesbian simply on the basis that if they could reasonably be expected to act discreetly in their home country, rather than live openly with their sexuality, they would not suffer persecution. Therefore, it was only some 12 years ago that the Home Office, which fought HJ (Iran) right up to the highest court in the land, was obliged to accept that its approach to LGBTQI+ refugees, in the words of then Supreme Court Justice Sir John Dyson—later Lord Dyson and Master of the Rolls—frustrated
“the humanitarian objective of the Convention and”
denied LGBTQI+ people
“the enjoyment of their fundamental rights and freedoms without discrimination.”
Secondly, it is well known that LGBTQI+ refugees face a large number of practical difficulties in claiming asylum. I will address these in due course, when we come to the relevant clauses in the Bill, to show why there has been a failure to satisfy a particular requirement. In the case of Clause 11(2)(b), the issue is whether they presented themselves without delay to the authorities and can show good cause for their unlawful entry. This is the question of clandestine exit. As I have said, it applies also to abused women in abusive relationships coming from a conservative religious community. They cannot go and buy a plane ticket. They cannot indicate in any way in these countries what the reason for their seeking asylum is. The result could be honour killings, stoning or being thrown off a wall, so they keep their characteristics as far as possible to themselves. It is not surprising that they are slow to report themselves or that their routes here are clandestine.
Finally, on this point, the Home Office’s own statistics show the extent to which claims by LGBTQ+ asylum seekers have been wrongly rejected by immigration officers. Experimental statistics published by the Government in August 2019 on lesbian, gay and bisexual asylum claims show there was an initial decision grant rate of 29% in 2018. However, 38% of appeals relating to LGBT asylum applications were allowed in respect of applications made in 2015-18. These published statistics are qualified in some respects but, in broad terms, they reflect the reality of a substantial proportion of successful appeals. That is why, in my suggestion, wherever we see in this Bill as currently framed any reference to good cause, those with protected characteristics that are innate or immutable must be protected by an express reference on the face of the Bill.
Lord Lea of Crondall (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I think the House would be grateful if somebody, in one sentence, expressed appreciation for the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham. No one doubts that, over the past 50 years or so, he has been a beacon of liberalism within his party. The point he made in this connection is that there is a great dilemma facing us all. Apart from climate change, the dilemma is that, for governance systems in parts of the world—Africa is the continent that springs to mind—we will have to have a new arrangement for crossing the Mediterranean whereby we do not get into all these problems, which are getting worse. That speech is not easy to make, but I just want to say that the honesty and the examination of the dilemmas we all face has been a credit to this House.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I remind everyone that Clause 11 is not only not about immigration, let alone illegal immigration; it is not even about asylum seekers. It is titled “Differential treatment of refugees”—people who have been recognised and accepted as entitled to asylum in this country. What Clause 11 means is that the Government want to penalise a certain category of people who have been accepted as refugees. On the one hand, we accept them as refugees, but then we are going to turn round and penalise them in various ways for how they arrived. I have agreed with all the critics of Clause 11, and I agree that Clause 11 as a whole needs to get the chop.
Clause 11 wants to penalise people with a much-reduced permission to stay; by requiring several frequent applications for further permission to stay; by keeping them in uncertainty for many years; by excluding them from public funds; and by delaying or denying altogether a visa for family reunion. I suggest that this is not only pernicious, as everyone has said, but costly. It is costly to that individual and it is costly to society, because it is not good for society when you have people who are unable to integrate and living with instability, isolation, possible destitution, homelessness and separation from family. They have been recognised as refugees, which means that we expect these people to be part of our society. I cannot see that it is good for society.
I had the opportunity, when the Minister was kind enough to meet me, to receive the great news on CSI. I come at this with an approach of both principle and practicality. As I say, I cannot see that it is in the interests of either society or the Home Office to have people living in this constant fear of what their futures are going to hold. We are told that the asylum system is broken. We know about the 125,000 unresolved applications. We know about the time and delays; on average, it now takes a year to decide a case. When I was an MEP, I had people who had been waiting three and a half years for an initial application, with the harm it did to them physically and mentally and to their status within their family as well. How is it going to help the Home Office to have more administration in constantly having to review these applications to decide whether it is going to deny public funds or renew the permission to stay?
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I listened carefully to the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and she quite rightly reminded the House that we are talking about asylum seekers. I have to say that, after that, our paths diverged quite considerably.
In listening to a debate covering 16 amendments and a clause stand part, I discerned three angles. The first, what I might call the ultras, led by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, want to remove the clause completely. The second angle is to take the clause to pieces, as in the amendments from my noble friend Lady McIntosh, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port. Thirdly, there are the other amendments, described by, I think, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, as picking at the scab. If you leave aside the point that the clause should not exist and take the other two, the inevitable result is that what we are doing, maybe imperceptibly, is widening the opportunity for asylum seekers to come to this country. How many and whether it is a good or a bad thing can be debated, but that is going to happen if we accept the amendments put forward in this group.
That, in turn, raises a couple of issues for me about fairness. First, there is fairness to those who have so far followed the scheme for tier 1 and are therefore going to find their position disadvantaged by the arrival of more people who would otherwise have been in tier 2. Once that thread is broken and the rules become more judgmental, then there are obviously issues of fairness for those who have the clearest position.
The second question of fairness is about the contract with the British public. In the debate on Clause 9 at the last meeting of the Committee, I discussed the nature of what I call “informed consent”. I described it as a concept that Peter Bauer had expressed to me half a century ago in a debate at my business school. Here, I touch very much on the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. There is a question of informed consent. The informed consent is not absolute; it is conditional. One of the reasons I think we have had reasonably satisfactory race relations so far is the point made by my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke that the public have felt, though stretched, often badly stretched, their consent is still there. But, as I say, it is not absolute and we need to make sure that the British public is able to see rules that are clear, unequivocal and comprehensible in their impact on them, their families, their communities and the society in which they live. The more complex the rules become, the greater the chances of cases emerging that will endanger and maybe break that informed consent.
My second point of concern about this is what I call “foreign shopping”. For a number of years I was a trustee of a charity called Fair Trials International—the name is self-explanatory—which does excellent work in many areas but in particular as regards extradition. We came across the extremely unattractive practice of people seeking extradition going round looking for the best jurisdiction, the best legal system or the best court to enable them to be successful. I think we have to be very careful to ensure that similar practices, which may already exist now, do not grow further as regards asylum seekers.
Again, my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke referred to it. He said, “If I was in Nigeria with my noble friend Lord Horam and we were deciding we were a couple of likely lads and we thought the future looked better outside Nigeria, we would look around at all the jurisdictions that might offer us the best prospects.” Now, I think the United Kingdom is an extremely attractive place to go to. We have had a long debate tonight and I am not going to go through the reasons why I think it is. They include a series of things, not least that people can see that the Parliament of the United Kingdom spends time talking and thinking about it and is concerned about it. What better way to try and find your way into a country that has the interest and the focus to make sure that even the lowest person is looked after and their rights are protected?
When my noble friend the Minister comes to wind up, I hope she will be able to say that the Government are going to look very carefully at the impact of more asylum seekers of variable abilities, perhaps—more people who may risk breaking the informed consent of the British people. For all these reasons, we need to be very careful before we widen the aperture and widen the opportunities any further than proposed in the Bill as presently drafted.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I oppose Clause 11 and simply want to pose four questions, the answers to which I hope might help clarify the mind of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham—my home city.
First, how is it possible to decide a priori whether someone is an economic migrant or a refugee on the basis of how they arrive in the country? It appears to be a key assumption on which Clause 11 and much of the Bill is based. The evidence—in particular the Refugee Council’s analysis of channel crossings—shows that most of those crossing the channel irregularly, and therefore deemed illegal, are likely to be recognised as in need of refugee protection. That does not support the assumption.
I recently met virtually with members of the Baobab Centre for Young Survivors in Exile and was told that, in their 32 years of work, they had never met an unaccompanied young person who had arrived by a safe and legal route, yet all had been fleeing danger, with many having seen family members killed and many traumatised. A constant refrain among the young survivors themselves was that they wished Ministers would put themselves in their shoes—a refrain we have heard before this evening—and that they felt the proposed policy was based on a lack of compassion and trust.
Secondly, what assessment has been made of the likely impact on integration—an issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, which Ministers claim is still a goal—of creating a second-class group of refugees with no security and only very limited rights?
Thirdly, what assessment has been made of the case made by a number of organisations, including the UNHCR, that placing restrictions on the right to family reunion for this group will, in the words of the Refugee Council, “all but destroy” the
“main safe route out of conflict for women and children at risk”.
Fourthly, and finally, why should we accept the Government’s interpretation of the refugee convention over that of the body with global supervisory responsibility for it? The UNHCR has provided detailed legal observations in support of its claims that the Bill is
“fundamentally at odds with … the United Kingdom’s international obligations under the Refugee Convention”.
Likewise, Freedom from Torture has published a joint legal opinion from three chambers which states that
“this Bill represents the biggest legal assault on international refugee law ever seen in the UK”
and
“is wrong as a matter of international refugee law.”
To my knowledge, the Government have not published the legal advice on which their claims that Clause 11 is compatible with international law are based. Will they now do so, particularly in light of the very important speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown?
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I shall be extremely brief; this has been a long debate. I just want to commend the noble Lords, Lord Horam and Lord Hodgson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. They all pointed out the need to take full account and understanding of public opinion. I agree with that; I do not need to repeat it. As for Clause 11, it is clearly a legal problem. I suspect that it will also be a policy problem, but we will come to that later.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this part of the Bill has a very simple purpose: it is designed by the Government to make life harder for refugees. The two-tier refugee system is designed to give the illusion of there being a proper way of being a refugee, but it will inflict huge suffering and injustice on desperate people.
It is probably not the normal tactic to plan what we are going to do next in front of the Government Front Bench, but although I applaud the intentions of noble Lords who tabled the 16 amendments to the clause, the only way is to take it out of the Bill. It is so vile, so obnoxious, that it really should not be in here.
This has not been mentioned very much but we must remember that, to some extent, we have a moral duty to take refugees. A lot of these refugees are coming from countries we have invaded, or where we have interfered or done all sorts of things, whether it is burning too much fossil fuel, causing climate change, or destabilising their Governments. Please can we remember that there is a moral duty? It is all very well referring to population density and so on, but we owe these people and we should never forget that.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to offer a view on what public opinion is. What I do remember is that a lot of people expressed a view on what public opinion was over climate protesters and people who threw statues into the water at Bristol, but when cases came up before a jury, they reached some very interesting decisions on guilt or otherwise. That suggests that some of those who profess to know what public opinion is may not necessarily be right when the public have a chance to hear the arguments presented to them and are then asked to make a decision.
Clause 11 is about differential treatment of recognised refugees and its impact and implications. We believe that it contravenes the 1951 refugee convention. It sets a dangerous precedent by creating a two-tier system for refugees, and it is also inhumane. Under the Bill, the Home Secretary will be given sweeping powers to decide asylum cases based on how someone arrives in this country and their mode of transport, not on the strength of their claim—contrary to the 1951 refugee convention, of which Britain was a founding member.
Under the clause, only those refugees who meet specific additional requirements will be considered group 1 refugees and benefit from the rights currently granted to all refugees by the refugee convention. Other refugees who are not deemed to meet those criteria will be designated as group 2 refugees, and the Secretary of State will be empowered to draft rules discriminating against group 2 refugees with regard to the rights to which they are entitled under the refugee convention, as well as their fundamental right to family unity. The different ways in which those two groups could be treated is not limited in any way by the Bill. Clause 11 does, however, provide examples of ways in which the two groups might be treated differently, even though they are nearly all recognised as genuine refugees. Those who travel via a third country, who do not have documents or who did not claim asylum immediately will routinely be designated as group 2 refugees. The clause goes on to set out how the length of limited leave, access to indefinite leave, family reunion —that is, whether family members, mainly women and children, are entitled to join them—and access to public funds are likely to become areas for discrimination against group 2 refugees.
The government policy paper, the New Plan for Immigration, proposed that instead of fully fledged refugee status, group 2 refugees will be granted “temporary protection” for a period of no longer than 30 months,
“after which individuals will be reassessed for return to their country of origin or removal to”
a safe third country. Temporary protection status
“will not include an automatic right to settle in the UK, family reunion rights will be restricted and there will be no recourse to public funds except in cases of destitution”—
in other words, a state, deliberately created, of complete uncertainty over their future for group 2 refugees.
Clause 11 would therefore make a significant and unprecedented change in the law, resulting in the UK treating accepted refugees less generously, based on the journey they have taken to reach the UK and the timeliness of their asylum claim. This attempt to create two different classes of recognised refugee is surely inconsistent with the refugee convention and has no basis in international law. The refugee convention, which was enshrined in UK law in 1954, contains a single unitary definition of “refugee”. It defines a refugee solely according to their need for international protection because of feared persecution on the grounds of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. Anyone who meets that definition and is not excluded is a refugee and entitled to the protection of the refugee convention.
The Commons committee considering the Bill heard in evidence from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ representative to the UK that this clause and the Bill were inconsistent with the UN convention and international law. If the Government disagree with that—an issue raised by my noble friend Lady Lister —no doubt they will spell out in some detail in their reply their legal argument for saying that the clause does comply with the convention and international law.
This is, however, not just a matter of law but of fairness and humanity. By penalising refugees for how they were able to get to the UK, the Bill builds walls against people in need of protection and shuts the door on many seeking a safe haven. Most refugees have absolutely no choice about how they travel. Is it really this Government’s intention and desire to penalise refugees who may, for example, as a matter of urgency, have had to find an irregular route out of Afghanistan? Are the Government saying that people are less deserving if they have had to take a dangerous route to our shores? Is an interpreter from Afghanistan who took a dangerous journey to our shores less deserving than a refugee who was lucky enough to make it here on one of the flights out of the country?
The Government acknowledge that such journeys are very dangerous and sometimes fatal, yet they do not seem to appreciate the compulsion—that the alternative of not doing so is even worse—which drives people to make such journeys. If people truly had a reason to believe that they would be safe where they are, they would not make the journey. Simply making the journey more dangerous or the asylum system more unwelcoming will not change that. Of the first 5,000 people who came in 2020 by boat, well over 90% were deemed by the Home Office to be eligible to apply for asylum: they were genuine asylum seekers. They were not here illegally—but they will become illegal if the Bill is enacted.
Penalising people for how they arrived in the UK has particular implications for already vulnerable groups of refugees such as women and those from LGBT communities. Women are often compelled to take irregular routes to reach safety, as we see only too clearly in Afghanistan. There are simply no safe and legal routes. Under the proposed changes, however, women who arrive irregularly, including through a safe third country, will be penalised and could be prosecuted, criminalised and imprisoned. The same obstacles will apply to those from LGBT communities.
Unless the Government can provide safe routes, penalising people for making unsafe journeys is simply inhumane, although, even then, not everyone would have the time or ability to access a safe route, even if one existed. By not providing safe routes, the Government are also fuelling the business model of the people smugglers they claim their proposals will destroy, and then penalising the victims they have had a responsibility for creating. The Conservative-led Foreign Affairs Committee, of which the Home Secretary was then a member, warned in 2019:
“A policy that focuses exclusively on closing borders will drive migrants to take more dangerous routes, and push them into the hands of criminal groups”.
The Government’s impact assessment warns that increased deterrence in this manner
“could encourage these cohorts to attempt riskier means of entering the UK.”
As has been said, Clause 11 also says that group 1 refugees must have
“come to the United Kingdom directly from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened”.
In other words, the Government are setting an expectation that, to be recognised as a refugee supposedly deserving of the support usually afforded, the UK must be the first safe country in which they have sought asylum. Commenting on the Bill, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees said:
“Requiring refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach would undermine the global, humanitarian, and cooperative principles on which the refugee system is founded.”
It was pointed out in oral evidence to the Joint Committee on Human Rights that it was unlikely that
“any country close to the main countries of origin of refugees would have ever considered signing a convention if that meant that they would assume total and entire responsibility for all the refugees.”
In addition, when the refugee convention came into being in the early 1950s, there was little or no commercial air travel, so any refugee reaching this country would have to have crossed land borders from safe states. Yet there was no view then that such a refugee should be seen—as under this Bill and the Government’s interpretation of the refugee convention in international law—as a criminal liable to up to four years in prison and to being sent back to France, and with any claim for asylum being regarded as inadmissible.
Even within Europe, most of the countries that refugees pass through on their way to the UK already host significantly more refugees and asylum seekers per population than the UK does. According to the Home Office’s own statistics, the UK is 17th in terms of the numbers it takes, measured per head of population. Unless safe routes are developed, all that will happen is that there will be an increase in dangerous crossings, because that will be the only way in which people can reach the United Kingdom.
As it is, France takes three times more asylum seekers than the UK, as does Germany. Global provision for refugees could not function if all refugees claimed asylum in the first safe country they came to. As my noble friends Lord Griffiths of Burry Port and Lord Coaker have pointed out, most refugees are hosted in developing countries and the UK receives fewer asylum applications than most other European countries. Under international law, the primary responsibility for identifying refugees and affording international protection rests with the state in which an asylum seeker arrives and seeks that protection.
Clause 11 sets out a non-exhaustive list of the ways in which refugees who arrive irregularly and become group 2 refugees may be treated differently. The Explanatory Notes to the Bill state that the purpose of this is
“to discourage asylum seekers from travelling to the UK”,
and to encourage
“individuals to seek asylum in the first safe country they reach after fleeing persecution.”
It is not clear, since the Government have provided no explanation, how the stated aim will result from the policy; perhaps the Government in their response will provide that explanation.
Evidence from many refugee organisations suggests that refugees seek asylum in the UK for a range of reasons, such as proficiency in English, family links or a common heritage based on past colonial histories. In addition, refugees do not cite the level of leave granted or other elements of the asylum system as decisive factors. The Home Office’s own study from 2002—I do not think there has been one since then—noted that there was little evidence that respondents seeking to come to the UK had a detailed knowledge of UK asylum procedures, benefit entitlements or the availability of work in the UK. There was even less evidence that the respondents had a comparative knowledge of how these conditions varied between different European destination countries.
Given that individuals have little knowledge of the asylum systems of the countries they end up in, it is not clear that differential treatment will dissuade individuals from coming to the UK via safe countries. However, what the Government are proposing will certainly result in a refugee population that is less secure, and it will punish those who have been recognised through the legal system as needing international protection, such as women and girls fleeing the Taliban or Uighurs fleeing genocide in China.
The Explanatory Notes also state that 62% of asylum claims in the UK up to September 2019 were from people who entered irregularly. This means that the policy intention is to impose strictures on the rights and entitlements of the majority of refugees coming to the UK, even though we take fewer than comparable countries. Those penalties would target not just those who have entered the UK irregularly or have made dangerous journeys but all those who have not come directly to the UK, regularly or irregularly, from a country or territory where their life or freedom was threatened, those who have delayed claiming asylum or overstayed, and even those who arrive in the UK without entry clearance and who claim asylum immediately.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am sorry to disappoint noble Lords, but I am the lead signatory on the Clause 11 stand part proposal. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has kindly allowed me to speak last from this side.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees—the UN Refugee Agency—leads international action to protect people forced to flee because of conflict and persecution. As many noble Lords have said, a 1951 convention and a 1957 protocol together make the refugee convention, which sets out the UK’s and other signatories’ international obligations.
The UNHCR’s considered view—as well as that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, from what I understand—is that the Bill is fundamentally at odds with the Government’s commitment to uphold the United Kingdom’s obligations under the refugee convention. Clause 11 is at the heart of this considered view.
The Government seem to misunderstand the purpose of international conventions, such as the refugee convention. They have recently adopted the phrase “different countries will interpret the convention differently”. Is not the whole purpose of an international convention and its protocols for there to be a shared understanding of what an international convention means, to ensure that each signatory interprets the convention in the same way and acts accordingly? I think that was the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I will address his concerns about protected characteristics in a future group.
More honestly, some Conservatives—and the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, who has apparently given up—have called the refugee convention outdated. They say that we should renegotiate or withdraw from it. That is not the Government’s position. They say that they can treat asylum seekers differently, depending on their circumstances, and that this is in compliance with the refugee convention.
Much has been said—and we have had many briefings on this clause—but I will restrict my comments to the primary concerns of the custodian of the refugee convention, the UNHCR. It says that the “first safe country” principle does not exist in international law, is unworkable and would undermine global co-operation. This is obviously the case. With most refugees—at least before the fall of Afghanistan—making their own way to safety from the African continent, only Turkey and those countries bordering the Mediterranean Sea would be legally able to take refugees, if that were the case. The UNHCR says that already three-quarters of refugees are hosted in countries neighbouring their own. Some 85% are hosted in developing and middle-income countries. As other noble Lords have said, almost all the countries through which refugees pass on their way to the UK already have more refugees and asylum-seeking applicants than the UK does.
This is a global crisis, requiring a global response in which every country plays its part and where every country, including the UK, takes its fair share of genuine asylum seekers. A disproportionate burden should not be placed on border countries; nor should it be that the further north and west you go, the fewer asylum seekers you have to take.
The UNHCR says that the claims of refugees seeking safety in the UK need to be considered solely on the basis of whether the circumstances from which they have fled justify their refugee status. If a refugee is entitled to the rights given to him or her by the refugee convention, all those rights should be exercisable in any convention country, including the UK. This clause would deny recognised refugees the rights guaranteed to them under the refugee convention and international law. That is why it should not stand part of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Horam, described me as an economist. I think my tutor at Oxford, Dieter Helm, would disagree with that. In a previous group, I purposely said that I studied economics at university, but I still have no clue about it. The noble Lord talked about illegal immigrants. Other noble Lords tried to correct him. Genuine refugees are not illegal immigrants.
The noble Lord, Lord Horam, and other noble Lords talked about public opinion. That is all very well, provided that opinion is informed. Some 94% of immigrants to the United Kingdom are not refugees. If the British public understood that this Bill is only talking about 6% of the people who come to this country, I think they would have a very different view of it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, said that the public were concerned about people coming across the channel in dinghies. What the public do not understand is that we do not have record numbers crossing the channel in order to claim asylum by clandestine means. So many are now coming across the channel in dinghies because we have been so good at stopping them getting on the Eurostar and entering lorries and because of security around the ports. It is just that the problem has become a lot more visible than it ever was before. It is not out of control compared with the past.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
The noble Lord is absolutely right. Asylum has accounted for about 40,000 people a year for the last 10 years. Net migration has been about 250,000. The problem is that immigration is much greater than asylum. I shall be saying more about this
Lord Paddick (LD)
The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and I agree. This Bill has totally the wrong focus. It is all about asylum seekers. If there is a problem with public opinion on immigration, it should be focused on the 94%, not the 6%.
As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, said, with the best of intentions, amendments in this group that attempt to improve this clause are doomed to failure. Any kind of differential treatment of those who are genuine refugees is totally unacceptable and questionably legal. To say that the revising amendments are putting lipstick on a pig—equating Clause 11 to a pig—is insulting to pigs.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I have been requested to confirm that I did not send a note to the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. I confirm that I did send him a note. There is no law against it, and I am not sure why I was asked. I sent him a note to tell him that he was right.
I welcome my noble and learned friend Lord Clarke to this debate; I am very pleased to see him here and welcome his comments. The Committee will be very well served by listening to him, to my noble friends Lord Horam and Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, although she concluded that she was not sure that she could support Clause 11. The points that they made around how generous, warm and welcoming this country is and how we must be careful to take public opinion into account are pertinent. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said that if you asked the British public, they would bring back hanging; actually, it was because of public opinion that hanging was abolished in this country, so I do not agree with her premise.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, this group is not, largely, about the 1951 convention but about the point on differentiation. There will be three groups further on dealing with the 1951 convention, but I will answer a couple of points on it now. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, said that we should be working with UNHCR. Other noble Lords have made the point that UNHCR disagrees with us. We do not think that there is only one interpretation of the refugee convention. It is for Parliament to decide, and I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that I do not think that is eccentric. It is democracy. It is for Parliament to decide, subject to the general principles of the Vienna convention on the law of treaties.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, referred to Article 31 flowing from Asfaw and Adimi, and asked why we were altering that. Parliament’s original intention regarding Article 31 is clear in Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 that a refugee will not be determined to have come directly if they stopped in a third country outside the United Kingdom unless they can show that they could not reasonably have been expected to be given protection under the convention in that country. The courts have interpreted this more generously and we are therefore taking the opportunity to reset the definition to the original intention of Parliament.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, made a point about the proposed interpretation of “coming directly” under Article 31 of the convention in Clause 36 not being how it was intended by the convention. We have been very clear that people seeking protection must claim it in the first safe country they reach. That is the fastest route to safety. We will not tolerate criminal smugglers exploiting vulnerable people to come to the UK when a claim could easily have been made in another safe country. The convention does not explicitly define what is meant by coming directly and therefore, it is ultimately for our sovereign Parliament to set out its interpretation of international obligations subject only to the principle of treaty interpretation of the Vienna convention.
The noble and learned Lord also talked about LGBT+ communities, which again we will come to later. We know that they can have difficulties in making and evidencing a claim. That is why our policies and training are designed to support claimants in being able to explain their claim in a sensitive and safe environment.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
If I understand the noble Baroness aright, there is nothing to stop this sovereign Parliament setting out how it interprets the refugee convention in future. She enumerated four Members of the Committee who had spoken supportively. I think it is the case that none of them argued that the Bill was not a breach of the convention. We had some powerful legal advice that it was a clear breach of the convention. I ask her to remember that the last time this House was asked to pass a Bill that broke an international commitment was on the internal market Bill, and it took the very clear view that pacta sunt servanda mattered and that we should stick to our word.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I was not clear about the noble Baroness’s reference to me. The fact that I did not actually say that I believed Clause 11 breaks the refugee convention does not mean that I do not think that it does, because everybody else had said it. I was not quite clear what she meant.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think what I was trying to say, maybe clumsily, was that the noble Baroness was trying to get back to the amendments.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
The clause breaches the refugee convention, in my opinion. I agree with many people who said that.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I was not making that point, but I accept the noble Baroness’s point.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, just said that the four Members did not argue that the clause is not a breach of the convention. The four Members I singled out for mention were trying to explain public opinion in the round and the need to take note and do something about their concerns, notwithstanding the fact that the British public are warm and welcoming. We are a nation of immigrants. I think my noble and learned friend wants to intervene.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
Yes, as I am having various motives attributed to me. As I said, I came here with a dilemma. I do not think we will turn British public opinion round to the views I personally would like to support if I thought we could. I wait to be persuaded that the Government’s package will actually work and make the problem any easier. I reject the simplistic solution that all we have to do is provide safe and easy routes and accept that many more people will come, because they undoubtedly will if some of the things that have been proposed are accepted. That would cause very nasty further damage to our society and the level of our political debate. I am not convinced that Clause 11 and Clause 9 are a satisfactory solution to that yet. That is what I hope to hear my right honourable and noble friend persuade me of the course of this winding-up speech.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Unfortunately, I am not right honourable, although you never know. I hope to persuade my noble and learned friend, but no one piece of legislation will be the silver bullet to solve all the problems. I do not think I have ever made any secret of that, but I thank him very much indeed for his points.
To get back to the LGBT+ community, it can have particular issues with claims. There is sensitivity about this. Our guidance on sexual orientation and gender identity was developed to take these issues into account. The UNHCR, Stonewall and Rainbow Migration contributed to its development and we are most grateful to them. We will review and update our training and guidance where necessary to support people who are LGBT+.
I would like to get back to the first safe country principle, which is internationally recognised. In fact, it underpins the common European asylum system, particularly the Dublin system, which I note that a number of noble Lords are separately seeking to replicate through the Bill. Broadly speaking, the first safe country principle defines countries which are presumed safe to live in, based on their stable democratic system and compliance with international human rights treaties. Dublin therefore functions on a twofold logic: first, that first countries of entry are safe and should normally be responsible for determining an asylum claim; and, secondly, that burden sharing can then take place where there is a family connection in another safe country. In essence, the first safe country principle removes asylum seekers’ ability to choose where to go—and undertake dangerous journeys in the hands of criminal smugglers to do so—in favour of safe, orderly, and regular management of flows. That is a reasonable approach.
To demand that the UK do more to share the burden, but also to hold that asylum seekers have the right to choose where to claim—the point that my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts made, this concept of forum shopping—is simply contradictory. On this logic, the number of people who claim in the UK is exactly the right number and there is nothing more that the UK needs to do. Conversely, the reason that the Bill enshrines the idea that asylum seekers ought not to choose where they claim, by setting out various measures in defence of the first safe country principle, is precisely because removing that choice enables us to do more on burden sharing from regions of origin. In what is decidedly a more ambitious approach than anywhere in the EU, such a policy would provide far more generosity, fairness, and control in managing global asylum flows. Can I turn now to pull factors?
The Lord Bishop of Durham
The Minister has not addressed the UNHCR’s point that if every country insisted on the first point of entry as the sole thing, it would completely undermine the entire international system.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As I have said, we disagree with the UNHCR on that point. If I can turn to pull factors—
The Lord Bishop of Durham
Excuse me, why? Why do you disagree? I am sorry but it is not enough to simply say “We disagree”.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I hope that, through the course of my response here, I will lay out the rationale for why we are doing what we are doing. We disagree with the UNHCR and we feel that, as a sovereign nation, it is up to us to interpret the 1951 convention.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
If the Government’s argument is to be that they have a different interpretation, it is not clear why we should accept their interpretation over the UNHCR’s interpretation. I asked if the Government would publish the legal advice on which their interpretation rested. Then we can judge against other interpretations.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think the noble Baroness knows that we do not do that. I am not going to commit to publishing the legal advice. I am, however, going to come to her questions later if the Committee will be patient.
Can I get on now to pull factors? They are complex, but it is reductive to claim that asylum seekers do not ever make decisions about their destination based on policy calculations. They are like the rest of us; they do not simply respond to one or two factors such as family or language in making a choice. Many more factors come into play in this respect, as my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts mentioned, and one of those will very naturally concern how to rebuild the life they lost after being forced to flee their country of origin. But to defend the first safe country principle for the reasons I have set out, we must do everything we can to deter dangerous secondary movements from countries that are already safe and provide perfectly good means for a flourishing life.
Noble Lords have mentioned Denmark, Australia and Japan. We have seen large reductions in spontaneous intake in both Denmark and Australia, following similar approaches to that which we intend to take. In fact, Australia resettles the single largest number of refugees in the world.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I apologise to the Minister, but it will not do. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, corrected a misapprehension earlier. The numbers she is citing for resettlement are the numbers from the resettlement schemes run by UNHCR. She is not citing the number of people who have come to Turkey, to Lesbos, to Italy or to Spain and have been settled across Europe. It is a narrow definition of “resettlement” that is most misleading. We are taking relatively few, relative to our size, compared to others across Europe.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I was at pains to say that this is under national resettlement schemes. I have not tried to mask the figures. I have been very clear about how many people we have taken under national resettlement schemes.
I was about to hold up a prop, although I know that is not done in your Lordships’ House. I wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who had to go, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Fox; she apologised for that. I wrote to noble Lords about the safe and legal routes, and I think the reason that some noble Lords do not want to acknowledge it is that they do not accept what we have done. I have looked at how many different family reunion schemes we have. We have four, including refugee family reunion. I will spend a moment to really spell this out, because some noble Lords just seem to not want to hear it. We have granted over 39,000 refugee family reunion visas since 2015, of which more than half were granted to children. Comparing that to the Dublin scheme, under the Dublin regulation, we transferred 714 people to the UK in 2019. In the same year, we issued 7,456 visas under our family reunion rules. It does not take a genius to work out that is 10 times the amount. Part 8 of the Immigration Rules—paragraph 319X—allows relatives to sponsor. We also have paragraph 297 and Appendix FM. Under Appendix FM, in 2020 there were 40,255 family-related visas granted. Please do not keep talking about us undermining family reunion, because we just have not. It is not true. I ask noble Lords to refer back to the letter that I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—I think that was last week.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I hope the Minister would acknowledge that—speaking only for myself—what I was doing was objecting to the restriction. I did not criticise the existing record, although my proposed Private Member’s Bill would expand the scope. The objection is to the poor proposed treatment of group 2 refugees under family reunion. I was not talking about the numbers to date.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords have repeatedly talked about undermining family reunion. I confirm to the noble Baroness, and for Hansard, so that noble Lords do not come back at me again and again to make this point, that group 2 refugees will be afforded the entitlements in a way that is compatible with the refugee convention, including family reunion, compatible with the ECHR. Most importantly, they will be provided with protection against refoulement. I make that point again: group 2 refugees will be afforded the entitlements in a way that is compatible with the refugee convention, including family reunion. I hope noble Lords will not come back to that point—well, they will do so, but I have made my point, I hope.
If I can, I will continue on the generosity of the great British public and this Government. Over 88,000 BNO status holders and their family members—almost 90,000, as my noble friend said—have chosen to apply for the BNO route, with over 76,000 granted it so far. Meanwhile, we led Europe in airlifting some 15,000 people out of Afghanistan to the UK from mid-August under Operation Pitting. If any noble Lord wants to stand up and say we were not generous in that situation, I beg them to do that now. That is over and above the earlier transfers of around 2,000 locally employed staff and their families under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. Our new Afghan citizens resettlement scheme also aims to welcome a total of 20,000 people. These people, who noble Lords were talking about earlier, are the most vulnerable people in the world today and our generosity has been exemplary.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Can I just clarify a point? The Minister has said it is not true that family reunion rights are going to be restricted. But as I understand it, the Government’s New Plan for Immigration did give a detailed indication of what different treatment might look like for group 2 refugees. I am perfectly willing to stand corrected if what I am saying is wrong, but as I understand it, the New Plan for Immigration said, in relation to group 2 refugees who will be granted temporary protection:
“Temporary protection status will not include an automatic right to settle in the UK, family reunion rights will be restricted and there will be no recourse to public funds except in cases of destitution.”
Is that quote from the Government’s new plan wrong? In other words, is it not correct that family reunion rights will be restricted?
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It is not correct to say that family reunion rights will be restricted for group 2 refugees. They will be afforded the entitlements in a way that is compatible with the refugee convention, including family reunion. If someone, be they a group 1 or group 2 refugee, is deemed a refugee, they will be afforded family reunion rights compatible with the ECHR.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Can I just carry on? I will then of course allow an intervention from the noble Lord; he is always courteous to me.
I want to further reassure the noble Baroness that, even where a refugee or a family member is a group 2 refugee, “reasonable discretion” will be exercised with respect to the determination of differentiated entitlements. We have built this notion into current drafting by ensuring that the determination of whether a refugee is in group 1 or group 2 will depend on whether they could have been reasonably expected to claim asylum in another safe country, and their asylum claim in the UK was made as soon as is reasonably practicable. Our view is that these standards provide adequate discretion to take into account particular facts of an individual case when determining tiering and therefore whether they are granted differentiated entitlements. Would the noble Lord like to intervene now?
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I would because I am getting thoroughly confused, which is something I perhaps do quite frequently, I accept. I will read out again from the JCHR report. It says:
“The policy paper that preceded the Bill, the Government’s ‘New Plan for Immigration’, gave a more detailed indication of what different treatment may look like, as it proposed that instead of fully fledged refugee status, Group 2 refugees would be granted ‘temporary protection’ for a period of no longer than 30 months ‘after which individuals [would] be reassessed for return to their country of origin or removal to a safe third country.’ Temporary protection status ‘will not include an automatic right to settle in the UK, family reunion rights will be restricted and there will be no recourse to public funds except in cases of destitution.’”
Those are quotations from the Government’s New Plan for Immigration policy statement. In relation to group 2 refugees, who are being created by Clause 11 —that is the new bit and what the Bill is doing—it quite clearly states:
“family reunion rights will be restricted”.
I ask again: is that correct or incorrect? If it is not, why is it written in the JCHR report? If the Minister is going to tell me that the JCHR has got it wrong, please say so clearly now.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Before the noble Baroness responds, I add that I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is confused: I fear that the Minister is being mildly disingenuous with us. Can she confirm that there is a difference in the intended treatment of group 1 and group 2 refugees as concerns family reunion? Otherwise, what is the point of Clause 11(6):
“The Secretary of State or an immigration officer may … treat the family members of Group 1 and Group 2 refugees differently, for example in respect of … whether to give the person leave to enter or remain”
et cetera? What is the point of this being in the Bill if there is no intention to treat group 2 refugees differently? The Minister told us about how this will not breach the refugee convention and so on. I asked specifically about the comments on Article 8, and I look forward to her replying specifically on that. But can she confirm whether their intention is to treat group 1 and group 2 refugees differently in terms of rights to family reunion?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
May I just add to that? Clause 11(5) says:
“The Secretary of State or an immigration officer may treat Group 1 and Group 2 refugees differently, for example in respect of … whether leave to enter or remain is given to members of the refugee’s family.”
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I hope that I can clarify: everyone gets ECHR-compliant family reunion rights. Having clarified that, on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, on Article 8, family reunion will be permitted only where refusing would be a breach of our international obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
On how the restrictions for all group 2 refugees will look and whether they will be indefinite or will not apply in certain circumstances, the power under Clause 11(5)(d) of the Bill enables the Secretary of State to differentiate in respect of leave to remain for the family of group 2 refugees. The power is flexible and there is no duty to impose such a condition. Policy will be set out in guidance in the Immigration Rules in due course, but family reunion will be granted to group 2 refugees where a refusal would breach our international obligations under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
To comply with the ECHR means complying not just with Article 8 but with Article 8 read with Article 14, which means respecting the right to family life but also not discriminating in that context. How can it not be discrimination when the whole purpose of Clause 11 is discrimination between group 1 and group 2? It is blatantly a breach of Articles 8 and 14 read together.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is differentiation rather than discrimination. The two are quite different.
Amendments 44, 45, 47, 51 and 52 seek to remove the powers to differentiate entitlements. As we have noted elsewhere, these powers are broad and flexible; they do not require the Secretary of State to act in a particular way. Equally, there is ample discretion available in respect of whether a person is granted group 1 or group 2 refugee status. While the detail will be set out in rules and guidance in due course, suffice it to say that the exercise of the powers in question will be sensitive to vulnerabilities and individual circumstances. That enables us to balance the need to take a tough approach with the need to protect the most vulnerable.
We have been clear that our starting point in respect of the length of leave will be a grant of no less than 30 months. Similarly, settlement will be available by virtue of our long-residence rules. We have gone further in our defence of refugee family reunion, noting that we will continue to uphold our international obligations under Article 8, but in any event, there is no requirement to apply such entitlements in each and every case. I repeat that we fully intend to be sensitive to vulnerabilities and individual circumstances in that respect. That is why we have retained a considerable amount of discretion in the drafting.
Turning to Amendment 55, I do not think it would be appropriate or right for us to step outside of the existing power to make immigration rules under the Immigration Act 1971. This is the same power that we use to implement most other aspects of UK immigration policy, including but not limited to asylum policy. Indeed, areas in which we regularly use Immigration Rules to administer the system include the type of leave to remain, the length of leave to remain, the routes and conditions of settlement, and family reunion. It would be inappropriate to do otherwise in this case. The rules are the appropriate vehicle: they have a long-standing and clear procedure, with the appropriate level of scrutiny built in. As I have noted, however, I am absolutely committed to this policy being exercised sensitively with a view to protecting the most vulnerable. There will always be discretion in our policies to make the right decisions in each case, and that extends to the Immigration Rules.
I cannot agree to Amendment 39, which would remove the requirement for a person to claim without delay to be a group 1 refugee. That means that anyone claiming asylum, regardless of whether that was done at the last moment to defer removal, could be a group 1 refugee. That would undercut the entire purpose of the policy and embolden those seeking to abuse our rules. There are already safeguards within the legislation enabling discretion to be exercised, such that a claim should be made as soon as reasonably practicable.
Amendments 43 and 50 would amend the list of ways in which we can differentiate from a non-exhaustive list to an exhaustive one. We must keep all options on the table to prevent dangerous journeys from safe countries, and we can do that only by retaining flexible powers to respond to situations as they arise.
Amendment 48 would prevent the ability to differentiate in respect of family members. This is primarily about coherent policy. We should ensure that, where appropriate, family members of refugees are not treated more or less favourably than the lead applicant, but the flexibility that we wish to retain will also enable us to respond sensitively to particular circumstances as appropriate, including in respect of how we treat family members. For example, let us say we discover that a child has been a victim of abuse by their parents and needs to be taken into care. The flexibility in the powers would enable us to respond to such a tragic situation by granting a more generous entitlement to that child compared to their parents, in order to sympathetically reflect the need in those individual circumstances.
Amendment 53 would remove the ability to differentiate in respect of requirements for settlement for family members. We must keep all options on the table to prevent dangerous journeys from safe countries, and we can do this only through retaining flexible powers to respond to situations as they arise. That said, I anticipate that many if not most families will receive the same length of leave to remain to ensure that all qualify for settlement on the same terms at the same time. However, we want to retain the ability to respond flexibly to challenging situations that might require us to do otherwise in respect of length of leave for a refugee and their family.
I turn to Amendment 41, in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I hope I can offer some reassurance that his concerns have already been accounted for in the policy, so there need be no further amendments to the Bill in this respect, as I outlined earlier. We envisage that the provision will apply in cases where a refugee meets the first two limbs of Article 31— that is to say, they came direct and claimed “without delay”—but, at the time of the claim, they had entered or were present in the UK unlawfully, having, for instance, overstayed an economic migrant visa.
To illustrate, let us say a person overstayed their visa and then lodged an asylum claim. Because they had entered the UK directly and ostensibly claimed without delay, they might be eligible for group 1 refugee status but, due to having overstayed, we would also check whether they had
“good cause for their illegal … presence”
at the point of claim. If they had no good reason for having been in the UK illegally, they might be liable for group 2 status. An example of where good cause could be shown might be if a person had overstayed their visa and then lodged an asylum claim—a very similar situation to that described by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. If their reason for overstaying and lodging an asylum claim while in the UK illegally was on the grounds that they feared presenting to the authorities because they were homosexual, in such a case this may well amount to a good cause.
Suffice it to say that the powers in the Bill are broad and flexible and therefore enable us to exercise discretion where appropriate, including with respect to “good cause”, which will be reflected in guidance to caseworkers.
I turn my attention to Clause 11 as it currently stands. These powers are primarily intended to uphold the “first safe country of asylum” principle. Clause 11 provides a power, as noble Lords have pointed out—they are not very happy about it—for the UK to differentiate according to whether people satisfy certain criteria based on those in Article 31.1 of the refugee convention. The Government have set out their interpretation in Clause 36. I will not distract the Committee from the issue at hand by going through the provisions of Clause 36, because they will be debated in full.
If I may just pick up the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Chakrabarti, on Article 31, the criteria we use as the basis for differentiation are not based expressly on one’s method of arrival. Instead, they are based on the criteria within Article 31 of the convention: whether someone came directly and claimed without delay, and, where applicable, had
“good cause for their illegal entry or presence”.
The clause acts on our commitment to do everything we can to deter individuals, as I have said, from making dangerous and unnecessary journeys through safe third countries, often putting lives at risk. I hope I have fully explained the Government’s rationale and addressed noble Lords’ questions. If I have missed anything out, I am very happy to follow up in writing but I hope that noble Lords will feel happy to withdraw or not press their amendments.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, what a debate this has been. I thank all those who have contributed to it. It has certainly laid bare the points of difference that are going to have to be resolved at a later stage in the consideration of this Bill. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, that the lipstick is back in my pocket and the piglet is running free.
I appeal to the noble and learned Lords who have so helpfully intervened in this debate. I made the case at Second Reading that I was hearing two legal positions established that I, as a non-lawyer, could not reconcile. I was hoping that noble and learned Lords would bring all their pals in to help us see the basis on which the Government’s legal judgment is reached, since the Government do not choose to reveal this; perhaps they do not do so habitually. I said that this would help those such as me to understand. The UNHCR statement I read—all 72 pages of it—is very clear, it really is. I have not heard what convinces me that an opposite case can equally be true. I think we are going to need some help. I implore noble and learned Lords not to go on holiday before Report, please.
So we come to the end of this long debate. I thank the Minister for her spirited response. It is no joke standing there and defending yourself against what you perceive to be the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, but she did it with some courage. I also thank all those who intervened on her because, in this way, we have opened matters up. Before Report, some of us are going to have to do some serious thinking and come back in a focused way to take this matter further in a way that satisfies all of us.
Is it not incredible that the Prime Minister is, this very day, in Kiev in Ukraine, arguing that Britain honours its international agreements directed towards those at the far-flung edges of Europe? I would that he come back in his plane via Turkey, Greece, Spain and Italy to show how he is equally committed to the international agreements and treaties we have entered into in respect of the way we treat refugees. With all that said and a little bluster on my part, I am glad to put the piglet running and out of the way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Tuesday 1st February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-III Third marshalled list for Committee - (1 Feb 2022)
“(2A) For the purposes of subsection (2)(b), the following will be regarded as having presented themselves “without delay”— (a) people who have experienced sexual violence;(b) people who have made a protection or human rights claim on the basis of gender-based violence;(c) people who have made a protection or human rights claim on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression or sex characteristics;(d) people who are a victim of modern slavery or trafficking;(e) people who are a victim of torture;(f) people who are suffering from a mental impairment;(g) people who are suffering from a serious physical disability;(h) people who are suffering from other serious physical health conditions or illnesses;(i) people who were under 18 years of age at the time of their arrival in the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment seeks to ascertain whether and to what extent certain vulnerable groups would be covered by the “without delay” condition.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and my noble friend Lord Cashman for their support and for hanging on in there, as well as to Women for Refugee Women for its help with the amendment. The amendment sets out a number of groups in vulnerable circumstances who should be deemed to meet the condition that they have presented themselves to the authorities to claim asylum without delay. This is a probing amendment, which does not imply acceptance of Clause 11, which, as I made clear earlier, I totally oppose; rather, it addresses one specific aspect of it that was not interrogated in the Commons.
As the UNHCR advises:
“There is nothing in the Refugee Convention that defines a refugee or their entitlements under it according to … the timing of their asylum claim.”
At present, the Bill does not provide any exceptions to the “without delay” condition relating to their potential vulnerability, although, if I understood her correctly, I think the Minister said on Amendment 39 that there is some flexibility, so I look forward to hearing more about that.
The amendment covers a range of groups who could be adversely affected by the clause. It reflects a warning made by Freedom from Torture that:
“Penalising refugees who do not present their claim ‘without delay’ following arrival risks further punishing the most vulnerable. It is clinically recognised that an experience of torture or trauma will lead to avoidance behaviours and interfere with the person’s ability to disclose.”
I shall focus mainly on women fleeing gender-based violence. The “without delay” condition is one of a number of provisions that will, contrary to ministerial claims, disproportionately adversely affect women, as more than 50 organisations warned the Home Secretary in a letter in which they argued that more women will be wrongly refused asylum, re-traumatised and placed at risk of violence and abuse. LGBTQ+ asylum seekers will also be at particular risk as a result of the “without delay” condition. I think my noble friend is going to say more about that.
Women for Refugee Women’s research has documented how many women seeking asylum in the UK have fled gender-based violence in their countries of origin, including rape, female genital mutilation and forced prostitution. Many were abused again on their journeys to safety. In the organisation’s experience, many of these women are heavily traumatised when they arrive and need time to feel safe before they feel able to share their experiences with a government official. This is endorsed in a legal opinion from Garden Court Chambers, which states:
“there may well be very good reasons to explain why … their claim was delayed … which relates to the particular forms of persecution to which women are subject, and their experience of gender-based violence and inferior social status.”
British Red Cross research published just last week reinforces the point and demonstrates how insensitive the asylum system already is to gender-related trauma and women’s needs. The Bill will only make this worse. In Women for Refugee Women’s experience, survivors, many of whom have experienced serious trauma, move at their own pace with regard to disclosure. No amount of legal or mental health support can guarantee a willingness to disclose without delay.
Preliminary findings from research into LGBT+ women carried out by Rainbow Sisters, a group supported by Women for Refugee Women, found that 20 out of 25 women did not claim asylum within the first month of entering the UK. The great majority of those who gave reasons said they were too traumatised by past experiences of persecution or scared to come forward, and many had not even realised that they could claim asylum on the basis of their sexual orientation.
The Home Office is well aware of such barriers to disclosure, because it acknowledges them in its own current guidance, which gives a number of reasons for reluctance to disclose information at the outset, including
“feelings of guilt, shame, and concerns about family ‘honour’, or fear of family members or traffickers, or having been conditioned or threatened by them.”
It notes the impact sexual assault can have on the ability to present one’s case. The same policy guidance says that late disclosure should not automatically prejudice a woman’s credibility.
The same considerations apply to failure to present oneself without delay. So, why does the Bill not reflect this clearly? On Second Reading, the Minister acknowledged these arguments in relation to the provision of late evidence, saying:
“We will set out in guidance what can constitute good reasons”—[Official Report, 5/1/22; col. 668.]
for late evidence. But no provision seems to have been made for good reasons for failing the “without delay” condition. Why is that? I know the “without delay” phrase is carefully taken from the convention—an example of what the UNHCR calls “selective echoes” from it—but that does not obviate the point. So, do the Government intend to protect the groups covered by the amendment in the guidance?
Can the Minister also provide some information about statistics, if necessary, in a subsequent letter? First, do the Government collect statistics on the number of women who claim asylum based on sexual or gender-based violence in their country of origin? If yes, what proportion of overall claims did these represent? Secondly, do they collect statistics on when survivors of gender-based violence make an asylum application? If yes, what do those statistics show? Thirdly, do they collect statistics on the number of women subject to sexual abuse on their journeys to the UK? Again, if so, what do they show?
I hope the Minister will be able to provide some clarity and, better still, an assurance that the “without delay” condition will be applied in a way that does not impact adversely on those in vulnerable circumstances—if Clause 11 survives. I beg to move.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, supported by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. I would have said almost everything the noble Baroness has said, so I will just add a few other points.
One is that we have to recognise the nature of asylum seekers arriving in the country and the evidence presented by Doctors of the World and others. Asylum seekers often arrive suffering from considerable ill health. It is important we realise that, because that makes them the sort of people who ought to be included in the list provided in the amendment. According to Doctors of the World’s experience of running a clinic, 70% of patients with an outstanding asylum claim have at least one chronic medical condition, 30% have a psychological condition, almost a quarter present with an acute condition, and over 40% report their health as being “bad” or “very bad”. These are therefore people whom one might class as vulnerable, and this is the issue we are probing. Like my noble friend Lord Kerr, I am a bit worried about lipstick on pigs. Nevertheless, I think we will need to tease this out a little more, and we know the health conditions of asylum seekers are considerably worse than those of the general population.
I also want to pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said about the piece in the Times, which I also saw, and I want to reflect on some personal experience. We run a very small charity in memory of my parents. My mother was an asylum seeker, a refugee from Nazi Germany, and in my parents’ name we run this small charity to provide opportunities for education for asylum seekers who are not entitled to get student finance. I have therefore interviewed, over the last 20 years, quite a large number of asylum seekers, the majority of whom have been young men.
Without exception, they report being traumatised. They do not come as dangerous would-be criminals; they have seen their parents be killed before their eyes, have been forced into armies of appalling dictatorships, have been involved in civil wars and have been persecuted because they are bisexual—whatever it may be. None of them come and apply for a scholarship in the first period after they arrive in this country. We probably do not see them until a year, 18 months or two years in, and only then are they beginning to be able to talk about their experiences. Therefore, because they are clearly vulnerable, would they be classed as people who could be regarded as making an application “without delay”?
The Home Office’s guidance on gender-based violence and women who have suffered that kind of issue being treated favourably, if you like, and being allowed to wait until they are able to speak out is moderately generous—perhaps I would not go that far but would just say “possibly” generous, but whatever. I want to know whether we can extend that principle to those who have been traumatised in all sorts of other ways and have major mental health issues, often brought on by the trauma of what they have experienced.
Would the Minister be willing to entertain the prospect of those who are vulnerable for a whole variety of reasons being treated in the same way, if you like, as the Home Office guidance? We cannot see it within the Bill, but it would be wonderful if that were the case.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, who has added her name to the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett.
The earlier debate on the clause was illuminating and displayed this House at its very best. The speeches and interventions on all sides sought to give a voice to those who are often not heard—the voiceless, the vulnerable and the persecuted. I will not rehearse the arguments that were put before your Lordships during the debate on the previous group but I echo this: it is our duty to stand in the shoes of others and imagine. I revisit that often when dealing with subjects such as those that we are dealing with today, but never more so than when we are dealing with those who seek refuge and asylum.
I am particularly grateful for the number of briefings that I have received, in particular for an online briefing that I managed to attend with others, including the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who referred to this earlier. I thank Stonewall, Rainbow Migration, Safe Passage and others who have expressed their concern about the negative consequences for LGBTQI asylum seekers.
This probing amendment is extremely important. I am concerned, as are others, that the “without delay” criterion would affect large numbers of traumatised people, including, as my noble friend Lady Lister said, survivors of gender-based abuse and people who have fled persecution based on their sexual orientation and who are unable to claim promptly, as well as other vulnerable groups and the individuals who make up those groups. At the moment, the Bill does not provide any exceptions to the “without delay” conditions. Therefore, this amendment, to which I am proud to have added my name, seeks to ascertain whether and to what extent certain vulnerable groups would be affected by the “without delay” condition. Indeed, the Minister probably feels that she has already referred to this to some extent in her earlier contribution.
The amendment seeks to protect refugees with specific histories or characteristics from the adverse effects of Clause 11. The amendment rightly highlights personal characteristics that are relevant to why many refugees are not able to comply with the implicit demand underpinning Clause 11 and Clause 36, to which it is connected. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who made the case earlier for the inclusion of protected characteristics in relation to those cited in the Equality Act.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I offer very strong Green group support for this amendment, although I acknowledge the questions about whether it might be easier just to throw the whole thing out. It is a great honour to follow three such powerful speeches from such distinguished campaigners.
I want to pick up one point in the proposed new paragraph (c) on the experience of LBGTQIA+ people. Like the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, I am drawing on the very important briefing from Rainbow Migration. In that is the story of Samir, a gay man from Kosovo. We are obviously talking about someone who sought asylum some years ago. He knew that there was no way that he could live openly as a gay man in Kosovo at that time and, even now, it is recognised as an incredibly dangerous place for LBGTQIA+ people. Samir said:
“I felt like every day I had to look over my shoulder because you never knew what could happen.”
Samir was attacked. He came here under a different visa category. He did not know that he could apply for asylum, but he eventually found his way through the system. Then he spoke about the experience of talking. He said:
“It was the first time talking about my sexuality ... just saying aloud the word gay in Albanian, it was very surreal. I knew that although I was scared, this was my only chance”.
I ran through that story because in the previous group the Minister said that there will be guidance that “without delay” might allow for circumstances such as this. I want to point the Minister—and if she has not seen it, I would be very happy to share it with her—to another report from Rainbow Migration, Still Falling Short, that talks about how difficult it still is for LGBTQIA+ people to prove their sexual orientation or gender identity to the Home Office. If people are finding it very difficult to “prove”, how difficult is it going to be to get this consideration the Minister referred to before?
I want to make one other brief point that draws on a briefing from the Law Society. It would perhaps be an additional clause to the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. The Law Society points out that often people will not talk about what has happened to them because they fear what might happen to family or associates back in the country that they have fled. That is something we really have to consider. If you have been subject to persecution, you almost invariably will know people still who will be in grave danger if you tell the story and the story gets out. There really should also be consideration of that in the guidance.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I support this as a probing amendment and support everything that has been said. If I was to add anything, I would say that this could apply equally to some people who are facing religious persecution: so Sikhs, Hindus and Christians in Afghanistan would say that they are under serious threat at the moment, for example. I wonder whether I can put some words in the Minister’s mouth. Without delay, can she undertake that the guidance that is to come states categorically that it will be from a trauma-informed basis rather than simply circumstantial?
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, in very few words I would like to welcome and support Amendment 40, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I do so from the experience of asylum and immigration Bills over the last 20 or 30 years, and for the reason that what used to be known as the Medical Foundation, and is now called simply Freedom from Torture, has repeatedly pointed out the necessary delay before people who pass through traumatic experiences are willing to reveal what has happened to them. To do so, they need relationships of trust and confidence with those with whom they are dealing. So if, perchance, Clause 11 survives in some form or other, I hope that the principles of the noble Baroness’s amendment will be somehow incorporated.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this will not be the last time we talk about the need for a trauma-informed approach. I think the expression “necessary delay”, used by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, is very useful and applies much better to this situation than “without delay”, which is what we are faced with.
Even without the background and experiences referred to in this amendment, I cannot imagine undertaking the sort of journey that most people fleeing from the situations they are in will have undertaken. Any asylum seeker will be in a pretty awful state. Many will be anxious about authority figures. It is incumbent on us to ensure that they are not retraumatised. We should not require them to present a coherent explanation and make a claim so quickly.
The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, talked about the possible survival of Clause 11. I would add Clause 36 to that. I do not think this provision can be read without looking at Clause 36, which deals with Article 31 of the convention. Clause 36(2) says:
“A refugee is not to be taken to have presented themselves without delay”—
“presented themselves” is the phrase used in Clause 11—
“unless … they made a claim for asylum as soon as reasonably practicable after their arrival in the United Kingdom.”
I do not think it is necessary to read the whole clause.
I hope the Minister can explain how, in practical terms, given the life experiences that we are suggesting, “present” and “make a claim” relate to one another. Does making a claim
“as soon as reasonably practicable”
mean presenting the substance of a claim? If I read these two clauses correctly, we now have “presenting oneself” and “making a claim”. Failure, under Clause 11, to present not just oneself but one’s claim takes one straight into the territory of late evidence and all the horrors of criminality and second-class status.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. The remarks by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, made me reflect. She was talking about how it takes a year, 18 months or two years for the people whom she has met in the course of her admirable-sounding charity, to be able to fully open up and explain themselves. This makes me think how similar this is to grief. For asylum seekers who have been forced to flee everything that is familiar to them—their home, country, family and links—and arrive in a strange place, this is a form of grief and bereavement.
I am not the only person in this Chamber who has suffered a relatively recent bereavement. I would not say that I have fully recovered after a year, 18 months, two years—even two and a half years. Indeed, I never will be. Given the disorientation and the inability to fully function, a year, 18 months or two years is not wide of the mark for how long you need to get your act together to handle an asylum claim.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for putting my mind at rest. I initially hesitated to support Amendment 40 as it highlights particularly vulnerable asylum seekers, potentially giving the false impression that we do not believe that all asylum seekers are vulnerable, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee just said. Nor do we want to give the false impression that we on these Benches support in any way, shape or form what we believe to be the illegal practice of differentiating asylum seekers, as Clause 11 attempts to do, for any reason. This amendment only probes the requirement of Clause 11(2)(b) that asylum seekers must
“have presented themselves without delay to the authorities”,
which might be an issue whether Clause 11 remains part of the Bill or not.
Amendment 40 lists examples of those who may have suffered particular trauma that may cause them to hesitate in claiming asylum. I can talk only about my personal experience as a gay man, trying to conceal my sexuality for fear of being found out for the first 40 years of my life, even in a country that decriminalised homosexual acts between consenting men aged 21 and over when I was nine. The point is this: just because it is legally safe to be gay in this country does not mean that it feels safe to be gay in this country. Even Dame Cressida Dick—the person of the moment—did not feel able to be publicly open about her sexuality until she became Commissioner of the Met, and it has never been illegal to express your sexuality as a lesbian in the UK. I can only imagine what it might be like, coming from a country where you can still be executed if you express your sexuality, to come here and then be expected to claim asylum “without delay” because of your sexuality. It is so clearly and obviously unreasonable.
As the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, said, it is also less likely that those fleeing persecution will be able to produce evidence of their sexuality, be open about it or overcome the fear of being open about it because of concerns about family members who remain in their home country. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, spoke compellingly, from personal experience of helping particularly vulnerable refugees, of how long it takes asylum seekers to recover, as my noble friend has just highlighted. There is compelling evidence of the need for this amendment and we support it.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
As my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett said in moving this amendment, Clause 11 provides that to be a group 1 refugee you must have presented yourself to the authorities “without delay”. This amendment would provide that vulnerable groups are not subject to this time constraint. As one sees from reading the amendment, this would include, though not exclusively, children, survivors of torture, sexual violence and gender-based violence, LGBT refugees, victims of modern slavery and disabled refugees. This is a probing amendment to find out more about how the “without delay” provision will work in practice. As has been said, traumatised people, for example survivors of sexual or gender-based violence, who are largely, but certainly not exclusively, women, do not always feel —to put it mildly—in a position to unburden themselves to the first complete stranger or border, immigration or other government official that they meet on arrival.
The position of single men and sexual orientation has also been raised. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, referred to the article in the Times about single men who arrive from across the channel being detained and locked up. In a previous debate, I asked whether the Minister could say whether that Times article was true. I ask again: is that article true or false? It is important that we get an answer because it relates to this amendment as well.
As well as answering that question, I hope the Minister will give some indication of how the “without delay” provision will work in relation to the vulnerable groups covered by the amendment, what kind of leeway or otherwise the Government intend there to be and what exactly “without delay” means in this context.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for what have been very thoughtful contributions. I will directly address the question that the noble Lord asked me in the previous group about locking single males up. I have not seen the Times article. If he will allow me, I will look at it and respond in due course.
Although the policy is intended to deter dangerous journeys and encourage people to claim asylum in the first safe country, I assure noble Lords that we have been very careful to strike the right balance between how the policy achieves its aim and protecting the most vulnerable, which is what noble Lords have spoken about this evening. Before I explain why I think statutory exemptions are probably not needed, I will offer a few thoughts in relation to how the “without delay” element of Clause 11 is anticipated to operate.
There are two broad categories under which I envisage the exercise of discretion is most likely to be appropriate. The first is where a person finds themselves unable or unwilling to present themselves to the authorities for any reason that pertains to their proposed asylum claim. In such instances, there will need to be very careful consideration of whether it was reasonably practicable for that person to have claimed without delay. For example, if they had been tortured—noble Lords have given this sort of example—suffered sexual violence at the hands of state authorities or, indeed, feared admitting their sexual orientation due to state persecution on those grounds, this sort of situation would trigger very careful consideration.
The second category is where a person was simply not in control of their actions. In such circumstances, we would also be very careful to consider the facts of that case when determining whether it was reasonably practicable for that person to have claimed without delay. I think primarily of victims of human trafficking, unaccompanied children, and those suffering serious physical or mental disabilities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, asked about statistics. I do not have them to hand, but I will try to get them.
On the guidance and training, one of the things that I looked into in great detail way back, when we talked about LGBT people in the detention estate, was how practitioners went about establishing claims made on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation. It is fair to say that, back in the day, “clunking” would probably have been a charitable word to use—some of the ways people were questioned were on the verge of being inhumane. We really went to extraordinary lengths to try to change that and make it a much more humane process. It is now about establishing the reasons why someone is making a claim, not proving it, so our policies and training are now designed to support claimants in being able to explain their claim in a very sensitive and safe environment. Our approach, I can confirm, is trauma informed.
Our guidance on sexual orientation and gender identity, as I said previously, was developed to take these issues into account—UNHCR, Stonewall and Rainbow Migration contributed to its development—and we will review and update our training and guidance where necessary to support people who are LGBT+. I confirm again that this will take people’s experiences into account, including the trauma that they have suffered. I thank those organisations, particularly Stonewall, Rainbow Migration and UNHCR, that have helped to make the process far more humane so that people’s very difficult journeys and experiences are eased somewhat by our attitude and approach.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I thank noble Lords very much for their support for this amendment—their willingness to apply some lipstick to the pig that I think we would all like to be rid of. Some very powerful speeches made the case very strongly for why the groups which are listed may well have good reasons for delay. I take the point that any asylum seeker is, by definition, likely to be vulnerable, but we are talking here about those who have particular vulnerabilities.
I thank the Minister for giving more of a sense of what will happen. It is late and I need to read what she said, but I think that the powerful speeches from noble Lords and the Minister’s response justified our taking this as a separate amendment. As I have said, it was not interrogated in the Commons; this has given us a chance to do that.
I thank the Minister for saying that she will look into the statistics—it was I, in fact, who raised it; I think Women for Refugee Women would value having whatever statistics are available. However, just last week, the British Red Cross produced research suggesting that, for all the better training and guidance, women asylum seekers are still treated very badly, with a lack of gender sensitivity and trauma sensitivity. I would encourage the Minister to read this research, think about it and see what more needs to be done.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I apologise—I was not quick enough to my feet. I wanted to get in before the noble Baroness withdrew her amendment to ask the Minister if she might be able, after today if not tonight, to answer my question about how Clauses 11 and 36 work together. That could inform our debate when we get to that later clause. Again, I apologise to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
There is no need—I am glad that the noble Baroness said that. I had made a note to mention it and then, of course, completely forgot or could not read my handwriting, or both. Anyway, it is late, and I realise that people want to get on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This probing amendment, along with another amendment to Clause 11, would amend the list of examples of ways in which refugees, or their family members, can be treated differently depending on whether they are in Group 1 or Group 2 by removing reference to the attachment of no recourse to public funds requirements so as to probe when this requirement would be attached.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, it is me again, I am afraid. I rise to move Amendment 46, and I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Stroud, my noble friend Lord Blunkett—who had to leave—and the British Red Cross and Praxis for their support.
Again, this is a probing amendment. Together with Amendment 54, it would delete reference to the “no recourse to public funds” condition from the listed ways in which group 1 and group 2 refugees and their families could be treated differently under Clause 11. In other words, it would remove one source of potential discrimination from the list of examples of the discriminatory treatment of group 2 refugees. It is a probing amendment because while I am totally opposed to Clause 11 standing part of the Bill, it is important that we have more information about how the “no recourse to public funds” condition will be applied.
In fact, questioning the application of the no recourse condition reinforces the case against Clause 11. UNHCR makes it clear that denying refugees recourse to public funds is a clear violation of Article 23 of the refugee convention, which states in unambiguous terms:
“The Contracting States shall accord to refugees lawfully staying in their territory the same treatment with respect to public relief and assistance as is accorded to their nationals.”
Given that Ministers constantly claim that the Bill is compatible with our international obligations, does the Minister believe that UNHCR is wrong, and if so, on what grounds?
Similarly, the JCHR points to a violation of Article 24 of the convention, which specifically cites the right to social security. It argues that the differentiation policy, including specifically restrictions on recourse to public funds
“raises serious questions of compatibility with Article 14 ECHR—the prohibition on discrimination in the enjoyment of other Convention rights.”
It concludes that the policy is
“arguably disproportionate to achieving the stated aims.”
In fact, as the committee notes, the aim of dissuading asylum seekers from travelling to the UK other than by safe and legal routes ignores all the research, including that of the Home Office, which indicates that it is rare for asylum seekers to know what support is available.
To repeat something that my noble friend Lord Rosser said, UNHCR warns:
“The adverse consequences of a ‘No Recourse to Public Funds’ condition will fall not only the refugees themselves, but also on their families, including on any children who travel with them, are able to join them later, or are born in the UK. These consequences have been documented in numerous studies as well as in the context of litigation. They include difficulty accessing shelters for victims of domestic violence, denial of free school meals where these are linked to the parents’ benefit entitlement”—
—although this is currently suspended, and a very long review is taking place; this policy has been under review for 15 months now—
“and de facto exclusion from the job market for single parents (largely women) who have limited access to government-subsidised childcare, as well as significant risks of food poverty, severe debt, sub-standard accommodation, and homelessness.”
It also notes that public funds include payments specifically for children, such as child benefit, and for those in particularly vulnerable circumstances, such as carers and disabled people. It warns of the adverse consequences for integration and for local authorities which may have to pick up some of the tab for children and those with care needs.
Its conclusions chime with evidence from a range of organisations, including a recent Citizens Advice survey that documents the severe poverty and destitution caused by the rule, with children, women and people of colour disproportionately affected and with what it describes as a “devastating impact” on mental health. Likewise, the BMA has raised concerns that the rule’s effects can compound physical or mental health conditions among those with particular vulnerabilities fleeing violence or trauma.
There are real fears now that the Bill will increase significantly the numbers affected by the “no recourse” rule. There is also a lack of clarity as to whom among group 2 refugees it will be applied, both in the short term and each time their status comes up for renewal. I hope that the Minister will provide some clarity and not fob us off with the response that details will be set out in the guidance and rules that follow, as was said in the Commons.
What was made clear in the Commons was that those already in receipt of Section 95 asylum support will not face restrictions on access to public funds. However, this is not made clear in the Bill itself. Can we be confident that most asylum seekers will have been in receipt of Section 95 asylum support? What about those refugees who face destitution but were not receiving Home Office support, such as those who choose not to enter the asylum support system and rely instead on informal networks of support because of accommodation being allocated on a no-choice basis? What about those who fall into destitution after being granted refugee status, which will be a greater risk as a result of this clause?
It is currently difficult to get the “no recourse” rule lifted on the grounds of destitution because the concession applies only to a minority of those affected and involves a difficult, complicated process. Citizens Advice warns that
“in our experience these limited exemptions for destitution give too little help too late”,
with a decision typically taking more than four weeks, according to the Minister in the Commons. Can the Minister tell us who exactly among group 2 refugees will in practice not be subject to the “no recourse to public funds” rule? What is the Government’s estimate of the proportion of group 2 refugees who will be subject to it? What will happen when their status is up for renewal? Will the destitution exception be open to any group 2 refugee or only to certain groups, as is the case now? Will access to the concession be made easier than it is currently?
In recent oral evidence on the “no recourse” rule to the Work and Pensions Committee, the Minister, Tom Pursglove, refused to answer questions about the Bill’s implications, stating that policy work is ongoing. This elicited the response from the committee chair that, given that the Bill had already completed its passage through the Commons, surely we ought to know what its implications are—indeed. Surely by now the Home Office should be able to answer what are some pretty basic questions about how Clause 11(5)(c) and (6)(d) will work. It is crucial that we have this information should Clause 11 continue to stand part of the Bill, although I fervently hope that it will not, not only because it contravenes the refugee convention but also because it will spell hardship and insecurity for many group 2 refugees—who will be very much class 2 refugees. I beg to move.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I want to take the opportunity afforded by Amendments 46 and 54 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, to which I was pleased to add my name, to probe the Government’s exact intention regarding the outworking of Clause 10 and the application of NRPF.
I have long been concerned about the NRPF policy, but I have profound concerns about its application to group 2 refugees. According to the Home Office’s own guidance, the NRPF condition must not be applied in circumstances where a person is destitute or at risk of becoming so. Can the Minister confirm that this understanding is correct, or would group 2 refugees not be able to receive asylum support and be subject to NRPF? Can the Minister also clarify what would happen should such a person qualify for the destitution test?
There are a number of areas where I would encourage the Minister to consider the impact of applying NRPF to group 2 refugees. I know that Members of this House would be happy to work with her if that is helpful. First, on the impact on local authorities, if the NRPF condition is extended to refugees subject to the new temporary protection status, the increase in the number of individuals subject to NRPF would increase the pressure on already overstretched local authorities. Such increased pressure could lead to more families with NRPF being wrongly refused assistance by local authorities. This would have a devastating impact on the health and development of children in these families and would counter any efforts to develop integration. In addition, it would affect already vulnerable families who have the same characteristics as those who are permitted to access public funds. This is an area of concern to me: they have just arrived here via different routes, but there is no difference in their vulnerability.
Imposing an NRPF condition will cause refugees to live without access to welfare benefits and housing support. When we are considering NRPF, we often think of out-of-work benefits, but this also affects in-work benefits. You could have the extraordinary circumstance of two auxiliaries working in a hospital, one being able to claim in-work support, and the other not. He or she would not be able to survive in those circumstances, even if they were doing everything right. There is also evidence from those already subject to the NRPF condition that this restriction can cause destitution and lead children to experience homelessness, hunger and mental health conditions.
If, as seems to be the case, group 2 refugees would be subject to NRPF, this policy may not achieve its intent. I would value the Minister setting out the exact policy intent of NRPF, as I have found it hard to find what the intent of no recourse to public funds is.
My work as chair of the Social Metrics Commission, a cross-party commission which measures poverty in the UK, finds that no recourse to public funds is a significant cause in driving poverty, homelessness and destitution. NRPF has been shown to have significant mental health consequences, including for children. It makes finding stable work more difficult, accessing education harder, and securing stable housing a challenge. These are all things we want to see for this community of people.
It is important for us to really understand who we are talking about. We are not talking here about asylum seekers or economic migrants. We are talking about people the Government recognise as bona fide refugees—that has already been decided—who have fled conflict, war or famine and arrived in Britain hoping to find a place of refuge. By tabling this probing amendment, I want to ensure that, purely by virtue of the route by which refugees arrive here, they will not be subject to profound insecurity, at a time when we are committed to ending rough sleeping, levelling up the UK and defining the character of the nation we want to be.
As this is a probing amendment, I ask the Minister to clarify whether group 2 refugees would or would not be able to receive asylum support. Would they be subject to NRPF, even when qualifying for a destitution test? If so, what is the exact policy intent of NRPF for this group of people? How would group 2 refugees have been provided for during Covid, when they would not have had access to furlough or universal credit? Finally, in what way is the Government’s commitment to ending rough sleeping, and NRPF for group 2, compatible?
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 46 and the amendment in the names of my noble friend Lady Stroud and the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady Prashar and Lady Ludford. I support the call for asylum seekers who have waited six months for an official decision to be allowed the right to work. We have heard some really persuasive arguments for that, and there are a large number of them, in terms of both principle and the law. I will make the argument in terms of pragmatism.
This policy would strengthen integration by allowing asylum seekers to participate in society rather than leaving their lives in limbo. That means that people who come to this country can be treated fairly and be integrated on reasonable terms, sparing themselves a large amount of disruption, which would eventually lead to some kind of social impact. Currently, without the right to work and receiving less than £6 per day to live on, many people in the asylum system will lose hope—
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think that my noble friend might be speaking to the next group of amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise to speak on behalf of my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who signed both Amendments 46 and 54, in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and others, about no recourse to public funds. The question has been clearly set out by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, and the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, added a great deal to this debate, which has been very rich thus far.
I must admit to a certain sense of déjà vu, in that we have had much the same cast as in debates on the Domestic Abuse Act, discussing much the same issues around the absolute horror of no recourse to public funds. We are talking about a particular group of people in that situation now, but I state loudly and clearly: no one who is here as part of UK society should have no recourse to public funds. That is inhumane, unjust and damaging to our society for some of the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, just set out.
It is interesting that it is almost two years since Boris Johnson claimed not to know that this status existed—that he did not know that there was such a thing as no recourse to public funds. At that time, he promised to review the policy, but I understand that there has been no overall review of no recourse to public funds, although I would be very pleased if the Minister could tell me that I am wrong about that.
But I want to add one point, which goes back to the group that we discussed before the dinner break. The Minister tried to clearly draw a line between differentiation and discrimination. I think that no recourse to public funds is very clear cut and obvious: you either have access to money, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said, if you are in work and need extra support to survive and feed yourself, or you do not. How can it be anything but discrimination if you do not have access to that money, despite being in exactly the same situation as the person beside you, doing the same job?
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I will respond to my noble friend Lady Stroud’s request to know the policy intent. Declaring my interests as set out in the register, as noble Lords may know, I have a lot of interest in what happens in our neighbouring country of France. I have been following the debates there reasonably closely over the last few weeks. In recent months, we have received more than our fair share of criticism from our French friends, who say that our asylum system is so much easier to navigate because there are so many pull factors—I recall my noble friend talking about these in her speech at Second Reading. This means that, in effect, we are a more attractive country to apply for asylum in than France, and this generates a huge amount of criticism.
My question to my noble friend the Minister is: when you look at no recourse to public funds, is that not one of the pull factors that is causing so much of this problem? I think that Clause 11 is designed to reduce those very pull factors that the French suggest are in fact causing the problem, so those of us who are for open borders should try to work this out. I always have been for open borders; I rejoice that we probably have one of the finest global multiracial societies in the world. Sadly, we do not appear to be proud of it. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, knows, I was brought up in Toxteth and went to school in Penny Lane. I love Toxteth and I am so proud of the community there, which he will know very well, because it is a viable, strong, multiracial society.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord is giving way to me, and I am grateful to him. He is right: I know those communities well; I represented them, as he knows, for very many years. The question I put to the noble Lord—because I am surprised at the case that he, of all people, is putting forward—is: will he remind the House precisely how much someone has in their hand when they have recourse to public funds? What is it that they are supposed to survive upon? How much money do they actually have? If it is such an attractive pull factor, as he has described, surely we should be reminded how much money someone is expected to live on.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
It is the principle that I am seeking to deal with. The noble Lord is quite right to ask the question, and perhaps my noble friend the Minister can do some comparisons, but there is no doubt that our colleagues in France feel that one of the key perceived pull factors causing people to get involved in these very dangerous crossings is this subject of no recourse to public funds. That is the only question I am raising. We are being heavily criticised by our French colleagues for allowing ourselves to encourage pull factors to grow and escalate, and that is causing the problem to be much more serious than it was.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My recollection of the French criticism is that they were criticising the ability of asylum seekers to work in the black economy—not the ability to be idle and live off the taxpayer. I imagine that any welfare possibilities in the UK would be less than in France. What they are criticising is the relative unregulated state of our employment market. Some of that criticism is valid; some is not, but we are all sometimes worried by illegal employment. That is what the French were talking about.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
When I look into the detail of the criticism, it is much wider than the noble Baroness is suggesting. Part of it must be NRPF—I am not saying it is the whole problem—and I just wish that we would address—
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I will just finish dealing with the point raised by the noble Baroness. We must ourselves try to identify what these pull factors are that cause people to risk their lives in the way that they do. It may well be that both the noble Baroness and I are right to identify certain parts of the pull factors, but of course we have to recognise that there are those pull factors.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Given that the Government’s position is that they are right about the refugee convention; given that they disagree with the UNHCR but have their own interpretation under which they are honouring the refugee convention; and given that the Government’s position is that it is about parliamentary sovereignty and not the sovereignty of people elsewhere, why should we be forming our interpretation of the refugee convention on the basis of French criticism? If we are worried about pull factors, perhaps we should reinstall “Go Home” vans and a hostile environment for people seeking asylum.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My noble friend said that it would be good to identify what some of these pull factors actually are. At Second Reading, I sought to try to outline what I believed the pull factors were, and they are not things that we would want to destroy or diminish at all. My understanding of the pull factors—why people want to come to this country—is that they include our language, our culture, the rule of law, democracy, historic ties through the Commonwealth, family connections and liberty. These are the sorts of reasons why people want to come here. The small, pitiful amount of money that somebody gets to survive on is not something, when they are leaving Eritrea and thinking of the hellish journey that they are going to take, that is going to make them want to come here. It is much more likely that they experience push factors, which are war, famine and devastating impacts on their lives. We really need to understand the lives that are lived by these men and women who risk all to come here. We know that every system has elements that get exploited, but we have to make laws for the majority of people and the majority of cases, and to be the sort of nation that we actually want to be.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Well, I agree with every word that my noble friend has just said. What I am seeking to persuade colleagues to focus on is that surely the objective—the policy intent to which she referred—is to focus our efforts on helping people via safe and legal routes. If we can deter people from coming here in small boats and by other illegal means, we can instead focus our efforts on those people who are genuinely in need. Okay, if we are not prepared to countenance NRPF, what is our answer to reducing deterrent factors—or do noble Lords simply think that this is not an issue? If that is the case, what do we say to the French, who really do strongly believe that it is a problem?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The noble Lord talked about focusing on people genuinely in need and compared them with people coming by irregular routes, such as across the channel. Does the noble Lord acknowledge that more than 70% of people coming across the channel have been granted refugee status, therefore they clearly are in genuine need?
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
I am not disagreeing with the noble Baroness; I am just trying to get us to focus on what the Government are now putting forward as a policy intent, which is to reduce pull factors, push factors or whatever we call them. Surely, our whole objective in all this must be to help those who are really in need and to encourage them to come by safe and legal routes. That is surely what Clause 11 is all about.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
I absolutely agree with my noble friend that the objective should be to encourage people to come by legal and safe routes. However, I think that what we have at the moment is a situation whereby people are coming across in small boats because there is no other way for them to come. We have to accept the fact that the small amount of money is not the pull factor that is bringing them across. We should really consider whether we would put ourselves at risk for that small amount of money coming across the channel.
What other ways are there of doing this? My noble friend the Minister gave this House a good challenge at Second Reading when she said that all she was hearing were problems and asked: where are the solutions? At that time, one of the solutions I put on the table was a negotiated settlement with the French post the French election. Most of us would agree that, prior to the French election, we are unlikely to get a negotiated settlement, but are we really saying that, post the French election, there might not be a possible breakthrough? The diplomatic route is one that I would still be seeking to use. We as a House must be putting creative solutions on the table.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My noble friend Lord Hunt made a valuable distinction but, with respect, he did not take it through to the logical conclusion, which is that this is only an interim measure. What is attractive is our very flexible labour market. Once you are through the system, you can easily get a job—much more so than in France and continental European countries where the labour market is much more rigid. The issue that my noble friend picks up is an interim issue that will make the ultimate objective of entering the labour market flexibly once you are through the system much easier; he is therefore right that the House is unfair to say that it is not a factor. It is a factor, but one in conjunction with the other issues, particularly the flexible labour market.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
If it is so much more generous here, why, in 2020, did the French have roughly 150,000 asylum claims while we had 30,000?
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
As with all questions affecting our colleagues in France, it is very difficult to answer that.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, what evidence are the French basing this view on? The academic evidence that I am aware of, and certainly the evidence that the JCHR draws attention to, does not support the view that public funds, or welfare more widely, somehow acts as a pull factor. The pull factors were set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud —family commitments, language and so on—and the evidence shows that the push factors are much more important. I would be very interested to know what evidence the French base this on because it may well be just reading our newspapers, which is probably not very good evidence.
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
Would the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, please ask the French?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, after the emotionally draining Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, I told myself not to get so involved with this one, but how can noble Lords not get so involved when we are dealing with measures such as this? I cannot believe that it is not also taking a toll on the Minister, who, at all times and in every circumstance, tries everything she can personally to meet and persuade noble Lords. I wanted to put that on the record in case there was any misunderstanding of my remarks on the other Bill.
Again, we reiterate that we believe that the sole determinant of how an asylum seeker should be treated by the UK are the circumstances that forced them to seek sanctuary in the United Kingdom. If they genuinely have fled war or persecution, they should be treated as refugees, with all the rights associated with that status, regardless of how they arrived in the UK. These amendments seek to clarify in what circumstances a second-class refugee, as defined by Clause 11, would have no recourse to public funds, and what would happen to those individuals in such circumstances, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, explained. The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, articulated the consequences of having no recourse to public funds. In short, do the Government intend to make group 2 refugees—a dreadful and, we believe, illegal term—destitute and homeless, or just for them to suffer grinding poverty?
I assume these measures are supposed to be a deterrent, but I ask noble Lords to put themselves in the position of a genuine asylum seeker in a migrant camp in northern France, considering what their next move should be. Would they feel that they would be better off destitute and homeless in France, or destitute and homeless in the United Kingdom, where they speak the same language, for example, or have friends or relatives? Would they believe, despite the Government’s best efforts, that they would still be better off in the United Kingdom than in France, for the reasons that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, listed so clearly?
Can the Minister answer this question? Are the Government really on a race to the bottom with other countries, such as France, to see who can make life more intolerable for genuine asylum seekers? The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, raised the issue of France. I agree with my noble friend Lady Ludford: my understanding was that the French were complaining that it was easier to work illegally in the UK than in France, which was why people were coming to the UK. My understanding is also that the benefits given to refugees in France are higher than in the UK, but I stand to be corrected. Having asked the Minister that question, with some trepidation I await the Government’s response.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, one of the ways that the Government can differentiate under the Bill between group 1 and group 2 refugees is to apply “no recourse to public funds”. The two probing amendments in this group would remove that provision. I listened with interest to what the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, had to say, as I did to my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett in moving the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, asked what the policy intent of NRPF is—I think she asked that twice during her contribution. Having heard the view of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, I will be interested to hear what the Government’s view is of the policy intent behind no recourse to public funds being applied to group 2 refugees.
We fully agree with these amendments, which are probing. A question was put to the Minister, and I simply want to support that ask of the Minister to set out in detail when the Government would consider this an appropriate differentiation to use, and in what cases. To whom within group 2 refugees do the Government expect this differentiation on no recourse to public funds to be applied, and in what circumstances? Against what criteria will that decision be made?
We are not talking about applying no recourse to public funds to persons without a valid refugee claim or economic migrants. Clause 11 applies solely to people the Government recognise as refugees with a valid right to be here and to seek safety. Bearing that in mind, it would be interesting to find out in what circumstances they think it appropriate to apply no recourse to public funds to people in the group 2 category.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for explaining their Amendments 46 and 54. As I have said elsewhere, I hope I can reassure the Committee that the powers under Clause 11 are both broad and flexible.
To come first to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, there is no obligation to exercise the provisions and, where they are exercised, there is no requirement to do so in any particular way. We will of course produce guidance and rules in this respect in due course, but those products will reflect the flexibility in the clause by providing appropriate discretion to take into account people’s individual circumstances.
The same therefore applies to no recourse to public funds. Details will be set out in due course, but I reassure noble Lords that we will take particular care to take into account relevant factors when considering the imposition of the condition, if it is imposed at all, including the impact on families, children and other vulnerabilities that have been raised elsewhere. In addition, we are mindful of potential impacts on local authorities and wider civil society. The policies in the Bill are of course subject to an impact assessment in any event. I stress that no one will be NRPF if they would otherwise be at risk of destitution. If they are, they can apply for a change of conditions to remove the condition.
I shall pick up on a few points. The first was about the policy intent, which is to disincentivise dangerous journeys. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral is right: we have to disincentivise people from risking their lives.
My noble friend Lady Stroud talked about safe and legal routes. She was probably not in the Chamber when I laid out absolutely all of them. I refer her to the letter I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, setting all of them out, including several routes for family reunion; I hope she will take a look at that. I commend her on coming up with the solution, yet again, of working with the French. I agree that we need to work not only with the French but with other countries because this is a global problem that now requires a global solution from each and every state on the globe.
I turn to push factors versus pull factors. Push factors do not explain secondary movement, there is no doubt about that. If push factors were all, people would stop in the first safe country that they reached—that is an absolute fact. We must keep all options on the table to stop illegal migration. I hope, but doubt, that I have reassured the noble Baroness that I appreciate and understand her concerns, and the requisite levels of discretion and sensitivity will be exercised with respect to—
Baroness Stroud (Con)
I thank my noble friend for giving way. I would like to clarify one point. I think she is saying that the removal or application of, or access to, public funds is discretionary. If that is the case, who has the discretion to apply or withdraw them? It is unusual for the welfare state to be quite so discretionary and, in effect, subject to subjective judgment. It would help to have clarity as to who can say this person will have access to public funds and that person will not.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Before the Minister answers—I am sorry to prolong the debate; I was going to leave this point until group 8 on the right to work—she talked about pull factors being an absolute fact, but the Migration Advisory Committee said in its annual report in December:
“To the extent that the Home Office has robust evidence to support a link between the employment ban and a pull factor, they should of course make this evidence publicly available for scrutiny and review. That is how good policy is made.”
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, but I disagree.
To answer my noble friend’s intervention about who decides, it is caseworkers.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I may have misunderstood the thrust of what the Minister has said on behalf of the Government, but it came over to me that the reason why we have no recourse to public funds is to disincentivise dangerous journeys—that is, people will know that there is no recourse to public funds, and if they know that it may make stop them making those journeys.
If that is the case, why cannot the Government tell us the circumstances in which no recourse to public funds will apply? Their response has been, in effect: “Someone will draw up guidelines later on, but we do not know at the moment what they will say or the circumstances in which there would be no recourse to public funds.” In that situation, it just is not credible to say that something where the Government do not know how it will be applied would act as a disincentive on dangerous journeys.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Yes, my noble friend is absolutely right. It is not unusual for guidelines to be drawn up after legislation has been brought in.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
It is true that it is not unusual for guidelines to be drawn up subsequently but, presumably, in including the provision in the Bill, the Government had at least some idea of the circumstances in which it would be applied. The answer I am getting now is that they cannot tell us any circumstances in which it will definitely apply.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
It might be helpful to the noble Lord if I outlined situations in which it might be applied, as opposed to putting them in the Bill. I am very happy to go away and look at that and write to him with some examples of where it might be applied—I get his point on that.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. There have been some very powerful arguments for the amendment. I am particularly grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud: she put it better than anyone else could, drawing on her knowledge of these issues. I thank the Minister but I must say that I am disappointed. The whole point of the amendment was to try to get a bit of clarity—my noble friend Lord Rosser has been trying, without success—but, to be honest, I am none the wiser now than I was at the beginning as to who will and will not be subject to the “no recourse to public funds” rule.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, made the point that discretion involves subjective judgment. I have been involved in social security for a long time. There was a reason why we reduced the element of discretion in it: because subjective judgment may be used in ways that we do not feel very happy with. It can be negative as well as positive. All that we know about the culture of disbelief in the Home Office, the refugee system and so on does not fill me with great hope.
I am glad that the Minister said that she will write to my noble friend; I hope that she will copy it to everyone who has taken part in this debate. I hope that she will look at Hansard and the questions I asked to see whether she can answer some of them. If she cannot, it suggests that, as my noble friend said, this has been put in the Bill without a clue as to what it will actually be used for—and that is not good.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am sorry to intervene, but will the Minister include in the letter to noble Lords how this measure, which will be broad and flexible—I think that is what she said—and at the discretion of the Home Office, will amount to a deterrent?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
That is a very good question, but it has taken away my train of thought. What I wanted to say was that this really is not good lawmaking. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, quoted the Migration Advisory Committee, which I was planning to quote as well in relation to the right to work, and pointed out that it is not good policy-making not to provide evidence. The Minister said she disagreed, but I hope she did not disagree with the fact that one should provide evidence for policy, which is what I challenged the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, about. I would be very interested to see this evidence the French are using. I do not think it exists.
Anyway, it is late. I am disappointed, because I am none the wiser as to how this potentially very dangerous power, which could cause immense hardship if we are not careful, is going to be used. But I hope that the Minister’s letter will show some clarity about how the Government are thinking about how they plan to use this power. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Thursday 3rd February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-III(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (3 Feb 2022)
“(4A) In section 16 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (Establishment of centres), after subsection 2 insert—“(2A) Accommodation provided under this section must—(a) have a capacity of no more than 100 residents, and(b) provide any non-related residents at the centre with an individual room in which to sleep, such that residents are not required to share sleeping quarters with people to whom they are not related.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would amend the 2002 Act to ensure that accommodation centres are not too large and that residents are not required to share sleeping quarters with anyone they are not related to.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments 57, 59 and 60 in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I also express broad support for the other amendments in this group. The amendments reflect the concerns of the British Red Cross together with many other organisations, and I am grateful to them for their help. Together, the amendments would place restrictions on who could be accommodated in the accommodation centres proposed under Clause 12 and for how long, the numbers to be accommodated in a centre and the sleeping arrangements, and would ensure that if children were ever accommodated in those centres, they would not be prevented from attending local maintained schools.
Under Clause 12, as signalled in the new plan for immigration, accommodation for asylum seekers will move from what has been the dominant dispersal model, in which asylum seekers are housed in local communities, to accommodation in reception centres, using a power provided by the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. No detail has been provided, so one purpose of the amendments is to try to elicit more detail than was provided in the Commons. In particular, how many accommodation centres are planned, and where? Will they be purpose-built or will they use existing sites such as Napier barracks? What criteria will be used to decide whether such existing sites are designated as accommodation centres or contingency accommodation?
What the Government have made clear is that they will use Napier as asylum accommodation for a further five years, and that this will allow testing and piloting to inform the final design of how accommodation centres will operate. In view of the High Court judgment about the inadequacy of the accommodation provided, and having sat on an inquiry held by the APPG on immigration detention into quasi-detention centres, I find the idea that Napier could provide the model for future accommodation centres profoundly worrying.
The evidence we received—both from stakeholder organisations and from those with experience of living in Napier or in another centre, now closed—was overwhelmingly negative. Typically, such centres are in remote areas. This spells isolation and a lack of easy access to support services. It is not conducive to integration. On the contrary, it creates what HOPE not hate describes as “targets of hate”. It warns that the use of such centres is likely to lead to increased harassment of asylum seekers.
As noted in the joint evidence from Doctors of the World, the Helen Bamber Foundation, Forrest Medico-Legal Services and Freedom from Torture, the use of dormitory-style accommodation means a total lack of privacy. This can be particularly problematic for LGBTQ+ residents. It also results in serious sleep deprivation for many. The impact of this deprivation on mental health and well-being was described very powerfully in evidence to the inquiry by those with experience of Napier barracks.
The use of former military barracks can be retraumatising for those who have suffered abuse and torture. As a dozen organisations, including Doctors of the World, the Helen Bamber Foundation, the BMA and various royal colleges warned the Home Secretary in a joint letter, this makes them inappropriate for people seeking asylum. They also warned that the kind of accommodation centres envisaged represent a real public health risk and impede adequate medical care.
It was clear from our inquiry and from the experience of a range of health and refugee organisations that such accommodation is bad for mental and physical health. It undermines any sense of agency and hope. According to the Helen Bamber Foundation,
“the use of institutional accommodation of this type is extremely harmful to survivors of torture”
and its features
“have the same impact as open prisons with groups of people with little to motivate or occupy themselves becoming increasingly desperate.”
It is not surprising, therefore, that the Refugee Council has warned:
“Proposals to extend these forms of accommodation are ill-thought out and dangerous, and undermine the UK’s duties to support and protect those making asylum claims.”
It advised that international examples of the use of congregated settings, including in the Republic of Ireland, have shown that this kind of accommodation is completely inappropriate for housing those seeking asylum.
The amendments will not prevent the use of such accommodation centres—the power for which stems from earlier legislation, as I said—but they would go so way towards addressing their most inhumane features. Amendment 57 would, with some additions, give legislative force to what is supposed to be current policy—of not housing groups with particular vulnerabilities in such accommodation. Our inquiry, British Red Cross research and the experiences of stakeholders all indicate that, all too often, people with vulnerabilities are housed in such accommodation. It is therefore essential the safeguards are spelled out in the legislation. In the absence of such legal safeguards, what assurances can the Minister give that the use of accommodation centres will be accompanied by more robust screening and protection than exist at present?
With regard to children, in the Commons Committee, the Minister assured Members that the Government had “no intention” and “no plans” to accommodate children. Welcome as such assurances are, they are far from a cast-iron guarantee. We need to spell it out in the legislation. I do not see why the Government would resist this—if this is their intention. I invite the Minister to give an absolute assurance on the record.
Without a firm—preferably legal—guarantee, Amendment 60, which assures children’s access to local maintained education facilities, is still needed. At present, Section 36 of the 2002 Act prevents a child who is resident in an accommodation centre being admitted to a maintained school or nursery. Section 29 allows for education to take place within the centres. The prior information notice for accommodation centres, published by the Government last August, includes provision for education services. It surely cannot be in the children’s best interests to segregate them from children in the local community in this way.
Amendment 56 would limit the number of residents in any one centre to 100. The larger such centres are, the less the residents feel that their humanity is recognised and the more likely the centres are to attract hostile attention and to work against social cohesion and integration. In the Commons Committee, the Minister said that such a limit would undermine a key objective of resolving asylum cases more quickly on site. It is not clear how it would do so. Could the Minister please explain?
The other part of the amendment would ensure that residents were not required to share sleeping accommodation with anyone to whom they were not related. This reflects a recommendation made five years ago by the Home Affairs Select Committee—that room-sharing should be phased out across the asylum estate. It would help address lack of privacy and public health concerns.
The Minister was rather dismissive of this in the Commons Committee, but he did not seem to appreciate what it is like for people seeking asylum to be housed in dormitory-style accommodation, as opposed to sharing a bedroom in accommodation in the community. It is all very well saying, as he did, that torture survivors receiving treatment should not share sleeping quarters, but in practice, all too often, inadequate screening means that torture survivors and others who are vulnerable do so.
Amendment 59 would remove the power given to the Home Secretary in Clause 11 to increase the maximum period for which someone can be accommodated. At present, there is a limit of six months in most cases. The Explanatory Note gives no indication as to how the new power might be used, other than to argue that it provides flexibility. The UNHCR has expressed concern that, unless there are necessary safeguards and support services, prolonged accommodation in such centres is likely to harm well-being, increase the need for future support and delay refugee integration. The 90-day limit in the amendment reflects current practice at Napier. We know the damaging impact on mental health caused by the absence of any clear time limit. It should not be replicated in accommodation centres.
In conclusion, I will quote from residents of Napier and of Penally, which is now closed. One told the APPG inquiry:
“When I arrived, the fear completely overwhelmed me. The design of the camp was oppressive, the high fences, the sheer numbers of people, the security who … looked like they were from the military. It was terrifying and I could feel it through my whole body. It reminded me of the military camps in [my home country]. I was in complete shock for the first few days. I did not sleep at all … It reminded me of [my home country] and I could not function.”
Another suggested:
“It would be difficult to design a system that more perfectly delivers despair and deteriorating human health and mental capacity than these asylum camps.”
A third said:
“I did not feel like a person when I was there.”
These quotes show quite clearly the experience of dehumanisation. The JCHR suggested, in one of its reports on the Bill, that such dehumanisation and distress are not inevitable in accommodation centres. It also made it clear that it was imperative that the Government learn from the poor treatment of asylum seekers housed in former military barracks. The amendments in this group give the Government the opportunity to demonstrate that they have learned from the overwhelming evidence of the damaging impact of such accommodation. I beg to move.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I strongly welcome my noble friend’s initiative in building and setting up reception centres of this kind. I appreciate that the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and others, are, in effect, probing amendments to find out more about the Government’s exact intentions. I fully understand that. It is perfectly reasonable.
I do not think that the noble Baroness objected to the principle of reception centres of this kind. At the moment, first of all, people are visited on local authorities, which are asked to accommodate them. Inevitably, these are not local authorities in London and the south-east, where accommodation costs are very high, but in areas such as the Midlands, the north-west and the north-east. I come from the north-west, so I know it particularly well. Here there is the largest concentration of people of this kind in council flats and so forth. They are, in effect, in competition with local people on the council waiting list, who may be rather resentful if they find they are asked to wait rather longer because of the need to accommodate people who have just come across the channel on a boat. This is not conducive to good community relations, as well as being quite unfair on people who have long been resident in this country.
Secondly, if they cannot be accommodated by local authorities—indeed, it is increasingly difficult to find appropriate council accommodation because of the shortage of housing, even in areas such as the north-east and north-west—they are sent to local hotels. I know this particularly well because I happened to spend part of my youth in Southport. Southport has a splendid main street called Lord Street. The Committee may not know it, but it was visited by Louis Napoleon, the Emperor of France, when he was in exile in this country before he became the emperor. On the basis of Lord Street, he created the Champs-Élysées in Paris. In Southport we always think of the Champs-Élysées as being the French Lord Street.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak in support of Amendments 56, 57 and 59 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I have added my name to these amendments. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, that we are not talking about illegal immigrants; we are talking about asylum seekers. It is legitimate to seek asylum in this country.
In 2021—last year—a British Red Cross investigation found that unsuitable and poor facilities were having a severe effect on the well-being of asylum seekers, including children. I join the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in asking the Minister to clarify that these accommodation centres will not be used for children in any circumstances because that is really important, and we really would like that on the record.
We know that people housed in asylum accommodation are generally not registered with a GP and face significant challenges in accessing appropriate healthcare, particularly for more complex mental and physical health conditions. People who are not registered with a GP and do not have an NHS number are also unable to access Covid-19 vaccines through the regular channels, which makes them largely dependent on outreach and walk-in clinics. I can tell noble Lords, as someone who has been very involved in the vaccine delivery, that it is a serious problem. It poses a huge challenge for timely follow-up and identification of those who need additional doses as a result of their clinical vulnerability.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, mentioned the judgment about those who were in Napier barracks. Noble Lords will know of the judgment, which was brought in June 2021, where it was made very clear that there were inadequate health and safety conditions, a failure to screen for victims of trafficking and other vulnerabilities and false imprisonment of residents. Evidence presented to the court showed that the Home Office continued to house people at the barracks against advice from Public Health England. A Covid outbreak was found by the court to be inevitable and it occured in January 2021, with nearly 200 people testing positive. Yet this is the model the Government are using.
We need to understand from the Minister and know more about how exactly this is going to operate and how we are going to ensure that anybody in an accommodation centre has their health protected and gets decent health services. We know that the risks to the health and well-being of people in these large-scale accommodation centres are clear.
If you add in the most vulnerable of people—children, women, people with disabilities, those who have been referred to the national referral mechanism and others who are vulnerable—the system will not be able to cope. The accommodation centres will apparently provide basic healthcare services, but access to medical care and infection control in current asylum accommodation settings has been notoriously poor, drawing widespread condemnation from healthcare professionals across the UK.
This amendment would mean people in vulnerable circumstances, including children, survivors of torture and those who have been subjected to human trafficking or enslavement, are not accommodated in the new accommodation centres. The Home Office recognised that most vulnerable people should not be accommodated in Napier barracks but Doctors of the World—I am extremely grateful to Doctors of the World and other organisations which have provided excellent briefings on all of this—data shows that 70% of Napier barracks residents accessing its clinical services disclosed an experience of violence in their home or transit country and 38% had applied for asylum because of an experience of violence. Of course, people who have experienced violence and associated trauma are unlikely to regard an accommodation centre that is prototyped by an ex-military camp as a place of safety, exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has said. It is likely to trigger a trauma response. Talk to some of the psychiatrists who know about this and they will tell you that. It is likely to lead to the deterioration of an individual’s mental health and well-being.
Amendment 56 would mean that accommodation centres would not become overcrowded and would not place unnecessary pressure on local health services. It might also improve conditions—the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has perhaps said enough about that—because if you hear the experience of people who have been living 20 in the same room, you can almost not believe it. I t makes one stretch one’s eyes. The lack of privacy living in large, shared rooms is a major cause for concern for people’s mental well-being. By limiting the number of people accommodated at a site, this amendment would contribute to better access to mainstream health services, a better chance—not a great chance, but a better one—of social integration and possibly a chance of maintaining some sort of well-being.
There is a further point. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has referred to what is happening just across the Irish Sea in the Republic of Ireland. The Republic of Ireland has, for nearly 20 years, been providing something called “direct provision” of housing for asylum seekers. I know about that because we have a holiday home in Ireland. However, because of the poor health experienced by residents, deaths within the centres and the same arguments being adduced here, the Irish Government are changing their system and have promised to phase out these so-called direct provision centres by 2024. Their new centres will be smaller, but not small enough, will be for a maximum of four months, which is not short enough, and will look out for the health and well-being and integration of the residents. If the Irish are removing these large centres, for all these reasons, should we not be thinking again, as well as protecting the most vulnerable from being housed within them, and reducing the length of stay permitted?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, that the stresses and strains being experienced by local economies and local people have actually been created by his Government, the Conservative Government, over the past 12 years. Their levelling-up message—I will not call it a campaign—is only to repair some of the damage they have done in the past 12 years. Please, I want no lectures about making things easier for people, because this Government have made things much harder for many millions of people.
I also express my admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who has shown incredible perseverance, persistence, bravery and toughness in keeping on about this subject. Her deep knowledge is informing the House. I really hope that we can listen to her, hear from her and learn from her; I include the Conservative Front Bench in that.
The way that asylum seekers have been detained in unsuitable accommodation in this country is a national outrage—a national disgrace. We should be deeply ashamed of it. If these conditions were not in violation of international law, then frankly we ought to be fighting for a change in international law, because no country should treat people like this.
The amendments in this group would have a two-pronged benefit, by improving the standard of accommodation and reducing the time for which people can be detained. I hope that the Minister will reflect deeply on the impact that this government detention is having on people’s lives, and accept these amendments.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, in rising to support these amendments, to some of which I have added my name, I declare my interests in relation to both the RAMP project and Reset, as set out in the register.
Where we live and sleep is fundamental to our health, well-being and ability to live our lives fully. It should be a place we feel safe, from where we can build our lives. The majority of people who claim asylum will be granted refugee status or humanitarian protection. From day one in this country, they should therefore be treated as future citizens—a gift to us rather than a problem or inconvenience. They may well have endured persecution and trauma, but they also have skills and experience that they want to actively use to contribute to our society. This should inform the whole asylum process, including how they are accommodated.
I am deeply concerned about the planned accommodation centres for asylum seekers. The Home Secretary has said that the continued use of Napier barracks may inform the final design of how accommodation centres will operate. This does not bode well given the serious concerns raised by the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration, HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the findings of the High Court of fundamental failures by the Home Office in ensuring that the barracks were suitable accommodation for vulnerable asylum seekers.
I am now in the position, unlike anyone else in this House I think, to say that I visited Napier barracks last week with two Members from the other place: the honourable Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale, Tim Farron, and the right honourable Member for Romsey and Southampton North, Caroline Nokes—herself a former Minister for Immigration. We were accompanied by the Bishop of Dover and three members of the RAMP project team. I put on record our deep gratitude to the Minister for her support in ensuring that the visit took place, and for intervening when it looked like it might get cancelled at short notice. She worked tirelessly for us, and we thank her.
It was clear from our visit that efforts have been made to improve things in the light of the previous inspection and the court case. The conditions are far from ideal, but the deeply shocking conditions we have learnt about at Napier and Penally camps should never be repeated, and they are not currently being repeated. Good-quality asylum accommodation should be provided from the outset, not forced following inspections and legal challenge. I have a number of observations to make and questions to ask of the Minister that apply to the different areas of our four amendments.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, one rises to talk in this debate having heard speeches from the noble Baronesses and the right reverend Prelate which are based on great experience. My experience, which is much less and can therefore be dismissed as anecdotal, causes me to raise a couple of questions which I have told the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I would raise. It is the question of the inflexibility that may be imposed if the system has too many conditions attached to it and, in particular, of the maximum number of 100 in a centre.
My anecdotal experience—I accept that it is anecdotal —is that the numbers are not the problem; what people want is proper management and not an absolute focus on numbers. As we all know, those unfortunate people arrive here traumatised, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, pointed out, and, for them, to some extent there is safety in numbers because in their previous experience they have been kept on their own. Therefore, having people around them can be helpful and not traumatising—in fact, it reduces trauma and does not compromise their humanity in the way the noble Baroness described. Of course, the smaller we make the group—the maximum—the more we run the risk of having to break up families because family groups cannot be fitted together. That seems undesirable by any measure. When the noble Baroness replies at the end of the debate on her amendment, I hope that she will be able to explain why 100 is the right number and some of the other issues that arise around this point.
My noble friend the Minister will know that I support the direction of travel of this Bill, but I am afraid that for the rest of my remarks I am going to be perhaps rather less helpful. The Committee may be aware that I chair the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. We looked at 901 regulations last year, and all human life is there. Amid 901 regulations, things pass in a bit of a blur, but one or two—a dozen, 15 or 20, over the years—stand out. I am afraid that No. 962 did that. As we heard from several earlier speakers, it concerned the special development order for Napier barracks. Noble Lords have spoken extensively about the drawbacks of that—I shall not go into them now; apart from anything else, I do not want to rain on the parade of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, because I know that he happens to have tabled a regret Motion about this matter, and no doubt he will wish to take that forward at a future date. However, consideration of that order revealed a shocking series of cases. I was pleased to hear from the right reverend Prelate that he thought that things had improved. I was pleased to hear about how he thought things could be further improved. I am not sure that we can go quite as far as he would wish—I find it quite difficult to see how we can interfere with military journeys in this country. People should be able to understand that the Army, the Air Force or the Navy are not coming for them; it is part of their training.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My point was that I just do not believe that they should be right next door to military barracks.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I accept that point, but I do not accept the point that large centres cannot work if they are properly designed and managed. That is not necessarily a reason for rejecting the possibility of there being larger reception centres, albeit that they may be built around buildings that have existed before.
When my noble friend the Minister replies, I am looking for her to say that we have no more Napier barracks hidden away somewhere, that we are moving in the direction of travel given by the right reverend Prelate and that, with that provision, we should continue to be prepared to provide centres that may be larger because they answer some of the requirements and traumas that those unfortunate people are experiencing.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I support these amendments and pay tribute to those whose names are attached to them, because they all raise important issues. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, that there was something of a Freudian slip when he suggested that we were here dealing with illegal immigrants. Perhaps the tabloid newspapers are having too much of an effect on his view of what is happening.
Lord Horam (Con)
Surely in many instances we will not know the state of their claim when those people are accommodated in the reception centres. They will not know, and we will not know, what their status is.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
It was the assumption that we were talking about illegal immigrants. The vast majority of the people coming through are asylum seekers and have good reason to be seeking asylum.
The reason I got to my feet was not really to reprimand the noble Lord, Lord Horam; it was to raise a question that came from my own experience. When it became public that we had been evacuating judges and prosecutors from Afghanistan, because they were in mortal danger, to a lily pad—a temporary location—in Greece, the number of communications I received from people and families up and down the country with additional accommodation and offering to make it available to any of those seeking refuge from persecution was extraordinary. I know that the answer will be given from the Front Bench that of course we encourage people to contact a central line and to put their names down to say that they might make such an offer, but many of those who contacted me, where I gave them that advice, told me that no one had ever contacted them. I just wonder whether the good will of the British people who could offer accommodation is really being tapped into, rather than piling people into camps such as this one.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 61 in my name. Unlike the previous amendments that have been discussed so eloquently, this is not based on specificities in relation to the nature of the accommodation and particular people; it is a compendious description of the standard of accommodation that should be provided to a refugee, in the light of and against the background of the unsatisfactory accommodation provided to date, which, as I said, has been so eloquently elaborated upon by previous speakers.
The compendious description is in three parts, which are as follows. The accommodation
“must be provided in the United Kingdom”,
which ties in with Clause 28—I will deal with that more fully under that heading. It
“must be consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights”—
there can be no objection to that, for obvious reasons. It must also
“be such as is appropriate for the safety and welfare of that refugee having particular regard to any protected characteristic asserted by the refugee, within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Equality Act 2010, which is innate or immutable.”
I will say a little bit about that last particular part of this compendious description of the appropriate accommodation that should be provided. An asylum seeker who has “innate or immutable” protected characteristics may have particular vulnerabilities—we have heard quite a bit about that—which need to be taken into account in determining what would be appropriate while their particular claim is being assessed, and even if it has been rejected. In the case of LGBTQI+ and single women refugees, for example, it has been clearly established that they may well encounter bullying, sexual harassment and physical violence from other refugees coming from the same or similar countries, such as Pakistan, Bangladesh, Malaysia, Uganda, Nigeria, Iran, Iraq and Syria—or, indeed, in the case of LGBTQI+ refugees, any of the more than 70 countries where sex between two people of the same sex is illegal. There have been comprehensive analyses and accounts of this type of abuse in detention centres, and one can find them in Stonewall’s 2016 report No Safe Refuge: Experiences of LGBT Asylum Seekers in Detention, Stephen Shaw’s 2016 report to the Home Office on his Review into the Welfare in Detention of Vulnerable Persons and the 2020 recommendations of the University of Sussex’s School of Law, Politics and Sociology on people seeking asylum in the UK on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.
In relation to the suggestion in the Bill that there could be offshore centres, I will describe in more detail criticisms of the state of accommodation and examples of the sort of violent and oppressive treatment that I have described—particularly the appalling events that have taken place in some of the Australian offshore centres in Papua New Guinea.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to these amendments and congratulate my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett on so eloquently moving the amendment. I also congratulate the other speakers who have spoken in favour.
I particularly welcome Amendment 61 of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, because, as he said, he introduces into it elements—human rights and the regard to the special provisions within the Equality Act —of which we should be proud and on which we should lead internationally. I give my wholehearted support to that because, as noble Lords have heard me say before—I make no apologies for saying it again and again—in each of these situations, I imagine what I would want as an asylum seeker or refugee. I must imagine myself in that situation. Some who read our newspapers would believe that it is a picnic and a party; it is certainly not at the moment in the United Kingdom. I believe that the signal that we are sending out with the Bill and with these amendments is that asylum seekers and those seeking refuge are not welcome.
To reiterate the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, I remember that, when I was a Member of the European Parliament many years ago, I was approached by a person whose partner was a gay man from Belarus who was seeking asylum here. His asylum process was going through and, suddenly, in the very early hours of the morning, he was arrested and detained at a detention centre. Let us make no bones about it: Clause 12(9) introduces detention centres—they are called “accommodation” centres, but asylum seekers are detained and cannot leave them at will. This is why the minimum conditions that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham outlined are a basic and bare necessity to which we should adhere. This young gay man was placed in a detention centre for a number of weeks and had to sleep in shared accommodation; we managed to get him out because his partner could afford a rather brilliant lawyer to plead the case. While he was there, he contemplated suicide on an hourly basis. This young man is now in a senior job in the United Kingdom, paying his taxes, his dues and his national insurance and abiding by the same rules and laws as everyone else. But he still lives with that scar every single day, and I do not want any other person to experience that.
Placing vulnerable people back into these situations, as outlined by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, only increases stress and the damage to mental health. If LGBTQI people are put back into the communities from which they have fled, they face further oppression within places that should be safe, and it makes it much more difficult for them to prove their LGBTQI status to others.
Someone once said to me, “Oh, being trans is just a feeling, isn’t it?” Well, I cannot prove to anyone that I am a gay man; it is a feeling and one that I have when I look at another human being—although not every single man, interestingly enough. Therefore, we have to deal with these particular issues, not only of LGBTQI people but all of these vulnerable asylum seekers.
I will finish with this. In roughly 1600, Shakespeare co-wrote a play; it was the only play that he co-wrote and it is “Sir Thomas More”. Sir Thomas More is called to London because the citizens of London are rebelling—they had probably read the tabloids of the day—because “the strangers” had made their way from Calais via Dover to London. In a parenthesis to a speech, Thomas More comes out, and with one hand silences the crowd. In that silence, a voice shouts, “Remove them!” Thomas More replies: “You bid that they be removed, the stranger, with their children upon their back, their families at their side, their belongings at their feet. Imagine you are the stranger, with your children upon your back, your family at your side, your belongings at your feet. Imagine you are the stranger and bid that they be removed and show your mountanish inhumanity.” It is a great privilege and pleasure to support these amendments.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group and I ask the Minister to address in her response a couple of issues, particularly in relation to Amendments 57 and 61, about restricting the placing of vulnerable people in accommodation centres—military barracks. When a similar amendment to Amendment 57 was tabled in Committee in the other place, the Home Office Minister, Tom Pursglove, said it was
“unnecessary because there are no plans to place those with children in accommodation centres”.—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 21/10/21; col. 295.]
If the Home Office has no such plans, which is a welcome commitment, why will it not accept a statutory shield against placing at least children in those centres?
Wider than that, I am grateful to the British Red Cross, which has reminded us that there is a Home Office policy document, of which the latest update was in May 2021, called Allocation of Accommodation Policy. It has a section on “Asylum seekers considered unsuitable for Napier”, which starts with the statement:
“Women and dependent children are not suitable to be accommodated at Napier”,
before listing further cases, including potential survivors of modern slavery, people with a disability and those with complex health needs. The tablers of Amendment 57, which I support, say the list should be longer and should include those under Amendment 61. If the Home Office has these policy commitments, it is my contention that it ought to accept the amendments restricting the types of people who would be sent to these accommodation centres. I would be very pleased to hear the Minister agree and therefore accept at least Amendments 57 and 61.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, noble Lords will not be surprised if I strike a somewhat different note; none the less, it is a note that needs to be heard. I think we need to stand back before addressing this group of amendments. We cannot and should not assume that everyone who claims asylum in this country has a case and is a genuine asylum seeker. The Home Secretary said recently that of those crossing the channel, 70% were more likely to be, and were in fact, economic migrants rather than genuine refugees. A historical view, I think, gives a figure of something like 50% of asylum seekers whose cases were rejected after very careful legal procedure. So, I think we have to stand back and not simply assume that all applicants have two wings and a halo.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but, according to the Refugee Council, which did a very careful analysis of those coming over on boats—and this was an analysis, not just throwing out statistics in the way the Home Secretary did, perhaps—the great majority would be expected to receive refugee status. So, yes, of course, there are always going to be some people who are not “genuine” asylum seekers, but surely the assumption should be that they are until proved otherwise, rather than that they are not until it is proved that they are. The noble Lord seems to be assuming that they are not genuine asylum seekers and there is no evidence to support that.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
I think we need to be careful not to make an assumption in either direction. I was quoting the Home Secretary in the expectation that she has information to back that up. Even without that, and the noble Baroness did not address this point, the historical record is that 50% over the last 10 years have had their cases refused. I leave it at that. My point is clear on that matter.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Does my noble friend agree that it would be helpful to the Committee if, when the Minister comes to reply, she provides two specific facts? One is about the number of people, said to be 125,000, awaiting decisions on their asylum claim; and the other is the average length of time it is now taking to expedite those decisions. This returns to the point made by the right reverend Prelate earlier about the pressure that would be taken off accommodation if those matters were attended to in a much more efficient way.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
Yes, 125,000 is correct, and I think that many—most—are waiting for more than a year. But if I may continue with my point—which does not address that; what I am addressing is the way this discussion has gone—the issue of scale is an important one. I have some sympathy with the Home Office: it is having to deal with a very large problem that is extraordinarily difficult to deal with. It is clear that the situation in the channel is a shambles. It is also clear that it is going to get worse. The number who arrived last year was 30,000 just on the channel, with another 10,000 elsewhere. We could, this year, have something like 60,000 arriving and claiming asylum. That is a massive logistical task and we should have that well in mind in making recommendations to the Home Office.
It is clear that the system is already buckling under the strain. One major problem is, of course, accommodation. Provision of accommodation in four-star hotels does nobody any good: it does the Government no good, it does the cause of refugees no good and it should not be taking place. That, presumably, is why the Government are now legislating in connection with accommodation centres, but the response to that legislation is to propose eight amendments that, taken together, would make it unworkable, given the scale of applications that we can expect. For a start, if we limited it to 100 for each accommodation centre, we would have to build something like 100 centres. If we get to the higher end of what I have just been describing, it would be 200. We have to be realistic and recognise what the Home Office has to deal with. I have not always been its great friend, but I think it has a problem and we should be conscious of that.
To conclude, I advocate a rather different approach. I think we should set up accommodation centres, we should establish them and mark their boundaries, we should provide medical assistance and legal advice, but we should simply make it the case that if applicants leave that accommodation without permission, their application is refused.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
No; it is very simple —too simple for the noble Baroness—but it would mean that we do not need huge amounts of security in order to keep people where we put them. I hope that Government will take powers to do something on those lines. I do not think what they are now proposing will work, and I think it would be even worse if some of the proposals we have heard today came into effect.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I would not want this whole debate to turn on the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Green. All I would say is that his suggestion that people should be kept in a form of virtual detention and penalised if they happen to leave it is surely unacceptable. I am afraid that I do not accept the thrust of his arguments anyway. If he looks at the figures, he will also find that, although more people came across the Channel by boat in the last year or so, the numbers have not increased all that much, compared with those who came on the back of lorries before. The numbers have actually gone down a bit.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
That is correct. If the two are added together, it averages about 40,000 a year over the last eight or 10 years. The problem now is the publicity surrounding all this, which makes it more difficult. Also, these numbers could easily double, as the Home Office says, and then we are in a new situation, going back to the early 1960s when it ran completely out of control.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
I do not want to pursue the point, because it is diverting us from the particular amendments, which I support. I say at the outset that the Minister has the advantage that, having been able to look at the Joint Committee on Human Rights reports on this, she will know exactly the quotes and arguments that we are going to use. It will be no surprise to her at all. She knows exactly what we are on about. I am certainly speaking as a member of that committee.
Before that, perhaps I could pay tribute to the Kent Refugee Action Network. During the pandemic—at its height—when the issue of Napier barracks arose, it drew our attention to what was going on. I am sorry I could not go with the right reverend Prelate on his recent visit, but at the time of the pandemic, we were not able to go on visits and I am sure the Minister was not able to, either. She gave us a version of what was going on in the barracks which frankly was disproved by the local people on the ground, who told us that the conditions were bad, and that people with Covid were mixed up in dormitories with people who did not have Covid. I am afraid the Minister at that time appeared to be misinformed as to the situation there. All these issues were raised at the time. I cannot remember how long ago it was. We had quite a long earlier debate.
I do not want to go over the ground that other noble Lords have covered. The Joint Committee on Human Rights looked at this. We have some good quotes from Bail for Immigration Detainees and from Médecins Sans Frontières. I will not quote those, but I do want to quote paragraph 91 of the JCHR report:
“It is imperative that the Government learns from the poor treatment of asylum seekers housed in former military barracks. If accommodation centres are to be used to house those awaiting asylum decisions and appeals or awaiting removal from the UK the conditions must ensure that residents are free to come and go, treated with respect, provided with adequate access to healthcare and legal advice and not prevented from mixing with the rest of society”.
I will say one other thing. At the time this issue arose, the Home Secretary said that the barracks were used by the British Army and asked why we were complaining. That was wrong in a number of respects. First, it was years previously that the Army had used the barracks. Secondly, they were not mixing up people with Covid with other people. If the conditions were not adequate now, they were not adequate for the Army then—but to use that as an excuse, and say, “It’s good enough for refugees because the Army used it 10 or 15 years earlier” seems an unacceptable argument.
I am sorry the Home Office has been put in this position. I welcome what the Kent Refugee Action Network has been doing to support refugees in Kent generally, to support refugees in the barracks and to campaign on the same arguments that are characterised by these amendments.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, it seems to me that this debate reflects what we said yesterday in our debate and what some of us tried to say on Second Reading. There is an irreconcilable conflict and quandary between our desire to receive people in the way in which we would wish them to be received and treated and the number of people who have been coming—and are likely to continue to come—and our capacity to handle them. The Home Office’s proposals attempt to increase the capacity and the quality. I totally understand the criticism of the proposals, but it seems to me that we are in no way in sight of a practical solution to this problem.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, for so comprehensively and clearly setting out the issues addressed in this group. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, for her detailed exposition of the negative impact that accommodation has on the health and well-being of asylum seekers.
We have Amendments 58, 62 and 63 in this group, which are about accommodation centres, which are—if the Government were honest about this—immigration detention centres, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, said. I say that because Section 30 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 allows the Secretary of State to make regulations about conditions to be observed by residents of an accommodation centre—including, in subsection (3)(a), the power to
“require a person not to be absent from the centre during specified hours without the permission of the Secretary of State or the manager”.
Hence my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s Amendment 62, which we strongly support, to remove such a condition.
If these are not intended to be detention centres, the Government will have no objection to this amendment—but I am not optimistic. The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, will be heartened by the news in the Telegraph today that the Secretary of State
“is in talks with the Attorney-General about potential restrictions that could be placed on their movements”—
that is, the movements of asylum seekers housed in accommodation centres. The noble Lord will be heartened; we will be horrified.
We have already seen from the Government’s attempts to warehouse large numbers of asylum seekers in former military camps how such an approach is not “conducive to the public good”, to adopt a phrase from another part of the Bill. Noble Lords have talked about Napier barracks. In the same article in the Telegraph today, apparently the Home Office confirmed that it has acquired military barracks at Manston, in order to accommodate further asylum seekers.
The noble Lord, Lord Horam, suggested that there was no objection in practice to accommodation centres. To some extent, that is true, but having large numbers of asylum seekers in one place creates tensions with local communities and hampers asylum seekers’ attempts to integrate into their adopted country. While I am on the subject of the noble Lord, Lord Horam, can we nail the illegal immigrant issue? The noble Lord said that a lot of these asylum seekers had yet to have their claim determined. We have a principle in British law called being innocent until you are proved guilty. These people are not illegal immigrants unless and until their claim for asylum has been rejected.
So many objections to immigration generally are on the basis that immigrants do not integrate into society; that they do not attempt to learn the language, for example, or mix with those already established in the UK. Accommodation centres would prevent asylum seekers integrating and force them to isolate themselves from local communities. It is the very opposite of what we should be doing to ensure the integration that is so important to foster good community and race relations.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, said, we have seen the appalling conditions that asylum seekers have been forced to live in at Napier barracks, which drew universal condemnation. Amendments 56, 57 and 61 seek to provide some safeguards and protections for the most vulnerable asylum seekers. Amendment 60 would enable children housed in accommodation centres to attend local state schools, and Amendments 58 and 59 try to restrict the length of time that asylum seekers can be held in accommodation centres.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
The noble Lord mentioned that most applicants will become refugees. I have the Home Office figures here: 49% of the 450,000 asylum applications between 2004 and 2020 were withdrawn or rejected, including those that went to appeal. Those are the basic stats from the Home Office; they should surely underline the whole debate.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am very grateful for the historic information that the noble Lord has provided. My understanding is that, as the years have gone on, the number of successful appeals has increased and the number of first-time decisions to reject application from refugees has gone down. While I do not deny that those might be the overall numbers going back to 2004, in saying that most applicants for refugee status are successful, we are basing it on the last few years—the current trend rather than the historic numbers the noble Lord refers to.
I am reminded of heavy-handed policing of football supporters in the 1980s. I remember a football fan saying to me, “If you treat us like animals, we’ll behave like animals”. Warehousing asylum seekers may be a short-term gain, but it is likely to create long-term problems.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I too express my appreciation to my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett for the determination and commitment she has shown in pursuing not only this but so many other key issues about which she rightly feels very strongly. I repeat what the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, said: this clause and these amendments are about asylum seekers. In the Bill—a government document—Clause 12 is titled “Accommodation for asylum-seekers etc”. We are talking about asylum seekers, not illegal immigration, although I accept that there are those who make no distinction between the two. The other point I make at this stage is about the quite interesting exchange between my noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. I think there was rough agreement—if not I am sure I will stand corrected—that the kind of numbers coming over in the back of a lorry are very similar to those coming over in small boats across the channel.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
To get the timescale on this, I say that 10 years ago it was 40,000 asylum seekers a year. That is roughly the number now—30,000 on the channel and 10,000 by other means. The difference, as I mentioned, is the potential in the channel for the numbers to go up very fast and make it even more difficult for the Home Office and local government.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The potential is, of course, a matter of speculation. I note the point the noble Lord makes, but up to now there is agreement between him and my noble friend Lord Dubs that the numbers have been roughly the same.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but my understanding is that the number of asylum claims a decade or more ago was something like double what it is now. We are talking not about similar numbers crossing the channel in boats compared to those in the past, but about half as many.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The point I wanted to make was that, when people were coming over in the back of lorries—not all that long ago—they were largely unseen and the Government were not proposing the measures in the Bill. However, when similar numbers started to come over in small boats across the channel, with pictures of them landing on our shores regularly appearing on TV, it became a big political issue for the Home Secretary and the Government, following some rather rash promises they made to their supporters. Consequently, we now see the Bill, which frankly is an attempt to save the political skins of the Home Secretary and the Government. It really has nothing to do with properly trying to solve a problem. We ought to remember what is driving it—the political future of a Home Secretary and Government who made rash promises. Because people are coming over no longer in the backs of lorries, where you do not see them regularly on television every night, but in small boats across the channel, with pictures of them on television, it has become politically very awkward.
The amendments in this group are driven, as has been said, by serious concern over the Government’s track record on accommodation for asylum seekers, not least in connection with Napier barracks, and the provision in Clause 12 for creating asylum accommodation centres. It is worth repeating that last June a court judgment ruled that the accommodation at Napier barracks was inadequate, in that it did not meet the minimum standards required by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Both the process for selecting people to be sent to Napier barracks and the process for monitoring its ongoing suitability while they were there were flawed and unlawful. From January 2021 the residents were given an order not to leave the site until they were permitted to do so. The claimants were unlawfully detained, under both common law and the European Convention on Human Rights.
The report on Napier of the Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration and Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Prisons raised a number of serious concerns, including that the screening of potential residents for physical and mental health problems was “wholly inadequate”, with all of those interviewed reporting feeling depressed and one-third feeling suicidal, and that there was extremely poor communication with those accommodated at Napier. We have heard today from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham that Napier has improved, but it is fair to say that he also said that it is far from being as it should be. It is a legitimate question to ask why the Home Office allowed Napier barracks to get into the position where it required a court judgement, and why we should now accept that the same thing will not happen again.
Clause 12 gives the Government powers to house different groups of asylum seekers in undefined accommodation centres. It appears that these centres would involve congregated living in hostel-type accommodation—the type of accommodation which has been shown to be unsuitable to house people, many of them traumatised, in the asylum system for long periods. As others have said, this move away from housing in the community is likely to impede integration prospects and will surely make access to needed support and services more difficult. I simply ask the Government, and I hope that we get an answer in their response: is it now their policy to move away from housing in the community for asylum seekers?
The Explanatory Notes to the Bill say that the accommodation centres for those at different stages of their asylum claim, including those with “inadmissible” asylum claims, will
“increase efficiencies within the system and increase compliance”,
but no evidence is given to support that assertion. It would be helpful if the Government could provide that evidence in their response to this debate.
While the term accommodation centre is not defined—again, perhaps the Government will do so in their response —there is an implication that the Government are seeking to replicate the kind of inferior accommodation that we have seen at Napier. This more prison-like and isolated accommodation provides a very poor environment for engaging with asylum claims and is more likely to retraumatise extremely vulnerable people and hinder future integration.
As I understand it, last summer the Home Secretary visited the notorious reception centre on the Greek island of Samos, which campaigners have described as “prison-like” and “inhumane”. Is that what the Home Secretary seeks to emulate in her accommodation centres? The Government must know the answer, since I believe I am right in saying that initial submissions for the procurement of these accommodation centres were invited by the end of September last year. The contract is to be delivered in accordance with Part 2 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, and it stated, as I understand it, that it is for housing up to 8,000 people for periods of up to six months. Could the Government say in their response how accountability and standards will be maintained in such asylum accommodation when there is no public access to the contracts? How did the Government decide that commercial confidentiality should take priority over the public interest in knowing about the contracts and transparency?
Since April 2020, the Home Office has been using two large-scale accommodation centres for asylum-seeking men who have arrived in the UK by boat: Napier barracks in Kent and the Penally camp in Wales, which is now closed. A report by the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Immigration Detention noted that, although legally speaking these are not detention centres, they none the less replicate
“many of the features found in detained settings—including visible security measures, shared living quarters, reduced levels of privacy, and isolation from the wider community”.
Frankly, that seems wholly inappropriate. No doubt the Government in their response will wish to provide some reassurance on this point.
It would be helpful too if the Government could spell out what freedoms and rights will be restricted or diminished for the occupants in these accommodation centres, and what independent access will be allowed, and to whom, to these centres to ensure there is some regular accountability for conditions and standards.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford)
My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I will clear up two things before we start.
Noble Lords will recall that, yesterday, at Questions, I made an apology—the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, was not actually in his place—having been quite insistent that I had sent a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and that everyone had received a copy of that letter. I had cleared the letter, but it had not gone out. I apologised to the whole House, in the noble Lord’s absence, and thanked him for bringing it to my attention. I understand—I will not assert it—that the letter has now gone out, so everyone in the Committee and the House will get a copy of the safe and legal routes. I am sure the noble Lord will intervene on me if it has not arrived in noble Lords’ inboxes.
The second point to clear up was on something mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, before he sat down, in the Times article. I had not seen it at the time, but I have looked at it now. It is speculation, but I will confirm two things: we detain only for the purposes of removal and to examine claims.
I want also to clarify a third thing: Manston is not going to be an accommodation centre. The plans are for it to be a short-term holding facility for a maximum of five days’ stay.
Noble Lords have pointed out that the asylum accommodation state is under huge strain—there is no doubt about that. We are currently relying heavily on the procurement of hotel rooms, which is not sustainable. Noble Lords have alluded to that in previous questions and debates. The use of accommodation centres will provide additional capacity and ensure that adequate housing is available to everyone in the asylum system who needs it. The noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Green, are right, although they come from different sides of the argument: the numbers are large, with 125,360 in the system to June last year. There is no doubt that processing claims more quickly will free up the system.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about the average time to process. We prioritise claims involving individuals who are either high-harm, vulnerable, unaccompanied asylum-seeking children or in receipt of asylum support, and we are working on implementing an improved service standard.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Before the noble Baroness leaves that point, is she able to give an average time to process these claims? I recognise some will be in different categories.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think I said right at the outset that I do not have a figure at this point in time. In terms of speeding up claims and decision-making, we are dealing with a sustained high level of new asylum claims, including from those who arrive in small boats who noble Lords have been talking about. That is creating an additional pressure on the asylum system, but we are committed to ensuring that asylum claims are considered without unnecessary delay and that those who need protection are granted it as soon as possible. We have in place a transformation programme. We are developing existing and new technology. We are digitising casework. We are building a high-performing team, and we are investing in training and supporting staff in professional development to aid staff retention, which we so desperately need.
A key objective of setting up accommodation centres is to resolve asylum cases faster by putting casework and other services on-site. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots said, there is no rationale per se for restricting the number of people in each site to 100, as Amendment 56 seeks to do. It is only likely to make it much more difficult and expensive to set up the centres, meaning that fewer asylum seekers will benefit from the efficiencies that we are trying to achieve. There is also no reason that unrelated residents of accommodation centres cannot share sleeping quarters provided they are the same sex, as this is already allowed in the asylum accommodation system. I take the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham about the noise and probable brightness within the facilities, and I will most certainly take that comment back.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt, but I was so struck when we took evidence about sleep deprivation from people who had been in Napier. It really got me, as someone who hates being deprived of sleep, because it clearly is such a fundamental issue for their mental health. It is not just noisy. They cannot sleep because of the noise.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Baroness and I share more in common than I thought, because sleep deprivation, which I have been a bit subject to recently, is not something I find very easy at all. I am going to take those comments back and provide more commentary, on the back of the right reverend Prelate’s questions, on what we were doing and what we are doing now, if the noble Baroness will bear with me.
As I said, there is no reason that unrelated residents of accommodation centres cannot share sleeping quarters. In fact, the right reverend Prelate conceded that some people like sharing sleeping quarters with others. It is the peripheral issues that he has brought to my attention that I will take back.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
It was simply in pairs. That was quite clearly stated to us. Two in a room was quite welcome, but more than that was objected to.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Okay, I thank the right reverend Prelate for being so specific. However, I do not think that, fundamentally, there is a reason that unrelated residents cannot share. This amendment clearly provides effective action to alleviate this burden and seeks to restrict the introduction of efficiencies, already mentioned, to the system.
Amendment 57 is unnecessary because there are no current plans to place those with children in accommodation centres, and all other individuals will be placed in an accommodation centre only following an individual assessment that it will be suitable for them and they will be safe.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Will the Minister at this point make a firm, absolute assurance not only that there are no current plans—I get very suspicious when I hear that, because a plan can be thought up in a few weeks’ time—but that no children will be placed in such centres?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I do not think I can go further than saying that there are no current plans because if a child was destitute and there was a place for the night, I could not say we would not put the child in an accommodation centre.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
Could the Minister at least give an assurance that, except in the most exceptional circumstances, no child will be put in such a centre? I hope she can understand why saying that there are no current plans is not sufficient to satisfy us.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I understand the noble Baroness’s point. I cannot go beyond saying there are no current plans, but I can think further about the point she is making and perhaps give her more detail on it, if she will allow me to do so, but that is as far as I can go. She might be further comforted by some of the things I am going to say about vulnerability, et cetera.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, if the Minister is coming on to that, perhaps I should sit down, because I was going to stress welfare as distinct from safety.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
That is what I am going to come on to, if noble Lords will accommodate me—no pun intended—for a short period of time.
Whether an accommodation centre is suitable for individuals who share the characteristics listed in the amendment will depend on a number of factors, including their personal circumstances and vulnerabilities and the facilities available at the particular site or area. This goes to the points made by both noble Baronesses.
I now turn to Amendments 58 and 59, which seek to limit stays in accommodation centres to 90 days. The amendments attempt to disapply a key part of Clause 12. One of the aims of Clause 12 is to enable wider flexibility to ensure that individuals are supported in accommodation centres for as long as that form of housing, and the other support and arrangements on-site, is appropriate for their individual circumstances. We intend to provide vital services and support co-located within accommodation centres. Reducing individuals’ access to these vital services by restricting them to a 90-day stay would not be acting in their best interests.
We do not think Amendment 60 is necessary because we are not proposing to use the power in Section 36 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, so there is no need to amend it.
Moving to Amendment 61, I would like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for his contribution to this debate. The Home Office is already required to provide accommodation to destitute asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers in a way that is consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights and the requirements in the Equality Act 2010. Our policies also recognise that we need to take account of the individual’s safety and welfare—to take the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—in considering the type of accommodation that is suitable for them.
There are no plans to use accommodation centres to house all asylum seekers. I slightly wondered whether there might have been some conflation with that in today’s debate. Some will be identified at the outset as unsuitable for that type of accommodation, and some will need to be moved out of the centres as new issues emerge. All individuals in the asylum support system have access to an advice service from Migrant Help, a voluntary sector organisation that we fund for this purpose, and are able to put forward reasons and evidence why they need a particular sort of accommodation.
Moving to Amendment 62, I need to be clear on this. As my noble friend Lord Horam said and my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts asked, accommodation centres are being set up to provide housing and other support for those who require it because they would otherwise be destitute. The judges mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, may not in certain circumstances need this type of accommodation; I am not making a presumption, but they may not. These are not detention centres, of course. Individuals are free to move out of the centres if they can obtain their own accommodation, for example through friends or family.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
The point was made very clearly that these centres should not be places of detention. I was waiting for some assurance that the ability to come and go would be recognised. The Minister has just said that people will be free to leave if, for instance, they need to go and do something specific. To me, that sounds very different—it may just be a trick of the language—from an assurance that these will not be places of detention subject to specific allowances to leave for specific purposes.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I repeat that these are not detention centres. There may be specific conditions—for example, if an asylum seeker needs to attend an interview about their claim, they will be required to be there—but they are not detention centres.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt—I know that there is a lot to cover—but I want to follow on from that important point. Again, we were given an example of a specific reason. The person may just want to go for a walk. They may want to go into the local town, if they can get there. Will they be free simply to go out when they want to?
The Lord Bishop of Durham
We saw and talked to people who were going out into Folkestone for a walk and coming back. So if the system is modelled on Napier as it is now, they were absolutely free to come and go. I think the Minister is saying that, if a specific appointment is made, they will be required to attend it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I know that the Committee will believe a holy man over me—so, yes, God’s representative on earth is absolutely correct.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
One of many. The right reverend Prelate is absolutely correct and put it perfectly.
Where was I? I will talk about standards and all the stuff around Napier in more detail in a second but, for now, I will move on to Amendment 63. This would effectively give local authorities a veto over any proposals to set up accommodation centres in their areas. We do not think that is appropriate. We fully accept that local authorities should be consulted on such proposals and on their views about any impacts on local services. This is already provided for in the way that the Home Office arranges accommodation for destitute asylum seekers who need it. Accommodation providers are contractually required to consult local authorities on any proposals to use accommodation that has not previously been used to house supported asylum seekers. We hope that this consultation leads to agreement, but it is not realistic to assume that this will always happen. It is, however, vital that we provide housing and support to those who would otherwise be destitute. Local authorities cannot be given the option to turn these people away as an inconvenience. I am sure that the Committee would not want that.
I want to address directly the questions asked by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. He asked, first, whether there would be added recreational activities and appropriate medical expertise on site. The simple answer is yes. I know that he saw such an example when he was at Napier the other day. As I have said, accommodation centres will meet all statutory and legal requirements. We expect services in and around the centres to include spaces for exercise, religious activities and appropriate healthcare provision.
The right reverend Prelate asked about community cohesion—a very appropriate question. We will work with local authorities to ensure that community cohesion aspects are addressed; I am sure that the Church will engage on that as well. He also asked whether there would be effective processes to ensure that the most vulnerable are not housed on site. Again, the answer is yes. People will be able to disclose reasons and evidence for why they should not be accommodated in a centre. I was also asked to confirm that no children would be accommodated in these centres. I refer back to my answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
The right reverend Prelate asked whether specific learnings from Napier would be applied in future. That is a totally reasonable question. Offering residents Covid vaccinations and personal cleaning kits is one of the things that we will do. The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about the Covid outbreak. Lateral flow tests are available on arrival and twice a week thereafter for people at the accommodation centres. There are communications on Covid in 10 different languages, and there are people and messages encouraging Covid compliance.
NGOs have also been introduced on site to provide assistance and support. There is free travel to medical appointments and a visiting dentistry service. There are weekly meetings with residents to identify and act on concerns. Sport and recreational activities have also been introduced. I took the noble Lord’s point about the hard football pitch, but then I thought that, in some parts of the country—such as where I live—having a grass pitch might preclude them from playing football for six months of the year, so it is probably appropriate, depending on the area.
The right reverend Prelate also asked whether sleeping areas would be limited to two people. I think I have covered that. There is no reason why unrelated residents of accommodation centres cannot share sleeping quarters, provided that they are of the same sex. This is already allowed for in the asylum accommodation system.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive answers. Report after report has highlighted the importance of ESOL.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I was going to come on to that, and I shall do so now. The right reverend Prelate has mentioned ESOL, which of course is used in either a work context or a life context. He mentioned that there were NGOs providing language assistance for people in accommodation centres. I am not aware of plans to introduce ESOL, but I would say that that is maybe further along the chain of the claim and therefore the granting of asylum.
I hugely support learning the English language for all aspects of these people’s lives, not least in order to integrate, for their children to get educated and for them to be able to access basic things such as healthcare if and when they are granted asylum. So I will think about that—actually, I will not just think about it but take it up with the department.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Minister may recall that some years ago I came to see her, with the then Minister Brandon Lewis, specifically about the teaching of English. I declare an interest in that my wife is a volunteer, working in the north-west of England on the very kinds of projects that the right reverend Prelate mentioned, teaching English. She and I agree with the Minister that having a command of the English language gives access to everything, while not having that command is a major disadvantage. So, whether or not it is ESOL, resources are required, certainly for volunteers, to ensure that they have available to them all the necessities required if you are a teacher.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I do not think there is any disagreement here. I have seen some great examples—particularly in the north-west of England, and I think the noble Lord and I talked about them at the time—of English language learning for people new to this country. I am not in disagreement in that area.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, who also mentioned the Shaw review, talked about children, those with vulnerabilities and, of course, our LGBT community. I stress that we will accommodate people in a centre only after an individual assessment that it will be suitable for them and that they will be safe. There are no plans currently to use the centres to house families. Beyond that, the centres will be used to accommodate only those who require support because they would otherwise be destitute. Those who obtain accommodation with friends or family will not be affected by the measures.
With regard to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, the provision has nothing to do with unaccompanied minors. The provision is about adults in the asylum system and their dependants who are accommodated by the Home Office under powers in the Immigration Acts. Unaccompanied minors are not accommodated under those powers.
On the question about accommodation centres generally not being suitable for certain individuals, I repeat again that there are no plans to accommodate asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers who are not destitute in this kind of accommodation. Those who can obtain accommodation with friends or family will remain unaffected; that goes to the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. Individuals will have the opportunity to disclose information and supporting evidence for why they should not be housed in accommodation centres, and I say again that we have no current plans to accommodate those with dependent children. However, it is not possible to completely rule out placing those with children in accommodation centres in future if, for example—this is a point that I made earlier—there are no available flats or houses to house them. In certain situations, this might be a better option than using hotels. In terms of educational opportunities, all children who are resident in the UK in whatever circumstances can access the state education system in the same way as British children.
I think we have gone over the question of why these are not detention centres.
On the mental health point that the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, mentioned, we have later amendments on that issue. Individuals will have access to health services, but we will discuss the issue of mental health in later groups. However, I agree with his point.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
It was also particularly in relation to LGBTQI people placed in those situations.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Yes, I totally concur with the noble Lord’s point.
I turn to the judgment on Napier, mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Neuberger, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. The judgment on Napier was reached on the basis of the conditions on site prior to the significant improvement works we carried out and the measures we put in place as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. The court did not make any findings that the accommodation centres were unsuitable for providing support to asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute. Indeed, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 specifically provides for this type of accommodation. The Napier site provides full-board facilities with meals and other essential items provided, as well as access to essential local services such as healthcare. I have been through the improvements that have been put in place. I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham for reporting back on his visit there last week. He did not have me wandering around after him showing him the best bits; he was free to go in, report and make suggestions to me on the back of that visit.
I hope I have given a fulsome response to the Committee, for the reasons that I have outlined, about the need to ensure that we can support asylum seekers appropriately but also encourage—
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The Minister is valiantly dealing seriatim with the qualms that so many of us have about accommodation centres, but I have not yet heard an answer to the fundamental question: why accommodation centres? What is the purpose of this? Why would it improve the asylum system? Is it cost savings? I hope it is not deterrence. Is it the advantages for the Executive of the concentration of cases in one particular place? If we are going to deal fairly with asylum seekers, surely the best thing to do is to speed up the process of hearing their cases and get more of the initial decisions right so that fewer go to appeal.
Surely the accommodation should be empty local authority housing. Why are 12,000 of the 16,000 August Afghans still in hotels? Is there some hold-up in the system which means that local authorities, some of which are quite keen to get some revenue from the presently empty accommodation, cannot deal with them? Is that not the answer, rather than building these concentration centres—or is there some reason that I have just completely missed that would make an accommodation centre the answer? What is the underlying rationale of the proposal?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am very grateful to the noble Lord for asking that question. When someone arrives in this country, they go first into initial accommodation and then into dispersed accommodation. Depending on whether their claim is allowed or denied, either they are welcomed here as an asylum seeker with their claim accepted or, if their claim is rejected, they might ultimately be asked to leave. These are initial accommodation centres; this is not move-on or follow-on accommodation. I hope that helps to explain the difference.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
As long as the queue is three, four or five years long, it is not really just a question of initial accommodation. This is pretty long term.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right, and this goes right back to the beginning of this discussion. We need to process claims quickly, grant asylum if the claims are valid, and ask people to leave if they are not. He is absolutely right and we agree with each other on this point: people’s claims need to be done expeditiously. Without making excuses, I say that the pandemic really held back the smooth running of our asylum system, as I am sure it did in other countries. I hope the noble Lord is satisfied. For the reasons I have outlined—so that we can both support asylum seekers appropriately and encourage that throughput that he was just talking about, by freeing up spaces in the asylum spaces— I hope noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
Does my noble friend agree that there must be a limit to the resources available to deal with the increasing potential scale of this problem?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
There is a limit to both the resources and the geography of this country. That is why the system needs to run in a way that accommodates the most vulnerable people. People whose claims are not upheld need to leave.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank Committee Members for their kind words and, more importantly, those who made strong contributions in support of these amendments. It is not appropriate to cover them all in detail, but what is important is that the case was made for decent accommodation for asylum seekers that promotes their welfare and is based on a recognition of their common humanity.
While to an extent it is true that, as the noble Lord, Lord Horam, said, I am not opposed to accommodation centres in principle, I am opposed to what I think is envisaged. I am sorry if I did not make that clear. It is one thing to have small, homely centres; it is another to have things based on military barracks or their equivalent.
I will refer to what two noble Lords said before turning to the Minister. First, the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, asked me a specific question about why 100 residents. To be honest, I do not know the answer. The British Red Cross suggested 100 and I have great respect for its work in this area, but the specific number is not important. What is important is that people at such a centre can feel that it is their home for a while. That point was made powerfully by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. There is a real danger that big centres—this is what HOPE not hate is afraid of—will attract the kind of hostility that residents of Napier have faced. The noble Lord made the point that it would be easier to accommodate families, but the Minister herself said that this is not the intention; these are not appropriate for families. I have not come up with an actual answer, but the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, also had the grace to acknowledge that his argument was based on anecdote that people might prefer to be in larger groups. But I have been using the evidence from both research and organisations working on the ground.
I also want to pick out what the right reverend Prelate said, partly because he made an important point at the outset about how, not in all but in many cases, we are talking about future citizens. He made a wonderful remark: he said that we should treat them as
“a gift to us rather than a problem”.
Too much of this debate has been based on the assumption that these people are problems. Please bear in mind what the right reverend Prelate said.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
Does the noble Baroness agree that there should be a distinction between those who have had their cases examined and are refugees and those whose cases have not yet been examined? That is all I am asking for.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
No, I am sorry; I do not, because they are all people. We should start by accepting their common humanity, and then we can see how people fare in the system. That is my working assumption and I think it is the right reverend Prelate’s too.
It was helpful that this debate was postponed, because it was originally supposed to have been while the right reverend Prelate was at Napier. In fact, I am supposed to be at Napier today with the APPG. I was struck by what he said and that there have been improvements. That is welcome and we should acknowledge it. However, he said that—I am paraphrasing—despite the improvements, he could not help getting the impression of a prison camp rather than a place of safety. We should be creating places of safety, not prison camps. That is my other working assumption.
I am very grateful to the Minister. She was on her feet responding for nearly an hour and I appreciate how she has really tried to address many of the points made. All noble Lords appreciate that. It is very difficult with so many amendments and so many questions. I am still very worried about children because, despite being pressed, the Minister said that there could be circumstances when children would be accommodated. My fear is that this would open the door, but she said that she would take this away and look at it. We will have to come back to lots of these aspects on Report, that one in particular. If the amendment about children’s education is unnecessary and there is no intention for these centres to provide education, I do not understand why the prior information notice included how they should be able to provide education facilities. I am not asking the Minister to respond now, but perhaps she could look at that.
Despite the Minister’s valiant attempts to answer them, a number of questions went unanswered. I will not push them now, but perhaps she could write one of her famous letters—and make sure that it actually gets sent. I have been asking the Library about one of them and it knew nothing about it, but I am glad it has been sent now. I am also worried about the emphasis on individual assessment, because that is supposed to happen now yet we find that many people in vulnerable circumstances end up in places like Napier. She might want to look at that and we might want to come back to it.
I am conscious that we have spent a lot of time on this and rightly so, because it is such an important issue. I am very grateful to every noble Lord who contributed and to the Minister for her engagement on the issues, even if I am left dissatisfied, because I am not sure we have moved on much further than the Commons in answering the questions asked—even though she tried very hard to do so. I suspect we will come back to at least some aspects of the accommodation centres on Report. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Paddick
“Asylum seekers’ right to work
The Secretary of State must make regulations providing that adults applying for asylum in the United Kingdom may apply to the Secretary of State for permission to take up employment if a decision at first instance has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within 3 months of the date on which it was recorded.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations enabling asylum seekers to work once they have been waiting for a decision on their claim for 3 months or more.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, this is a rare treat: a group with only two amendments. I will speak both to Amendment 64 in my name and to Amendment 65. I am reminded of the phrase “lies, damned lies, and statistics”, but apparently, according to the figures that I have—perhaps we need a Hansard fact-checker, like the BBC has—every year from 2012 to 2019 the majority of asylum seekers in the UK were successful.
Lord Paddick (LD)
There is agreement. In 2019, it was 65%. To prevent such a large proportion of asylum seekers working while their claim is resolved is demoralising, debilitating and expensive—increasingly so as the time taken to process applications continues to increase. The latest Home Office data shows 76% of applications taking more than six months to resolve. The Minister did not have the average figures, but I appear to have them. Figures published by the Independent suggest that more than 1,200 asylum seekers currently in the system have waited more than five years for a decision and 399 have waited more than a decade. That can result in asylum seekers becoming deskilled, leaving gaps in their work experience and long-lasting demotivation. To be willing and able to work but not be allowed to, for months or even years, must be devastating.
Our amendment, supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Chakrabarti, Lady Meacher and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, simply allows an asylum seeker to ask the Home Office for permission to work if their application has not been resolved after three months, instead of the current 12 months. It is intended to establish the principle that it is better for asylum seekers and for society if they are allowed to work. Amendment 65, in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, goes into more detail, requiring the Home Office to allow an asylum seeker to work without restriction after six months, rather than the current situation where asylum seekers can apply to work. Currently, however, they will only be given permission to work in the types of employment on the shortage occupation list maintained by the Home Secretary. These jobs are very limited and asylum seekers are unlikely to be qualified for them or have recent experience of them. Moreover, asylum seekers are unlikely to be attractive to potential employers while their claim for asylum is being considered. We are currently facing worker shortages in some sectors. Providing asylum seekers with work means they can start to pay their own way in society through tax and national insurance rather than relying on handouts. They are less likely to disappear if they have a job and a steady income.
In November, a cross-party group of MPs and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham wrote an open letter to the Home Secretary saying it was “nonsensical” that there were people in the UK who wanted to work but were not permitted to do so. They described allowing asylum seekers to work as common sense, fiscally responsible, and enabling those living here to pull themselves and their families out of poverty. The Lift the Ban coalition, which includes businesses, recruitment firms, trade unions and refugee organisations, estimates that removing the ban would save the economy £181 million a year. As I said in the previous group, the key to any successful immigration policy is integration, and allowing people to work is key to their integration into society. It also makes them less likely to be exploited, for example by becoming victims of modern slavery. We support Amendment 65—
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I was trying to intervene on the noble Lord’s speech, and I apologise to him for doing that. As I am also going to be involved in the other business going on in Grand Committee a little later on, I might not be able to be here to hear the Minister’s reply, so I am going to have to forego the opportunity of speaking on this group of amendments. However, I wanted to register my strong support for them, not least because, in 2016, I moved an amendment on the six-month issue and this House passed it by 218 in favour to 195 against. One point that the noble Lord might also like to register is that Article 23 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifically sets out the right to work. That is something that this House has an obligation to consider, but I thoroughly endorse everything that the noble Lord has said. I should mention that I am patron of Asylum Link Merseyside, which has made representations on this subject.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 65, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. She is very sorry that she is unable to be here today, not least because she feels so strongly about this issue. I hope that the three of us who are supporting signatories will act as effective understudies.
The general case has already been made very persuasively by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. The main difference, as he explained, between his amendment and this one is that our amendment proposes the right to work after six months, which is the usual time period proposed and is probably more realistic. It also ensures that that right allows an asylum seeker to take up employment on grounds no less favourable than those of a person with recognised refugee status. This means they would not be confined to the highly restrictive shortage occupation list, as they now are when they are finally allowed to work.
It has already been said that there is great support for asylum seekers’ right to work, including from business and the general public. Even the Deputy Prime Minister has said that he is open-minded on the subject. Home Office Ministers repeatedly claim to be committed to refugee integration, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. As the Migration Advisory Committee made clear, the right to work after a reasonable period—and I think six months is one—in a job not limited to the shortage occupation list, represents one of the key foundation stones of integration. The committee also challenged the pull-factor argument put forward by Ministers, an issue that we debated at some length on Tuesday, and noted that the recent
“parliamentary statement regarding analysis of the employment ban … contained no evidence on the ‘pull-factor’.
It suggested that,
“To the extent that the Home Office has robust evidence to support a link between the employment ban and a pull factor, they should of course make this evidence publicly available for scrutiny and review. That is how good policy is made.”
In the interests of good policy-making, then, will the Minister now undertake to publish that evidence, because all the evidence that I have seen, including academic studies, does not support the pull-factor argument?
As well as its implications for integration, the denial of the right to work can take a toll on mental health and feelings of self-worth. I recently attended a Zoom meeting at which members of MIN Voices, part of the Maryhill Integration Network, talked about what it meant for them. One talked about his life being frozen; another about being made to feel helpless and useless. The Government should recognise such sentiment, given the weight that they attach to paid work, especially in their social security policy.
I would like to finish by reading a statement from MIN Voices that makes the case much more powerfully than I am able to. It says:
“Remember, we are Human Beings first, and we have dignity. Asylum Seekers who came here had to leave everything behind. Security for asylum seekers is not only shelter and health but also work, the ability to contribute to their own life and other people’s. Who will give back the five years of my life I lost in the asylum claims process? Who will give me back my skills and my health? Not being able to work makes us feel less human. We are living in constant worry, feeling worthless, frustrated, in pain and fearful. Not knowing the future. Not being able to plan for the future. If we can work, it will help with integration and allow us to live in a dignified and a healthy life. If we can work, we will feel less stressed, have a sense of control over our life, have better mental and physical health, and feel at home … Being able to work is important for self-respect and dignity. If we can work, we belong to something and do not live in complete limbo. If we are not allowed to work, if we cannot even study, then what are we allowed to do? When we can work, we could pay tax, look after our families and children. Many of the problems will disappear. See us as human beings not a number.”
That is very relevant to the last debate we had, when we were constantly talking about numbers and forgetting we are talking about fellow human beings.
“See us as human beings not a number. Let us build our life and future and not waste our time and skills.”
So I hope that, like the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister will be open-minded to the growing calls for this very basic right: the right to work.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and supported by the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Ludford, and myself. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in her usual manner introduced it fully and spoke movingly, as did the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
As we heard, asylum seekers wait months or even years for a decision on asylum claims, and sometimes decades. This condemns them to poverty, uncertainty and fear. It leaves them in a limbo, experiencing poverty and destitution. If they are allowed to work, this would improve family life, give them better prospects for their lives in the UK, and they would be able to rebuild their lives in the UK and eventually integrate better. It also, of course, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, makes economic sense. As we have already heard, the Migration Advisory Committee, which advises the Government on migration policy, in December 2021 recommended that the Government should look again at this policy. It also recommended giving asylum seekers the right to work after six months and not restricting them to the jobs on the shortage occupation list. Perhaps the Minister can explain why they are not paying heed to the advice of their own advisory committee?
The committee also states that the argument that this right would be a pull factor, as we have heard already, is not supported by evidence. The benefits of allowing asylum seekers to work outweigh the unfounded fears expressed by the Government. Therefore, I urge the Minister to accept this amendment, which has very wide support.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to follow both my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett—who is hard working to the point perhaps of being a Stakhanovite—and also the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar. I have added my name to Amendment 64 from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, but I support the thrust of both of these amendments. I think this is a total no-brainer—forgive me, I really do. I have always thought this. I have been working around this area all my adult life and I have never understood the logic of Governments of both persuasions, over the years, prohibiting this category of humanity from working, at the same time as trying to get other categories to “jolly well get on and work”, not be dependent on the state and not be dependent on benefits: “Don’t be scroungers—just get out and work”. It seems so illogical to have this strange bifurcation.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, except that she dropped me into a group that I have never considered myself to be part of: that of post retirement. As to whether or not it is a pleasure to be working here, obviously it is an honour, and clearly it is better to be able to shout across the Chamber than at the television or radio. Is it good for my blood pressure? Probably not.
However, it is a pleasure to have signed the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and other eminent noble Lords in this Chamber. For me, banning people from working is just one of the many ways that the Government dehumanise and punish asylum seekers. I honestly cannot see the logic behind it. Why would we not want them to work? Why would we not want them to play a role in society? Why would we not want to engage them and get them out of the probably dreadful accommodation that they are living in? Where is the logic in not letting them work? It will leave them destitute, which is not healthy for them or for us—though I suppose it is slightly better than sending them back to face persecution in their home country.
This Government are not brave enough. They pander to the right-wing parts of their own party and the country, and constantly use nationalist rhetoric to divide and rule. The Conservative Members of the House of Lords are better than that—and some of them do argue against what the Government say. On this occasion, this side of the Chamber is absolutely right: asylum seekers should be allowed to work.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the case for asylum seekers being able to work after a few months is compelling. I am sorry that we have not heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, but I perfectly understand why she is not able to be here. Amendment 65 was admirably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
In the debate on Clause 11, several noble Lords invoked public opinion, saying that it was wary of immigration. I suggest that obliging asylum seekers to be idle, existing in some cases on taxpayer support, is a surefire way to prejudice public opinion against them, especially those apparently fit young men who have been demonised recently. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded us that the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights has a provision of the right to work, and I thank him for reminding us of that.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
The noble Baroness made a very important point about public opinion. I draw her attention to a study by British Future which found that 71% of the public support the right to work after six months.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
The noble Lord has taken the wind out of my sails; I was going to quote that statistic, though I must admit I did not know it came from there. I got it from the splendid Lift the Ban organisation.
If the majority of people who seek asylum are ultimately found to be entitled to stay here as refugees, after either an initial decision or an appeal, how demoralising and frustrating for them to then be excluded from employment, and be unable to help support their families or to deploy and develop their skills, possibly for several years, or even a decade, as we have heard, while knowing that the host society may regard them as freeloading layabouts. It is of course a waste of a resource.
This is not just a leftie, Liberal cause. Not only was Amendment 65 led by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, from the Benches opposite, but everyone has already spoken about the Migration Advisory Committee report, and I assume it is not going to be accused of being some leftie, Liberal outfit. As has been said, the MAC has told the Home Secretary that there is clear evidence of harm being caused by the job ban, particularly in the context of a rising number of claimants waiting for more than six months for determination of their claim. The Government argue that the ability to work would be a pull factor, but the MAC says that Ministers have failed to provide clear evidence to support this contention, and that it would instead be good policy to assist asylum seekers to “integrate well into society” by letting them work while their cases are decided. I will not delay: I was going to give the same quote that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, did—I jumped the gun and cited it the other day—about the Home Office needing to provide robust evidence because that is how good policy is made.
Amendment 65 has the advantage of requiring permission to work to be granted after a wait of six months. That is stronger than the drafting of Amendment 64, which empowers someone to apply. Ideally, I would like an Amendment 64.5, allowing someone to work after three months but with the drafting of Amendment 65 on requiring permission to be given. The second element in Amendment 65 is that it would not limit the type of work that asylum seekers could undertake, unlike the current policy of restricting them and then, after 12 months—which is too long—using the shortage occupation list. That list is narrow, and many asylum seekers would not have relevant experience or qualifications.
As other noble Lords have said, it is extremely odd—indeed illogical—that the Government want to keep asylum seekers in enforced welfare dependency while, as shown by this morning’s Answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman-Scott, to the Oral Question from the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, defending imposing benefits sanctions after four weeks on unemployed jobseekers who failed to take a job. Why then not allow asylum seekers to work? Most of us would support people trying to get a job, although there can be argument about the policy of the Government.
On Tuesday, the noble Lord, Lord Horam, and others impressed on us the need to take account of public opinion. To repeat, the ban on work makes asylum seekers the potential butt of ignorant jibes that they are lazy scroungers. Some 71% of the public support the right to work after six months. The right to work is a win-win policy. It would save the taxpayer £200 million a year. It would help remedy a labour shortage. I had in my notes that it is a no-brainer, so I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I very much hope that the Government will respond positively.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 64, to which I have added my name. I also strongly support Amendment 65.
The right to work—and the lack of it—for asylum seekers has concerned me for a very long time. I am rather relieved finally to be able to say so. I strongly support the comments already made in excellent speeches by other noble Lords. I shall try to avoid duplication.
First, the current law forces people to try to live on £39.62 a week. We all know that this is completely impossible. Utility bills, council tax, food, transport—you name it—cannot be paid for on this sort of money. These people are forced into something that they would never dream of doing in any other circumstances. It also prevents them from earning and paying taxes. Why would the Government force able-bodied workers to be unemployed and draw benefits at a vast cost to the taxpayer? Actually, the cost is not vast; these are trifling amounts of money, but it is a cost to the taxpayer. The cost to the community is considerable. As others have said, in many cases, these effects last for a very long time.
The Government say that they have undertaken a review of the policy. I believe they have not published the results, nor given any estimate of cost. Can the Minister inform the House whether their review considered the number of normally law-abiding asylum seekers who have been driven to crime by this policy? This is the worst possible thing a Government can do. All the asylum seekers want to do is to earn, pay taxes and lead a good life. Instead, they feel that they have to do something they have never done in their lives before and never dreamed that they would do: commit crimes. Perhaps the Minister can tell us the estimated cost in the review, and whether that includes the cost of courts, prisons and police in dealing with the crimes that these people absolutely do not want to commit.
Believe it or not, 40 years ago I wrote a book about the consequences of a similar sort of policy—a rule which deprived single people of benefits after four weeks. My research showed that the rule caused a dramatic increase in crime among that population. Government officials asked for a copy of my manuscript before I published the book. The policy was immediately scrapped. It did not help the sales of my book but, nevertheless, it was worth doing. I feel that this policy has to be scrapped for exactly the same reason. Noble Lords have pointed out all sorts of other reasons, but there cannot be a government policy which drives people into crime. Continuing it cannot be justified.
My second question concerns the basic cost to the Exchequer. The voluntary sector has come up with a figure of £194 million a year. I believe this is a massive underestimate. I am quite sure the cost is far more than that when all the unintended consequences are considered—if you want to put it that way.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and others have already dealt with the pull factor. We have the evidence. Asylum seekers who are desperate to get away from persecution, rape and other ghastly things—you name it—do not even think about the detail of what there will be when they arrive at the other end. It is just a European country. If I may say so, the pull factor is rubbish, rubbish, rubbish. If it made any sense, it would be the only possible justification for this policy. I implore the Minister to go back to colleagues and see what she can do.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, it is quite daunting to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. I very much hope that she will not be driven to writing a book about this, although if she did, maybe we would see some change.
I shall speak to Amendment 65 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, with the support of the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady Ludford and Lady Prashar. As has been discussed, this aims, quite rightly, to introduce the right to work for asylum seekers who have been in the UK for more than six months.
My noble friend the Minister will know the gist of my argument from my comments on Tuesday. I am grateful for her forbearance then. Suffice it to say, I believe that this amendment is a matter of complete common sense. It is exactly the sort of policy that should underpin global Britain’s new immigration system.
This is a moment when we have to decide who we are as a nation. We want an immigration system that takes back control—one where the British people can see that we are trying to manage our borders and are actually doing so. They can also see that we have compassion for those in need when we, as a nation, have so much already.
This is not a niche opinion. I note that all wings of the Conservative and Labour Parties, the Liberal Democrats, other Cross-Benchers and the Deputy Prime Minister support the extension of the right to work for asylum seekers.
The arguments for this right to work are overwhelming. I will restate a couple of them. I hope that it will be helpful to hear them from these Benches. First, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, the latest figures show that 125,000 people are waiting for asylum decisions. Every study shows that the net benefit to the state would be in the tens or even hundreds of millions of pounds a year in increased tax take if this measure were enacted.
The UK economy is recovering after Covid. A lot of jobs have been created but this has, in turn, created labour shortages. It makes no sense whatever for asylum seekers who can drive HGVs or serve in the NHS to be forced to sit around doing nothing for over a year while they await a decision from the Home Office. The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, made that point very powerfully.
Secondly, there is very persuasive evidence that the right to work has a large, positive impact on the integration of asylum seekers who successfully settle. As other noble Lords have already mentioned, the Government’s Migration Advisory Committee recently underlined that shorter waiting times have a large, positive impact on long-term employment outcomes for asylum seekers.
As noble Lords have noted, these measures have overwhelming public support. I will mention one niche statistic. According to recent polling, 73% of red wall voters questioned support a right to work. As others have mentioned, business leaders back the easing of the ban on the right to work.
There is a basic human dignity argument for this policy. I believe that every individual should be able to support themselves and their family. I would go further and say that, as Conservatives, we believe that every family has a personal responsibility to do so where they can. I have often made the argument that work is the best route out of poverty. The aim and intention of this amendment are to do precisely that: let people support themselves and create their own pathway from poverty to prosperity while they wait for the decision.
The lack of the right to work leaves people vulnerable to exploitation, declining mental health, poverty and modern slavery. If the human dignity arguments do not seal the deal, the amendment could also be viewed as purely pragmatic. Reforms to the asylum system proposed through the Nationality and Borders Bill will take time to come into full effect. In the interim, while asylum cases are being processed, the asylum system continues to be under considerable strain. By offering asylum seekers the right to work, the Government would take pressure off themselves.
I anticipate that the Minister and other colleagues might be inclined to respond to this amendment using the pull factors argument, and I know others have addressed it. However, let me address those points from these Benches. First, it is push factors such as war and famine which drive refugees to these shores, not pull factors. If there are any pull factors, they are those which encourage people to come to the UK: our language, culture, rule of law, democracy, historic ties through the Commonwealth, family connections, and liberty, not the welfare payments.
It is worth noting that the UK is currently an outlier in enforcing a 12-month wait period for work and then placing long restrictions on which employment can be taken up. No other nation across Europe, USA, Australia or Canada has such stringent requirements. It is worth asking why they have not considered the right to work to be a pull factor. This view is totally backed by the experts. The Migration Advisory Committee underlined that there is no evidence in academic research that people decide to claim asylum based on these kinds of factors. The Home Office commissioned a study, which others have mentioned, that also shows that there is little evidence of this.
All of this is to say that I believe the Government could quite legitimately, without nervousness and in line with their poverty strategy for families working their way out of poverty, adopt this amendment that allows asylum seekers to work after six months of being in the UK.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, we have heard eight speakers on one side of this debate, and I think a word is in order from the other side. We are back to the same point: should we or should we not assume that all those who come here to seek asylum are genuine? It is, to me, no answer to reply that we are all human. Of course we are, but so are the population of this country and the constituents of those who were MPs.
In the medium and longer term, any asylum system has to have the support of the public. That could be brought into doubt if they saw increasing numbers of mainly young men arriving in this country, as others have mentioned, in a very visible fashion. As for public opinion, that will depend very much on the outcome of the next months and years. If that is a bad outcome from the point of view of numbers—numbers who are not perhaps genuine—that will decide itself.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, and it may be that he was going on to acknowledge this, but the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I think the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, quoted actual public opinion surveys which showed big majorities in favour of the right to work for asylum seekers.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
Yes, I heard that opinion poll mentioned a couple of times. I would actually like to see the question and the context in what it was put. Any opinion poll needs to be looked at very carefully, but it may well be the case—I do not know, I have not looked at this particular one—if you ask the public that question today, they will say “Okay, sounds sensible”. What I am saying is that, if we set the asylum system in such a manner that the numbers will increase significantly month after month and year after year, that will change. So we need to be careful about what we do with this amendment at this point.
We know that the system is already under considerable pressure; we have talked about that. We know that the present conditions on work are very tight, as other noble Lords have mentioned. They are deliberately tight. The case must have been undecided for 12 months —there are far too many of those now—and the job must be on the official shortage occupation list, which is barely relevant to the qualifications of most asylum seekers.
My argument is that it would be a serious mistake to abolish both these requirements as the amendment proposes. It would make for a very clear incentive to spin out the claims process—not that they need to at the moment, but in the longer term—to get permission to work in any capacity. With the current delays in the system, additional numbers would get permission, thus adding to the pull factors at the channel.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I know that the noble Lord is concerned about asylum seekers who turn out not to be recognised. No doubt he is even more concerned about the smaller proportion of them who may be wicked people in some way. Does he acknowledge that wicked people who are convicted of crimes in this country, even those who go to prison, are allowed to work? Does he consider that a pull factor or an incentive to commit serious crime?
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
I do not see the relevance of that question.
Let me conclude, if I may. As we discussed earlier in this debate, the Government’s asylum workload has tripled from 40,000 cases in 2012 to 120,000 cases in 2021. Furthermore, nearly half of all cases awaiting an initial decision have been waiting for 12 months or more. In the present situation, they would in any case get permission to work. However, it is vital for these delays to be tackled. On that point, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and I are agreed. It makes no sense to me to adjust the immigration system to encourage delay. This Bill contains some useful measures designed to speed up the asylum process, and they should be supported.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 64 and 65. Before I specifically speak to them, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Green, that at some point in this Bill we are going to have to have a debate in this Chamber about the idea that this is a debate between those on the side of the public and those of us who are some kind of middle-class liberal elite who do not care about the opinions of the public—who believe that we need a draconian system to try to deal with this—because that is not what this debate is about. It is a caricature of the Government’s position and of those of us who oppose what the Government are doing.
We are saying that many of the policies being put forward by this Government to deal with the problem as they see it simply will not work. They go too far sometimes and compromise some of the principles every Member of this House would agree on. That is the clash. At some point we will have a debate about this, although perhaps there are other groups of amendments where it is more appropriate. I say again, there will have to be debate between those who—to be fair to the noble Lord, Lord Green—think they represent public opinion on this, and people like me who think he has got it wrong.
As part of the middle-class liberal intelligentsia—maybe not the intelligentsia, but the elite—let me say that I very much support that. Let me say why. As we stand here now, debating this, there are tens of thousands of asylum seekers who have applied for asylum in this country who have been waiting for a decision for more than a year. There are so many statistics sometimes you drown in them and are not sure which are actually right, so I will quote the Joint Committee on Human Rights, as it is slightly different to my own statistics. It says:
“approximately 65% of asylum applicants awaiting initial decisions had been waiting more than six months and that the average time to make an initial decision is now more than a year”.
That means tens of thousands of asylum seekers are waiting to have their application determined.
It would be interesting to hear from the Minister about the Home Office’s assessment of how long this is. Are there thousands of people waiting two years? When I was a Member of Parliament, people would sometimes come to me whose asylum claim had been neither agreed nor disagreed. They had actually disappeared and were there, and had been there for years and years. Now nobody wants that system. It’s ridiculous; of course nobody wants a situation that works like that. The reason I labour this point is that it goes back to the debates on the last group. The key to this issue is speeding up the process. We cannot have a situation where people are languishing for months and years before a decision is made. To be fair, the Minister believes that what the Government are proposing will speed up the process. I hope that they are right, but I do not think that they are. This is what bedevils the asylum system; it is not fair to the country, the public or the asylum applicants themselves. That is the basis of it.
Then you are left with the question of how you deal with this problem and what you do about it. At the moment, the Government’s position is that you have to wait a year before you can apply to work and then, if you do, you can work in specific occupations and jobs. I go back to the point made by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti—supported I think by the noble Lord, Lord Bethell. The problem then becomes the denial of the opportunity for asylum seekers to work unless they have been here for a year. The community cohesion impact of that is enormous. What happens is that people then look at it and say, “What are they doing?” Noble Lords know the things that people say. “They’re not working. They’re not doing anything. They’re living on benefits. It’s about time they got out and did something”. Yet that is exactly what they want to do. Then some of them go out and work illegally, and they undercut the wages of legal workers or are employed in various occupations that we know about. So the whole system is undermined. To be fair, the last Labour Government did it. We introduced it, actually. I say to the Minister that, working in the Home Office, if she ever comes to this side, she will find quoted back to her things that she agreed to. So I accept that, right at the beginning of 2002, I think, we introduced this legislation for the same reason: we were worried about it being a pull factor.
But, if you look at it, where is the evidence? It clearly has not been, because it has not stopped asylum taking place—in fact, it has gone up. I will be fair and honest about it. My noble friend Lord Blunkett has done it once or twice in here, to his credit. Sometimes you introduce a policy with the best intentions—but what do you do if it does not work? Carry on? Do you just blindly say, “Well, it hasn’t worked but we’re going to carry on with it”? In supporting these amendments, we are saying to the Government that we have a policy that undermines community cohesion and does not work.
We then have the ludicrous situation where we have a Statement made by the Minister in the other place where he will not even publish the evidence for why the Government will continue with the current policy. He just refuses to publish it. So the Home Office has a review and does not publish the evidence. Then its own advisory committee says, “You’re wrong—you should do, and the policy is wrong anyway”. So the Government then turn around and say, “That’s ridiculous. We don’t agree with you”. They do not say why—other than that it is the pull factor. But then they do not publish the evidence that says that it is the pull factor.
It is not only that. I looked to see whether there was anybody else and found out that the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner said:
“As the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, I am aware of the harm caused to survivors of modern slavery and human trafficking unable to access training and work opportunities while they face delays in asylum status decisions.”
So the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner is wrong as well.
So, to answer this, I say that the Minister does not want to penalise asylum seekers, but this is ridiculous. We have public policy that is not working and is undermining community cohesion and a government response that simply says, “We don’t agree with all the people who disagree with us but we’re not going to tell you what the evidence is to support that, because it’s the pull factor”—
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
I am a bit puzzled. Although the precise numbers vary from year to year, it is quite clear that substantial numbers—30%, 40% or 50%, depending on which year you take—turn out not to have a case for asylum in this country. Surely that should be a factor. Surely the way forward is, as the noble Lord proposed when he first spoke, to speed this situation up so that we can get the answers within the six months, which would be much better for everybody. Surely that should be the centre of their policy.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Can I intervene on an intervention? What is wrong if those people are allowed to work? If it is then determined that they have no right to stay, they would then have to leave—but, in the meantime, they are supporting themselves, perhaps using their skills and contributing tax. If they are then found not to have a legal claim to stay, so be it. I cannot see what the harm is in the meantime.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Green, that, at the end of the day, of course you want to speed the system up. No one does not want to speed up the asylum application process—to say that would be ridiculous, because of course everyone does. What I am saying is that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has just said, at the same time, for the purposes of community cohesion and all the other things that we have heard, allowing asylum seekers to work while their application is being processed is actually a sensible thing to do. But the Government will not publish the evidence for why that is a pull factor, when the policy has been in place since 2001 or 2002 or whatever and has not made any significant difference at all. So all sorts of people and organisations support the right to work, which seems a sensible and reasonable thing to do.
I will finish by saying one simple policy to the Minister. I like to see people off benefits; I do not want to see people languishing on benefits. I thought that was a Conservative Government policy. One of the ways of doing that is allowing people to work: it aids community cohesion and is good for the individuals concerned. I simply do not understand why the Government are turning their face against what is a sensible policy initiative that would do a lot for community cohesion.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I again thank noble Lords who have spoken on these two amendments. The fact that there were only two amendments in this group did not make the debate any less fulsome.
I will say at the outset that the conclusion on right to work was made primarily on the grounds not of the pull factor but of the integrity of the labour market, and an impact assessment will be published on this in due course. But the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is absolutely right that the policy has been in place since 2002. He says that things have not changed in that time in terms of people still wanting to come to this country, but I think that the global situation to draw people to this country probably has changed since 2002. I do not say that in a mischievous way at all—the world has changed and, therefore, people are more likely to want to come to this country, particularly when the economy is so good.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, talked about polls, but I will not go into the merits and demerits of them: they are what they are and, as the noble Lord, Lord Green, said, it depends on the question that you ask. But the biggest poll that we have had in recent years was of course the 2019 general election, and that point about taking back control of our borders was at the heart of it.
Our current policy allows asylum seekers to work in the UK if their claim has been outstanding for 12 months, through no fault of their own. However, as the noble Lords, Lord Green and Lord Alton, were absolutely right to say, the best way to deal with people’s claims being outstanding for 12 months is to speed the process up in its entirety.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I support these amendments, because they are good economics and good social policy, but if the Government resist them and insist that those people may not work, we are under a duty to make sure that sufficient subsistence money is paid to them to keep them alive. We pay them about £40 a week. Could the Minister get by on £40 a week? I know that I could not. It is £39.63 today; it is going to go up to the princely sum of £40.85 a week, an increase of 17p a day. My elementary maths makes that an increase of just about 3%; inflation is running at about 5.5% to 6%. Why have we increased it by such a small sum?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it is based on a calculation. I shall not try to bluster my way through what that calculation is, but I shall get the details to the noble Lord. As I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, people who are destitute will have things like council tax and utility bills paid for them by the Home Office.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I hate to say it, but I have just checked my phone and there is no evidence there of that letter having arrived.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, we often say that we will not provide a running commentary, but I will provide a running commentary on said letter. When we break for the Statement at 3.30 pm, I shall look to the Box as to the whereabouts of the letter —which I did clear some time ago.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we have the famous Dubs letter; I do not know why others have not—maybe it was sent to selected recipients.
I thank all noble Lords from all sides of the Committee for their support for these amendments—with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, whose case seemed to be that public opinion polls in the future might turn on their head from where they are now, with 70% of the public supporting asylum seekers being able to work, and that might be a minority rather than a majority.
I am losing patience with the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington. When he intervened on my opening remarks he accepted that, from 2012 to 2019, the majority of asylum seekers were successful in their applications and that, in 2019, 65% were successful. But in his speech, he maintained that the majority of asylum seekers’ claims were not accepted. It is getting difficult.
The Minister talked about an impact assessment in due course on the effects on the labour market of this change. What is the Migration Advisory Committee for if it is not to advise the Government on the likely impact of changes in migration policy? The MAC recommends that asylum seekers are allowed to work. The Minister claimed that if the amendments were accepted, it would go against what people voted for in 2019. Is she really saying that in 2019 people voted not to allow asylum seekers to work, particularly in the light of the evidence of opinion polls showing 70% support for the contrary?
The Minister seemed to claim that allowing asylum seekers to work was a pull factor, but then said it was complicated and more research was needed. If there is evidence that allowing asylum seekers to work is a pull factor, what is it? She talked about other countries making the UK appear more attractive to asylum seekers, yet we have already heard that the UK is an outlier in terms of most other European countries allowing asylum seekers to work. How does that happen? She also said that European countries that allow asylum seekers to work still provide them with accommodation. Asylum seekers could pay for the accommodation that they are provided with if they were allowed to work.
The Minister’s explanations are not acceptable and we will return to this issue on Report. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Prescribed period under section 94(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
(1) The Asylum Support Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/704) are amended as follows.(2) In regulation 2(2) (interpretation) for “28” substitute “56”.(3) Subject to subsection (4), this section does not prevent the Secretary of State from exercising the powers conferred by the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to prescribe by regulations a different period for the purposes of section 94(3) (day on which a claim for asylum is determined) of that Act.(4) The Secretary of State may not prescribe a period less than 56 days where regulation 2(2A) of the Asylum Support Regulations 2000 (S.I. 2000/704) applies.”Member’s explanatory statement
When an individual is granted refugee status, their eligibility for Home Office financial support and accommodation currently ends after a further 28 days. This amendment would extend that period to 56 days or allow the Secretary of State to set a longer period.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 66 is also in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, whom I thank. I speak at the risk of being called a Stakhanovite by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti.
The aim of the amendment is to extend from 28 to 56 days what is called the moving-on period, which sets a deadline by which those recognised as refugees are required to move on from asylum support to mainstream social security support and housing. As I said the other day, it feels like Groundhog Day, because I think it was six years ago that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and I first raised the difficulties created by the moving-on period during the passage of what became the Immigration Act 2016. I have lost count of how many times I have raised it since but have certainly had at least one meeting with the Minister about it. I pay tribute to the British Red Cross for continuing to press the issue with us.
The case for the change rests on the fact that it is extremely difficult for newly recognised refugees to make the transition to mainstream support in 28 days. Not only do they have to sort out all sorts of complex administrative issues that would try any of us at the best of times, and not only does research by the BRC and others show that it is virtually impossible to achieve within 28 days, but there is also a basic incompatibility between a moving-on period of 28 days and the 56 days that local authorities usually have to support those at risk of homelessness and the 35 days it takes from application to receipt of a first universal credit payment. In case the Minister has been briefed to respond to this issue, I point out that an advance payment that has to be repaid out of basic benefit is not an inviting prospect for someone already on the breadline.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am glad to have my name to this amendment. I am aware—to use the rather odd language of this House—that lunch-hour business is to come, although neither “lunch” nor “hour” is accurate. I could just use the first line of my notes, which reads “Lister—double tick.” I will say only a very little more. Joining up 28 days, 35 days and 56 days does not take a genius—and even if it did, it has been proven by experience that it does not actually work.
I am looking to see whether there is anything the noble Baroness has not said. In terms of integration for the individual, the family and the community, underlying this amendment is not just support for the individual but the importance of self-sufficiency—this is quite similar to the previous debate—as a component of integration, and not being dependent on the state. Integration and contribution to community and society go hand in hand.
I have one further point. The Minister mentioned the charity Migrant Help in a previous group. As I understand it, it can give advice; that is not the same as providing dosh—the funds that are needed. That seemed to be the implication in that debate. However, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on her persistence. I am glad to continue to be one of her terriers.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Am I a terrier as well? I think of myself as a larger animal, but a terrier will do. There is almost nothing left to be said. I am delighted to have my name on this amendment. The noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Hamwee, have said virtually everything, but I would like to say a couple of things.
In spite of our rather uncertain economic situation—if anyone from the opposing side wants to say that it is all terribly healthy, a Radio 4 programme more or less corrected that conceit yesterday; we have a slightly unhealthy economic situation, and it is not as good as people in the Government claim—we are still a rich country. We ought to show a little more generosity to people who have lost virtually everything, not to mention the fact that we have often caused the instability that forced them to leave their homes. Whether it is Afghanistan, Syria or other countries, when we have sold weapons, invaded or, as I have said before, used fossil fuels to the extent that we continue to do, we have destabilised many countries throughout the world. We have a moral obligation to behave better and take in refugees. This amendment is worthy of acceptance.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, however undesirable accommodation centres may be, being thrown out on to the street as the first acknowledgement by the state that it has accepted your claim to be a refugee is not acceptable. The current limit of a 28-day transition has proved in practice not long enough for all refugees to avoid homelessness and destitution. Amnesty and Migrant Voice point to the fact that it takes time to find alternative accommodation, open a bank account and find a job, particularly if refugees have been prevented from working while their applications are considered, which in itself makes it more difficult for them to find work.
The limit is therefore more likely to result in refugees having to rely, at least initially, on benefits, which take time to apply for and to come on stream. It also takes time to readjust from the trauma and anxiety caused by the war or persecution from which they have fled or by the often hazardous journey to the UK and the uncertainty of whether they will be granted asylum.
Twenty-eight days is simply not long enough. This amendment extends that transitional period to 56 days, with the Secretary of State being given discretion to extend it further. We strongly support it. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell of Beeston, who looked aghast when I said I was losing patience with the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, that the noble Lord and I have had words offstage and we are all good.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
As the noble Lord has mentioned me by name, I feel duty-bound to respond. It is far from my responsibility to feel in any way concerned for the noble Lord, Lord Green, but I am pleased that he and the noble Lord have been able to come to some kind of resolution.
The reason I looked aghast was because I feel—I have listened to a lot of these debates over the last few days—that whenever anybody raises any opinion which is not widely held by those moving amendments or supporting them, there is a tone and reaction which I do not think becoming of your Lordships’ House. We have to be as courteous and considerate to those with whom we disagree on this topic as to those with whom we agree.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right, except that those who interject constantly with tiny, mean little points also ought to respect the House and perhaps be courteous to everybody else. It goes both ways.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Coming from where I have, it seems incredibly courteous to me. We have Ministers who try to answer questions, which is refreshing. However, I take the point—the noble Baroness is absolutely right in what she said.
This is an important little amendment, which I support, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister, Lady Hamwee and Lady Jones. It is not a party-political or ideological issue but a question of administration and removing a totally avoidable obstacle for people granted asylum in the UK. The British Red Cross is campaigning for it. The 28-day move-on period is simply not long enough to put basic arrangements in place. It leaves people facing avoidable poverty, and we should be able to do better. I remind the Committee that we are talking about people who have been granted asylum, not those waiting for their decision.
I believe we can go on a couple of minutes past 3.30 pm, but I will not detain the Committee for very long. The Minister, Tom Pursglove MP, gave a couple of answers in the other place that I did not quite understand. He did not disagree that there was a problem, saying:
“We are aware of reports that some refugees do not access universal credit or other benefits, or adequate housing, within 28 days.”
He went on to say that extending the period to 56 days, as the amendment suggests, would not fix the problem but he did not say why. He said there was a problem, but that extending the period would not do anything about it. Can the Minister elaborate on why the Government believe there is a problem but that extending the time limit would not make any difference? He also gave no response to the points raised on cost savings to local authorities and the benefits to the public purse of extending the time limit, lessening homelessness and the use of temporary accommodation. He gave no answer to any of those questions.
Finally, Mr Pursglove said that
“we must also consider the strong countervailing factors that make increasing that period difficult”—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 4/11/21; cols. 666-67.]
but he did not say what they were. He just stated it. Knowing our Minister as I do, and knowing that she does try to answer questions, I say that it is not really acceptable to make a statement as a point of fact without some evidence to support it. The Minister in the other place accepted that there was a problem with 28 days but did not say why extending it would not solve this. He just said, “Yes, there is a problem”, almost as a shrug of the shoulders. This important little amendment seeks to help those who have been granted asylum deal with their transition into the life we all want them to have.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, again, I thank noble Lords who have made points. I will attempt to assist the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on the extension. First, I will say that I am glad the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is in his place—I hope noble Lords will indulge me; because different amendments are bleeding into different groups, I know noble Lords will not mind. The basic approach to the asylum support calculation is based on the essential needs of the claimant—but I will get him more detail and perhaps more of a breakdown if that is what he would like.
I also say before we start that I agree with my noble friend Lady Stowell: I disagree with many points that people make, but I hope I always approach the House with courtesy. I know the Committee generally does not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, but I must admire his tenacity in coming to this place, week in and week out, and making points that a lot of people do not agree with—I feel like that sometimes. That is a light-hearted point, rather than a point for debate.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, perhaps I could just explain to both noble Baronesses that it was facts that were in dispute, not opinions. I actually agree with a lot of what the Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, says about immigration as a whole, and I would not want that misconstrued.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
That is not in dispute; I was just echoing the point made by my noble friend Lady Stowell about respect, because I think it is always a good thing to be promoting.
I too listened to “More or Less” yesterday—the programme that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, referred to—and I think the conclusion was that it depended on how you looked at it. So everyone was right and everyone was wrong, all at the same time; I think that was the conclusion. But I very much enjoyed listening to that calculation.
Anyway, before I cause any more controversy, I will start by saying that it is very clear that individuals leaving asylum support following a positive immigration decision receive the assistance that they need to obtain other housing and apply for other benefits, such as universal credit, that they are entitled to. We do not think it is sensible to increase the length of time they remain eligible for asylum support from 28 to 56 days, and I will explain why.
The asylum accommodation estate is under huge strain and demand for normal asylum dispersal accommodation —that is to say, flats and houses obtained from the private rental market—is exceeding supply. The only way to meet this demand has been to use hotels, and there are currently around 26,000 people accommodated in them. A programme of work is under way to drive down the use of hotels by obtaining more dispersal accommodation and introducing accommodation centres. This clause would impede this work—I hope that answers the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about “Why not 56 days?” In simple terms, the longer that successful asylum seekers remain in asylum accommodation, the fewer beds will be available for those entering the asylum system, including those temporarily accommodated in hotels at great expense to the taxpayer.
We are aware of reports that some refugees do not access UC, as it is called, or other benefits or adequate housing within 28 days. The reasons for this are complex, but the problem is not solved by increasing the 28-day move-on period, for reasons I have explained, and that is why our focus has been on implementing practical changes with the aim of securing better outcomes for refugees within the 28-day move-on period. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, talked about some of the things that have been done during the pandemic that have actually improved the situation. These include ensuring that the 28-day period does not start until refugees have been issued with a biometric residence permit, the document that they need to prove that they can take employment and apply for universal credit, and that the national insurance number is printed on the permit, which speeds up the process of deciding a UC application.
We also fund Migrant Help which, as noble Lords will know, is a voluntary sector organisation that contacts refugees at the start of the 28-day period and offers that practical, move-on assistance, including advice on how to claim UC. I think this is a big change from the last time the noble Baroness and I spoke on the subject. We offer advice on the importance of an early claim; on other types of support that might be available; on booking an early appointment at their nearest DWP jobcentre, if needed; and on how to contact their local authority for assistance in funding alternative housing. We did evaluate the success of the pilot scheme that booked an early appointment with the local jobcentre for those who wanted one. The evaluation showed that all applicants for UC in the survey received their first payment on time—that is, 35 days from the date of their application—and that those who asked for an earlier advance payment received one, although I take her point about the advance payment. This assistance is now offered to all refugees leaving asylum support and is provided by Migrant Help, which again, as the noble Baroness knows, is a voluntary organisation funded by the Home Office.
Asylum accommodation providers are under a contractual duty to notify the local authority of the potential need to provide housing where a person in their accommodation is granted refugee status. Refugees can also apply for integration loans which can be used, for example, to pay a rent deposit or for an essential domestic item or work equipment, or for training.
We have a proud history of providing protection to those who need it, and I can reassure the Committee that this Government are committed to ensuring that all refugees are able to take positive steps towards integrating and realising their potential. We keep the move-on period under review, but we must consider the strong countervailing factors that make increasing it very difficult at this stage. For the reasons that I have outlined, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who spoke in support of the amendment, and I thank the Minister. I did ask some questions that she did not answer. I will not push them now, but I would be grateful if she could write to me, particularly about the potential implications of the Bill for the numbers affected—but I am conscious that we all want our lunch so I will not press her to reply now.
I said that hope springs eternal, but hope constantly gets dashed, does it not? It is the same old arguments. I was aware that there had been improvements since I last raised this with the Minister, so I asked the British Red Cross to brief me on what those improvements were and what the effects had been—and, yes, they have had some effect. But there are still problems, otherwise the British Red Cross would not be asking us to put this amendment. So why does the Home Office think that everything is hunky-dory? I take the point about accommodation, although, as I pointed out, if you leave newly recognised refugees without accommodation there are knock-on costs for other statutory services. But that point is not valid for UC. So even if one accepted the point about accommodation —which I do not—why cannot newly recognised asylum seekers receive asylum support for longer before they get UC?
It is not complex; it is quite simple. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, just do the maths. It is simple arithmetic: there is not enough time. I actually think it is a territorial issue about who is paying. I ask the noble Baroness—I am sorry, I need my lunch and I am sure the Minister does too—the Minister to take this back to her department and the DWP and look again at the basic incompatibility with universal credit. If nothing else, I think there is a strong case for continuing financial support for longer than 28 days to ensure that people can claim UC. I will leave it at that, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Thursday 3rd February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-III(a) Amendments for Committee (Supplementary to the Third Marshalled List) - (3 Feb 2022)
Lord Ashton of Hyde (Con)
My Lords, during the hybrid House my children thought that all I ever said in this place was “Please could the noble Lord unmute?” Now they think that all I ever say is, “Please could noble Lords be brief?” Contrary to what some noble Lords think, I am not against scrutiny and improvement of legislation, but this afternoon we have six groups of amendments left to the target on this important Bill, and significant issues to debate on the two remaining days in Committee. I am very grateful to those on the Front Benches for agreeing to sit beyond 7 pm today but, to make the best use of this time and to give all the issues raised by this Bill the attention that they deserve, and to allow Peers who are involved in the later groups to have their say, I ask all noble Lords from all Benches to ensure that their contributions are as brief and to the point as possible, and strictly related to the amendments. That way we will get the business done properly and get home at a reasonable time.
Clause 13: Requirement to make asylum claim at “designated place”
Amendment 67
Lord Paddick
Member’s explanatory statement
Clause 13(1) requires an asylum claim to be made at a designated place. However, the UK territorial sea is excluded from being a place where a Home Office Immigration Officer is authorised to accept an asylum claim. This amendment would remove that provision.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Committee will be pleased to hear that I am not hangry any more. I would not like the Chief Whip to think that this speech is so short because of what he just said; it was going to be short anyway.
Amendment 67 in my name and that of my noble friend Lady Hamwee seeks to take out an apparently innocuous part of the Bill that intends to put into primary legislation that the feet of the asylum seeker need to be on dry land in the UK before they can claim asylum. At present, this requirement, “UK terra firma” as I might call it, is contained in the Immigration Rules rather than in primary legislation. The concern of organisations such as the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association is that this strengthens the Government’s hand in any court case where Home Office actions are challenged as being contrary to the refugee convention, where the Government can now point to primary legislation as in some way overriding their international obligations.
Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 provides that nothing in the Immigration Rules may lay down any practice that would be contrary to the refugee convention. Moving the UK terra firma condition from the Immigration Rules to primary legislation may be seen as an attempt to get around this requirement. The change is seen as integral to other quite abhorrent and questionably legal measures that we will come to later, giving Border Force and others the authority to board, intercept and drive away vessels containing asylum seekers crossing the channel.
Presumably this change that we are challenging is to stop asylum seekers being pushed back towards France from trying to claim asylum in the channel. Clause 13(7) may seem innocuous, but it is part of a greater evil and should be removed from the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I have a couple of questions for the Minister on Amendment 67. I will be interested to hear the debate on this amendment because the change in Clause 13(7) appears to be fairly innocuous, although quite significant. As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has said, the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association has raised concerns about it so we will all listen carefully to what the practical impacts of this charge are.
Can the Minister explain what “territorial sea” of the United Kingdom means? I take the Chief Whip’s point—this may seem a very detailed point, but that is the point of Committee. What does “territorial sea” mean with respect to the beach? My understanding is that territorial water is low tide to 12 nautical miles out. The target then becomes the low beach mark. How is that measured? This is pedantic, but important: how is that measured around the coast?
I looked up the Explanatory Notes for Maritime and Coastal Access Act 2009 and I do not understand what they mean:
“For the most part the territorial sea of the UK does not adjoin that of any other state. Where it does do so in the English Channel, the Territorial Sea (Limits) Order 1989 … sets out the limits of the territorial sea in the Straits of Dover in accordance with an agreement between the UK and France.”
Is that still in existence? The notes continue:
“In relation to the delineation of the territorial sea between the UK and the Republic of Ireland, the situation is more complex, with no boundary having been agreed between the two states. Instead arrangements have been put in place under the Belfast Agreement for joint management of the Loughs that form the border (the Foyle, Carlingford and Irish Lights Commission’s Loughs Agency).”
I do not expect the Minister to answer now—this is not a trick question—but will she write a letter to explain what the legislation means for someone who may or may not be claiming asylum? The Explanatory Notes continue:
“Within the territorial sea, the UK has jurisdiction for the sea itself, the seabed subjacent and the air above.”
I do not know what the “air above” means. Will the Minister clarify that point?
I am confused—and the Government are confused—on another point. A row is clearly going on in government between the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office on pushback and this House is confused by the Government’s response.
Yesterday at the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Home Secretary was asked whether James Heappey, a Ministry of Defence Minister, was right to rule out pushback by the Navy. To be fair, the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, ruled this out in this Chamber in answer to a question from me and other noble Lords. We were told by the Home Secretary, and this is really important, that the Minister
“gave a view … They are not facts. They cannot be facts, because the work—that operational work—is still under way. While I appreciate that he was responding to questions in Parliament, whether that was in Committee or in response to an urgent question, this is work in progress. It is wrong to say anything specific with regards to work operationally that is still being planned. That work has not completed yet.”
They cannot both be right, can they? If the Government have a pushback policy, they have a pushback policy and, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, mentioned, presumably including the seas helps with that. I do not know. What is the Government’s policy on pushback? We are debating the Nationality and Borders Bill and an aspect of it to do with territorial seas and I have no clue what the Government’s policy is.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
I thank noble Lords for speaking to these amendments. In terms of territorial waters, yes, I understand it to be 12 nautical miles at low tide. In terms of pushbacks, of course I agree with my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and we are developing a range of tools to tackle the illegal and very dangerous crossings in the channel.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I absolutely understand why the Minister has said what she has with respect to the Home Secretary. Nobody, including me, expects the Minister to get up and say that she disagrees with the Home Secretary—for obvious reasons. But that is not the point. The point is: what is the Government’s policy? The Ministry of Defence is saying one thing—including the Minister who speaks for defence matters from the Dispatch Box—and the Home Secretary is saying something completely different. It is not good enough.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I agree with the noble Lord and I will clarify the point on this issue. He knows that I will clarify that for him.
Amendment 67, if we can get on to that, seeks to weaken the message that this Bill strives to send. People should not risk their lives using unseaworthy vessels—I do not think anyone would think that they should—to reach our shores when they have already reached safety in a country such as France. It puts their lives at risk, and those of Border Force and rescue services. Events in recent months have all too starkly demonstrated the devastating human cost of undertaking these journeys. This provision is just one of a host of measures which aim to deter illegal entry to the UK. It is right that we prioritise protection for the most vulnerable people rather than for those who could have claimed asylum elsewhere.
Parliament has already had an opportunity to scrutinise these measures when they were placed in the Immigration Rules in December 2020. It has been a long-standing practice in place for many years to only accept claims for asylum in person at the individual’s first available opportunity on arrival in the UK. These provisions simply seek to place these long-standing requirements on a stronger statuary footing.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his intervention. From memory—and I have to say, no pun intended, that I am finding it difficult to keep my head above water with this Bill—we come on to pushback in a later group. Maybe the Minister might be able to say more when we get to the appropriate group on that issue.
But on this issue, there are lots of things in Immigration Rules that are not in primary legislation, and I do not understand why this particular issue is different. If it is simply to put something that has been for a long time been in Immigration Rules on a more secure statutory footing, why are we not seeing many more Immigration Rules being put on a firmer statutory footing by putting them into primary legislation? This leads me to believe ILPA—that there is some other motivation behind it related to pushbacks, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has said.
But there will be an opportunity to revisit this when we come to the groups debating pushbacks, so at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Etherton
“(c) fails to protect its nationals, including in particular those who have a protected characteristic within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Equality Act 2010 which is innate or immutable, from persecution by third parties who are not agents of the member State.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that there are exceptional circumstances where, even though there is no overt persecution by the State or state agents, the conduct of others towards a person which the State has failed to prevent can amount to persecution within the Refugee Convention.
Lord Etherton (CB)
In moving the amendment in my name, I should say that I have also put my name to the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to exclude Clause 15 from the Bill—but I will wait to hear him and support him when he proceeds with that.
I will make a relatively short point in relation to Amendment 68. The provision relates to Clause 14 and the section of the Bill that deals with inadmissibility. Clause 14 is concerned with amending the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the exclusion in that Act, by way of amendment, of asylum claims by EU nationals. I am not certain why they have been selected for exclusion, but I assume it is because EU member states are bound by the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, the provisions of which, for the most part, mirror the European Convention on Human Rights and, in some respects, go beyond it. In Article 1A(2) of the refugee convention, persecution is obviously tied to the question of human rights.
The point I wish to make is simply that, under the new clause proposed by Clause 14—headed “Asylum claims by EU nationals”—to amend the 2002 Act, the Secretary of State
“must declare an asylum claim made by a person who is a national of a member State inadmissible.”
Proposed new Clause 80A(4) states:
“Subsection (1) does not apply if there are exceptional circumstances as a result of which the Secretary of State considers that the claim ought to be considered.”
Proposed new subsection (5) states:
“For the purposes of subsection (4) exceptional circumstances include”—
and then it lists a series of matters under proposed new paragraphs (a) and (b), with three proposed sub-paragraphs under (b).
Basically, short the point is that there can be persecution for the purposes of entitlement to refugee status under the convention even where the state itself is not the protagonist of the persecutory conduct but allows citizens, residents or others present within its territory to persecute particular groups or persons who otherwise fulfil the requirements of the convention’s definition of “refugee”. My amendment proposes adding to the exceptional circumstances in proposed new Clause 80A(5) the circumstance when the EU member state
“fails to protect its nationals, including in particular those who have a protected characteristic within the … Equality Act 2010 which is innate or immutable, from persecution by third parties who are not agents of the member State.”
This is not a fanciful matter. If we take the case of Hungary, which has been moving more and more to the right in political terms, we see a campaign that is based on undisguised anti-Semitism against George Soros’s support for universities there, and a constant encouragement by the Government there of homophobia and attacks on LGBTQI+ people. So it is not a fanciful point, and I suggest that it should plainly be added as one of the exceptional circumstances. That is the point. On that basis, I beg to move.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, notwithstanding the fact that we have touched on some of these issues before, we have to face them head-on in this group of amendments. The issue is whether an asylum seeker has to claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach, and we might as well deal with that head-on because it is fundamental to many of our criticisms of the Bill. Bearing in mind the Chief Whip’s request that we keep our speeches short, I shall endeavour to do that, but this issue is so important.
First, there is a practical issue in all this. If we had demanded that asylum seekers should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach, the result would have been that every Syrian who reached Europe would have had to have stayed in Greece, Italy or Malta. That is clearly not a practical way for the world to function. If we make demands on where asylum seekers should claim asylum, so of course can other countries. It is quite wrong in practice.
The principle is perhaps more important; that principle being the Geneva convention of 1951. I would have thought it would be widely acceptable to say that the UNHCR was the guardian of the 1951 convention, and if the UNHCR has a view on that convention then that should surely have some influence on the Government—after all, the convention has been fundamental to human rights for asylum seekers over the last 70 years or so. The UNHCR has made it very clear that it disagrees with the argument that refugees should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach, saying that:
“Requiring refugees to seek protection in the first safe country to which they flee would undermine the global humanitarian and cooperative principles on which the refugee system is founded”.
No country close to the main countries of origin of refugees would ever have considered signing a convention if it meant that they would assume total and entire responsibility for all refugees. These are responsibilities that the international community has to share, and that is implicit in the 1951 convention. Therefore, some of the amendments, although they are in my name, probably seem to be compromising a fundamental objection in principle to what the Government are seeking to do. For example, my explanatory statement on Amendment 70 says that
“asylum seekers should not be removed to a safe third State other than the one with which they are considered to have a connection.”
One can argue about that. The Bill says clearly what it means to have a connection, and some of its definitions are okay but some are not.
Amendment 71 says that there must be a return arrangement in place. Clearly, unless we have a return arrangement in place with other countries, we cannot even begin to consider returning people. I say to the Minister: do we have a return arrangement with any country? If people come from France, across the channel—we all deplore the people traffickers and how they endanger lives, and the tragic loss of life that we have seen in the channel—unless there is an agreement with France, what do we do? If they have come from France, can we send them back to France or not? The French will not accept that. Incidentally, judging from this morning’s papers, our relationship with France is getting worse and worse; that is something that should be put right anyway, regardless of other considerations. Surely there must be a return arrangement in place, otherwise we cannot even consider this.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that there has to be some shared responsibility in Europe. In particular, his point about Greece, Italy and Spain was well made. They have had to bear the brunt of the inflow of asylum seekers to a very difficult extent, and I understand their problems. The noble Lord was also right that, whatever other solutions may be forthcoming on this very difficult issue, we will eventually have to have some agreement with the French. I am rather hopeful that, with the departure of the noble Lord, Lord Frost, we may have a better chance of reaching agreement—I say that with no malice to the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who I am sure did a very difficult job his way, but none the less, the fact that he has gone seems to me to be rather good news from the point of view of having a rather more diplomatic approach to France. I am glad that the Foreign Office in particular may now be in charge of that. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, will agree that it is probably better for the Foreign Office to have more say in this matter than under the previous arrangements.
What I am concerned about reflects what the Chief Whip said earlier on. Clauses 14 and 15 seem to do no more than bring into British law what we already had when we were in the European Union—that is all they do—using the Dublin regulations and the Spanish protocol. This is nothing more than a transfer. We have all the rights that we enjoyed when we were members of the European Union to take account of particular circumstances and difficulties which people may have in getting evidence and so forth. All these fairly extensive amendments are already taken account of by our existing rights, so I do not see how we can spend very long on these clauses, given that they really do no more than a transfer job.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I do not think that the noble Lord is right about EU arrangements. I remember as an MEP fighting hard on the inadmissibility provisions in EU directives. On the Dublin arrangements, my understanding is that the UNHCR is satisfied that those arrangements were compliant with the refugee convention. I contend that Clause 15 is not, hence I have put my name to some of the amendments in this group. My noble friend will propose that Clause 15 be removed altogether, as it fails to recognise the need to share asylum responsibilities with other countries in order for the international system to work effectively, but at least some changes to the clause are necessary, and so I have co-signed the amendments suggested by the JCHR, tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Amendments 69, 70, 71 and 75 all seek to restrict and improve the operation of the scheme proposed in Clause 15. I also support Amendment 68, and convey the apologies of my noble friend Lord Oates, who has a conflict with other business. Clause 15 is about proposals whereby the UK would attempt to persuade some other country to take responsibility for the asylum applicant if it considered that there was a connection to that state, broadly defined, or even if there was no connection at all.
Amendment 69 seeks to ensure that the definition of “safe third State” means it affords the protection and rights to which the person is entitled, so there is no real risk of them experiencing persecution, a violation of their human rights or refoulement, and that there is access to fair and efficient asylum procedures and refugee convention rights. Amendment 70 seeks to ensure that any removal should be only to a state with which the person has a connection. Amendment 71 requires that, unless formal and legal binding return arrangements are in place with the state in question—such as was the case with Dublin, which is why the UNHCR gave it its blessing—and removal takes place within a reasonable period. Absent those conditions, there must be no declaration of inadmissibility and the claim must be considered in the UK. Amendment 75 removes and rejects the suggestion that the UK can remove a claimant to a country in which the UK Government think it would have been reasonable for them to have made a claim, even if they had never visited that country.
As I said, even if these four amendments were adopted, Clause 15 would still be flawed. It would create yet greater delays, backlogs and costs in the asylum system. As we keep saying, the Home Office says the system is broken yet it wants to shoot itself in the foot by having ever-more complicated and long-winded procedures. It would also create greater anxieties for claimants and disruption to the international system. Therefore, Clause 15 must be at least amended, if not removed.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, unsurprisingly, I agree with everyone who has spoken so far except, I am afraid, for the noble Lord, Lord Horam. This is why: we are out of the EU now and have taken back control of our borders and laws. This is the Government’s policy. We are no longer in this family of nations, this bloc called the EU. Therefore, on what logical basis should we be saying that, by definition, we will never consider a claim made by an asylum seeker from that group?
It is one thing when you are in the EU to say that we do not need to be taking refugees from the EU because there is free movement in the EU and we are part of that bloc. You might well say that it will be inadmissible and that we do not consider refugee claims from within that family of nations of which we are a part, but we are not in it anymore. We have taken back control. Therefore, we are no longer able to assert pressure on others in that group to buck up their ideas about human rights or to threaten the Hungarians with being ejected from the EU if they do not sort out their human rights record. We do not have that leverage anymore. Therefore, it is our obligation as global Britain, as great believers in human rights and a signatory to the refugee convention, that if Hungarians are being persecuted we will consider their claims for asylum because we are better than them and we have taken back control in a lovely global Britain sort of way. It is totally illogical for Clause 14 to be part of the Bill.
More generally, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, made an important point about complexity and efficiency. In an earlier group, everyone in the Committee agreed that decision-making needs to be faster and better. That is in everybody’s interest, whichever side of the argument we are on. Creating lots of convoluted provisions about what is inadmissible, before you even consider whether someone is being persecuted, will only make life harder for caseworkers in the home department. I have seen Governments of both persuasions do this over the years. They think they are making it easier, but they actually make it harder by creating more convoluted hoops for people to jump through before their claim is even considered. It is better to have a clean slate and to consider somebody’s circumstances: do they qualify for asylum or not? It would be much easier without all these hoops, so Clauses 14 and 15 should go.
Just consider the claims: if countries are safe, they are safe. If people are not telling the truth, test their credibility and make that decision. Of course, I agree with everything my noble friend Lord Dubs said about safe countries, who has or does not have an association with one and the Government making the decision for them on a spurious basis.
Finally, I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, it is a well-established principle of refugee convention jurisprudence the world over that you do not have to be persecuted just by agents of the state. States have a duty to protect all the people in their state. If they do not do it, there can be behaviour and persecution by non-state agents within that territory. If the state is not offering protection, if there is no effective rule of law, it is not enforcing the criminal law and is allowing Roma or gay people or whoever to be persecuted by fascist skinheads in Hungary or whatever it is, that is persecution for the purposes of the refugee convention.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I will be brief. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for moving Amendment 68 and associate my name with this amendment. It deals with a glaring omission. I hope the Government will accept the amendment because, as has been rightly said, the Bill states:
“The Secretary of State must declare an asylum claim made by a person who is a national of a member State inadmissible … For the purposes of subsection (4) exceptional circumstances”.
This is where Amendment 68 beautifully sits and deals with that omission because intolerance is on the rise on the grounds of many protected characteristics listed within the Equality Act not only in Hungary, but in Poland and other parts of the EU. Indeed, the EU is somewhat restricted in what it can do with independent member states on some of these issues. I hope that the Minister will indicate that the Government will move on this, and the other positive amendments within this group, because in the end we are dealing with issues of human rights.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I am going to make a short speech about how the Government want to have their cake and eat it. One minute the EU is a place where there are lots of freedoms and protections for its citizens, and the next minute it is terribly repressive and we want to get out. Essentially, I support the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, but my feeling about these amendments is that that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, is right and that the best answer is to strike out the clause.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am so sorry but would the noble Lord remove his mask for a moment so we could better hear his wisdom?
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Was everything I said even more incomprehensible than usual? Basically, I am saying that we can amend and improve this a bit, but it would be much better to get rid of it.
I also have one point of detail. I am struck by the double reference to the definition of a safe third country, which I believe is irrelevant because the refugee convention says what it says. The definition is that a safe third country
“is one from which a person will not be sent to another State … otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention”
and that is repeated later. Of course, there is absolutely nothing in the refugee convention about sending somebody to a safe third country, or sending somebody to any country, except there is the firm ban on refoulement, that is, sending somebody back to the country where he had the justified fear of persecution. I understand why the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has that phrase in his amendment. He is thinking about refoulement, but the Government, when they put it in the Bill, are not thinking just about refoulement. They are thinking about their doctrine of having to seek asylum in the first safe country. They are thinking about their strange reading of Article 31 of the refugee convention. They are not letting Article 1 speak for itself, and their reading of the convention is a quite different one, as was explained by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Etherton, Lord Brown and Lord Clarke, with a different definition from the one that has become the jurisprudence of this country.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, very briefly, my deep concern is that the Government’s proposal virtually rules out us ever being the first safe country in which to arrive, simply because of our geography. That is the fundamental problem I have with the whole proposal, because it feels like we are removing ourselves from being a front-line nation in receiving people. I believe the Minister does not actually think that, but this would be the impact. We need to strike these clauses out.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my name is to a number of amendments in this group—including Amendments 69A, 71A, 71B, 73A and 73B—and they all come from the UNHCR. I had written down not “guardian” but “steward”, but it comes to the same thing—that is, stewardship of the convention. I am not suggesting for a moment that I would be happy—or that it would be happy—to see these clauses remain in the Bill, and I hope I am not too much in “lipstick on pigs” territory, but given that the UNHCR of all bodies has proposed these, I think it right that I speak to them, and I will do so reasonably quickly.
The UNHCR has reiterated that the Bill is fundamentally at odds with the Government’s avowed commitment to uphold the UK’s international obligations under the convention, and its long-standing role as a global champion of supporting and protecting refugees. It has reminded us that three safeguards are essential to any inadmissibility rules. First, they must not operate in a way that denies the fundamental right to seek and enjoy asylum, which is another way of saying a good deal of what has already been said. Secondly, they must protect rights under international law during the refugee process and once a refugee has been recognised. Thirdly, the aim should be to increase access to asylum globally. Clause 15 does not meet those tests; in the interests of time, I will not go through why.
The amendments in my name are to prevent the UK breaching international standards. They would mean that a safe third state must be safe in law—I should put that first—but safe in practice, and that a claim must be considered under the Immigration Rules, not as an optional matter; they broaden the circumstances in which the Secretary of State must consider the application and reduce the risk of an asylum seeker being sent to a country which is not a signatory to the convention and does not respect the rights of refugees under international law. The “connection” would be what most people would regard as a connection in ordinary language, and they define a “relevant claim” as a claim for protective status consistent with the convention. On Tuesday there was a lot of discussion about the importance of the convention as a matter of morality and, very importantly, as law. These amendments relate to both.
On the issue of formal returns agreements, to which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, referred, Amendment 195 would require a returns agreement before regulations were brought into force. I agree with that but with the condition that the agreements were acceptable. The amendment perhaps begs the question: I would like to think that it would be possible—it would be proper—for Parliament to have a role, which it will in an international agreement, and that amendments that are thought by Parliament to be required are made, so that the agreement is not just imposed.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, there are lots of issues here, but I start by making an overarching comment. A decade or more ago, the Home Office was dealing with many more applications for asylum than now. I am talking about initial decisions, not appeals. It was dealing with them more quickly and more effectively; the backlog was lower; and the successful appeal rate was lower. I try to be a “glass half full” person and usually fail miserably—but enough of my problems. Let me put it this way: the Home Office has proved in the past that it can deal efficiently and effectively with many more asylum applications than it is facing today. The fix for the current problems lies in the staffing systems and processes of our Home Office, not in the legislation or the number of asylum applications.
I have said it before, and I will say it again: the Government are focusing on the wrong things in the Bill and doing nothing to address the things that need to be addressed. This group of amendments is about unfairly and unreasonably reducing the number of asylum applications rather than increasing the capacity of the Home Office to handle them effectively, as it has proved it is capable of doing in the past.
Clause 14 proposes that all claims for asylum from EU nationals must be ruled inadmissible and that, as it is not a decision to refuse a claim but a decision to refuse to consider a claim, there be no right of appeal. A claim can be considered in exceptional circumstances, but the examples given are where the EU state is at war and has suspended the European Convention on Human Rights, or is going off the rails to such an extent that the EU itself is taking action against it for not complying with the standards of human rights expected of a member state.
These exceptional circumstances do not go far enough, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, said. We have seen EU states fail to act or take sufficient action to protect minorities. He mentioned Hungary. In 2020, six Polish cities announced LGBT-free zones. It may not necessarily be the case that an EU state, or even a municipality within an EU state, is overtly persecuting minorities, but failing to protect some minorities may make it unsafe for them to be in a particular state and as such may amount to grounds for asylum in the UK. Surely Home Office officials can determine whether any application for asylum has merit, whoever it is made by and whatever part of the world the applicant is from, without blanket bans of this kind in primary legislation. Amendment 68 from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, would be useful if the clause survives, but Clause 14 should not stand part of the Bill.
Another category of claim the Government want to rule as inadmissible is where the claimant has a connection, however spurious, with a safe third state. It just smacks of: “Let’s invent lots of excuses for rejecting someone’s asylum claim, however far-fetched they may be.”
In relation to the other amendments, if the clause remains part of the Bill, of course a safe third state must be safe—and that means safe for everyone, including minorities. It means that their rights will be protected and that the asylum system is compliant with the refugee convention. Of course the Home Secretary should not be able to remove a genuine refugee to any safe third state—to dump them anywhere in the world, whether they have any connection with that state or not.
On what planet does the following make sense? You establish some kind of connection between an asylum seeker and a safe third state, but you cannot send them there because you do not have a return agreement with that state. However, you still refuse to consider their application for asylum. So what are they supposed to do now?
Another amendment seeks to prevent the following scenario: even if the refugee has family in the UK, they could still be deported to a safe third state—“Sorry, lad, I know your parents are here but you’ve got a connection with Turkey because your grandparents are old and frail and could only make it that far, so off you go”.
The conditions for establishing a connection with a safe third state—we have seen this sort of thing before—look like an awayday board blast, where there are no wrong answers and anything you can think of is uncritically written on a flipchart. Can “Well, we think you should have made a claim elsewhere” seriously be a reason an official can give to rule a claim inadmissible, with no right of appeal?
Clauses 14 and 15 should not be part of the Bill, and we will support the other amendments only if those clauses remain.
I was going to speak to Amendment 76, which seeks to override
“all prior national and international law”,
but there is no one here to speak to it, so I shall decline.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I have the Clause 15 stand part debate and Amendment 195 in my name. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for their support in opposing this clause, and my noble friend Lord Blunkett for his support on Amendment 195.
Clause 15 puts in the Bill an existing immigration law on inadmissibility that makes any asylum claim inadmissible in a number of circumstances, including if the claimant has passed through a safe country or if they have a connection to a safe third country. The result of a finding of inadmissibility is that, unless the Secretary of State decides that there are exceptional circumstances, the claimant will be denied access to the UK’s asylum system for a “reasonable period”, currently defined as six months in Home Office policy, while the UK seeks to transfer them to “any other safe country”. With the huge backlog and delay currently in the system, it is impossible to understand how adding another six months to the asylum process will help an already dysfunctional system.
We believe that, as drafted, Clause 15 should not stand part of the Bill. It is just not acceptable or deliverable in practice. We have concerns on the definitions of “safe third state” and “connection” and the lack of relevant international agreements. Serious concerns have been raised by the UNHCR and the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights, among others. There is an absence of adequate safeguards against returning individuals to countries in which they will be denied rights owed to them under the refugee convention.
Safe returns, as part of an international asylum system, are not new and are accepted under agreed conditions. However, this clause does not provide for safe reciprocal return agreements. Even as it stands, the UK Government do not have return agreements with EU member states—namely the “safe third countries” that refugees are most likely to have passed through.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I support the proposal from the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to exclude Clause 15 from the Bill, for a wide variety of reasons.
First, if a claim is deemed to be inadmissible but to satisfy the convention, that seems effectively to be saying that the person is not a refugee within the convention. That does not make sense. If they satisfy the definition of refugee within the convention, they have a claim. It can be dismissed, and then there will be a right of appeal. What cannot be said—which is effectively what is being said here—is “We’re not going to hear you at all, even though you are a refugee within the strict terms of the convention”. So I take issue with the very idea of inadmissibility with no right of recourse at all by way of an appeal.
Secondly, the terms of Section 80C to be inserted into the 2002 Act in relation to four and five seem completely contrary to both the wording and principle of the convention. My understanding of Clause 4 is that it is, in some way or other, intended to be made analogous to the Dublin III regulation.
There are a number of points to be made about that. First, we are no longer part of the EU or of the Dublin regulation. Perhaps more importantly, EU member states themselves have recognised that the Dublin regulation has failed. On 23 September 2020, the European Commission adopted what they called the New Pact on Migration and Asylum, following consultations with the European Parliament, member states and various stakeholders. The PR notice from the European Commission, which is available on the internet, states:
“The new pact recognises that no member state should shoulder a disproportionate responsibility and that all member states should contribute to solidarity on a constant basis.”
It has failed because the effect of the Dublin regulation, when strictly applied, means that certain states are overwhelmed with refugees because they are inevitably the first state on the way through to somewhere else. What is happening at the moment is that the Commission is proposing to replace the Dublin III regulation with a new regulation on asylum and migration management. So, frankly, there is no point in referring to the Dublin III regulation. It has failed in practice, and we should not be emulating it.
Furthermore, proposed Section 80C(4) is inconsistent with the terms of the convention itself. There is nothing in the convention, in Article 31 or anywhere else that makes this “connection” mean that a refugee claim would fail.
I have another point about condition 4, and I would welcome clarification from the Minister on it. The description that would render a connection with the state, and therefore the claim, inadmissible is exactly the same as the definition of arriving “directly” for the purposes of Clause 11. Clause 36 effectively amplifies Clause 11 and paragraph 1 of Article 31 of the convention. It says:
“A refugee is not to be taken to have come to the United Kingdom directly from a country where their life or freedom was threatened if, in coming from that country, they stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom, unless they can show that they could not reasonably be expected to have sought protection under the Refugee Convention in that country.”
On this particular approach, you are never going to get anywhere near Clause 11 because you will be knocked out under Clause 15—so I do not understand that contradiction. Once you fall within condition 3, which is the same as condition 4—which is the same as not arriving directly under the definition in Clause 36 —you are knocked out. So which is it—are you knocked out or do you still have some right under Clause 11, admittedly, to show that you could with good cause fall within either group 1 or even group 2? I am left confused by that.
Condition 5, on which the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and others have eloquently spoken, provides
“that, in the claimant’s particular circumstances, it would have been reasonable to expect them to have made a relevant claim to the safe third State (instead of making a claim in the United Kingdom).”
Nothing in the Dublin regulations says that, even if they were to apply—and there is certainly nothing in the convention that would make such a condition apply to exclude a claim.
So I support the suggestion that Clause 15 should be excluded because, with respect, it seems to be a muddle in a whole series of different respects—legally, practically and in principle.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords again for speaking to this group of amendments. I appreciate the thoughtful and well-meaning intent of Amendment 68, but we cannot accept it. The definition of “persecution” is well established and must be on the basis of a refugee convention reason—namely, race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. It is reiterated in Clause 30(1)(c) that persecution can be committed by
“any non-State actor”
where the state is
“unable or unwilling to provide reasonable protection”.
Given the level of protection afforded to EU nationals, through fundamental rights and freedoms, EU countries are inherently safe, and individuals are exceptionally unlikely to be at risk of persecution. If individuals experience discrimination, they can seek protection from within their country of nationality.
That said, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, might be comforted to have it confirmed that our processes already acknowledge that it may not be appropriate to apply inadmissibility to EU national claimants in exceptional circumstances. The list of exceptional circumstances included in the provisions is not exhaustive; it looks to protect individuals in the very rare circumstances that a member state is at risk of a serious breach or where there exists a serious and persistent breach of the values under the Treaty on European Union, including equality.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Briefly, on the Minister’s previous point in response to the right reverend Prelate about refugees being able to fly here instead of making perilous crossings, will she make a commitment that the Government will not slap transit visa restrictions on jurisdictions that produce a lot of genuine refugees because of what is happening over there, and that they will not use carriers’ liability as a deterrent for people trying to escape through that safer method?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Can I write to the noble Baroness on that? I suspect that I will misspeak if I try to answer because there are several things in that question that I am thinking about. I hope that she is okay for me to write to her.
The definition of a safe third state is already set out in the clause. It ensures that, even if a country is not a signatory to the refugee convention, the principles of the convention should be met if we are to remove an individual to that country. It defines safe third countries as states where an individual will not be sent to another state where they would be at risk of persecution or a breach of their Article 3 ECHR rights. This is consistent with our obligation under the refugee convention to ensure that individuals are not subject to refoulement; I keep pronouncing it as “refowlment”, which is completely wrong. This definition has been part of our previous legislation on safe countries and is a widely recognised definition of a safe third state; it is used in EU law under the procedures directive.
I want to come to point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, that the UNHCR says that we are breaking the refugee convention. There are three groups of amendments on this in Committee—not today, but shortly, so I will not go too much into the convention. We have already touched on it. We think that everything we are doing complies with our international obligations, including the convention. The first safe country principle is the fastest route to safety and widely recognised internationally. It is a fundamental feature of the Common European Asylum System. It is self-evident that those in need of protection should claim in the first safe country and that is the fastest route to safety.
There are different ways in which an individual may be protected and not all of them require entitlements that fall under the refugee convention. To define a safe third state in the way that is suggested by these amendments ignores the fact that other forms of protection are available to individuals which ensure that these countries are safe for them to be removed to. We will only ever remove inadmissible claimants to countries that are safe. Using this definition is not a new approach. It has been part of our previous legislation on safe countries. I do not think these amendments are necessary.
On Amendment 70, the ability to remove an individual declared inadmissible to any safe country has formed a part of our inadmissibility process since the changes to the Immigration Rules in December 2020. This amendment would remove a provision that Parliament has already had the opportunity to scrutinise. The aim of these provisions is to disincentivise people from seeking to enter the UK by dangerous means facilitated by criminals. They send a clear message that those arriving via an irregular route may be eligible to be transferred to another safe country, not of their choosing, to be processed.
I do not agree with the premise of Amendments 71 to 73A and 195. Agreements by a safe third country to accept an asylum seeker may not always be via a reciprocal or formal arrangement. It is right to seek removals on a case-by-case basis where appropriate. Doing so has formed a part of our inadmissibility process since the changes to the Immigration Rules in December 2020. I do not think that these provisions are unworkable without formal agreements in place. That said, I do not disagree with the need to get formal agreements in place. Without providing that running commentary, that is what we are working on doing.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
Will the Minister confirm that to date we do not have an agreement with any country for the return of the people she is talking about?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
There are countries that we can return people to but, as I said, I will not provide a running commentary on ongoing discussions. Of course, there are countries that we return people to, or else we would never have returned anybody in the last two years, and we have.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
If I remember rightly, we returned only five last year. It is partly to do with Covid, I fully accept that, but it is also because there simply are not the agreements in place with the countries that we want to return those people to.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am not disagreeing with the need to have formal arrangements in place to return people. On that we are at one.
We also acknowledge that it might not always be appropriate to apply inadmissibility to all claimants who have travelled via or have a connection to a safe country. The provisions as drafted already have flexibility that allows us to consider if an individual has exceptional circumstances to warrant consideration of their asylum claim through the UK asylum system. That includes consideration of the best interests of any children affected.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
How does case-by-case work? If we are not going to have agreements and the Minister says it is much better to do it case by case, how does that work? The diplomatic post in the capital in question goes in and says, “We have Mr X in an accommodation centre in Kent. We’d like to send him to you because we think he has a connection to you and we don’t want to let him have asylum here.” What happens if the country in question says, “Well, if he’s with you, he’s your problem”? Do we just put him on a plane and tell him to take his chances at the other end, or are we negotiating his terms of entry into the third country?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I think it is both. We need to assess people on a case-by-case basis and we need to have return agreements in place. It is not an either/or. I fully acknowledge the need to have return agreements in place. We could not return someone to a country that said it would not accept them; that simply would not be on. That underlines the need to have formal return agreements in place.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Does that mean that the Government accept that Clause 15 is pretty meaningless without such agreements in place? There is no argument about that, then.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
No, I do not accept that Clause 15 is meaningless. I am agreeing that we need to have return agreements in place. I do not think anyone would disagree with that point.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
If we do not have return agreements in place by the time this clause comes in, we will end up with a lot of people being here for six months while the Government try to find out if they can send them back to another country. If you have no agreements with any other countries, you know before you start that that is a further six months wasted before the Government seek to do anything meaningful. Clearly the clause is meaningless without those agreements in place.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I was going to go on to say that if no agreement is possible within a reasonable period, the individual’s asylum claim will be considered in the UK, but I am not disagreeing with the point that return agreements need to be in place. I think I have made that quite clear. Similarly, this is a global challenge, so every nation in the world has to be mindful of the fact that they will be in similar positions as the months and years go on.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
No other country is in this position because other countries believe that the refugee convention means what it says. I am uneasy, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, must be right, but what makes this particularly peculiar is that we are considering inadmissibility here. Suppose there were an agreement in place. Suppose we were handling a case—the Minister says that it is best done case by case—but we have not done anything except say, “This is inadmissible.” We do not know anything about this chap. He has not had an appeal turned down and has not been categorised in group 1 or group 2; he has simply been declared inadmissible. What does the diplomatic post in the intended recipient country have to go on?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Surely the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is right: there is no realistic possibility. The Minister keeps “not confirming” that there are no return arrangements in place yet; she lives in hope, but the reality is that there are none and it seems unlikely that there will be any in the near future. I know there are hopes for one with France after the presidential election; well, good luck with that.
The Government wanted Brexit, they got Brexit done and Brexit meant that we no longer enjoy the Dublin regulation. Realistically, the countries that she is talking about sending people back to are mainly EU countries. Frankly, the chances of having a readmission agreement with the EU are for the birds, so we are going to be seeking bilateral agreements—and none is in prospect. So Clause 15 is indeed basically window-dressing.
The noble Lord, Lord Rosser, mentioned that apparently 6,500 cases have been declared inadmissible. All we do by kicking the can down the road is create more people waiting, more people demoralised and more work for the Home Office. It is all completely unrealistic.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I am not sure whether this is helpful to the Minister or not, but the Dublin agreement was just quoted. Over the last five years, we asked France and Germany whether they would take back 2,480 cases. They took 234, which is just under 10%. Let us not imagine either that the Dublin agreement was useful or that something similar will be in future.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
That is a very good point. I think we talked about this the other day, in terms of returns. We actually took far more than we returned under Dublin. At this juncture, I would say that we do not need formal agreements in place.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
The noble Baroness should be careful. I quite agree that it was an interesting point, but it is a point that works for the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, not for the Minister. While there was a Dublin agreement and only 10%—I do not vouch for the figure, but the noble Lord, Lord Green, may be right—what do we expect to happen when there is no agreement? Do the Government expect a higher acceptance rate from the French and Germans when there is no agreement, when they are declaring the guy inadmissible?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I do not know if the noble Lord heard my last point, but we do not necessarily need formal return agreements in place. We can do returns without formal agreements. The point about Dublin is that the formal arrangements that were in place did not necessarily work. It is important to try both—formal and informal, diplomatic and otherwise. It works both ways and, as I said, this is a global challenge. It is not that it is not an EU problem either.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Can I just be clear? Will this then work on the basis of some ad hoc arrangements that will be determined through diplomatic channels, in which other countries take people whom we have declared inadmissible? As I understand it, the number of people we are likely to declare inadmissible will be high. Will all that be done by ad hoc arrangements? Will there not be any agreements and will these countries come forward and say, “Yes, that’s fair enough. You declared the claim inadmissible; of course we will take them back”. Is that how it is going to work?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am saying that there are a number of ways in which we can seek to secure this—formal, informal, diplomatic and otherwise. I am not saying there is a single solution to returns. Therefore, Clause 15 still needs to be in place.
It might not always be appropriate to apply inadmissibility to all claimants who have travelled via or have a connection to a safe country. The provisions that we have drafted already have flexibility that allows us to consider whether an individual has exceptional circumstances to warrant consideration of their asylum claim through the UK asylum system. As I said, this includes best interests. We also have the family reunion provisions that I mentioned earlier so, if individuals have family members in the UK, they should apply under those provisions. The inadmissibility provisions should not be used to circumnavigate those provisions and create a back door to enter the UK by dangerous means.
Furthermore, if an individual has not been recognised as a refugee, but has been provided with a different form of protection from refoulement, that country is safe for them to be removed to. To define a “safe third State” in the way suggested by the amendments ignores the other forms of protection available to individuals, which ensure that these countries are safe for them to be removed to.
Regarding Amendments 74, 73B, 74A and 75B, the UK should not be obliged to assess the substance of an asylum application where the applicant, due to a connection to a safe third country, can reasonably be expected to seek protection in that third country, or where they have already sought protection in a safe country and have moved on before the outcome of that claim, or where a claim has already been granted or considered and refused. This is a necessary part of achieving the policy aim of deterring those unnecessary and dangerous secondary movements. We are not alone in operating this practice. These amendments ignore the other forms of protection available to individuals that ensure that these countries are safe for them to be removed to. Amendments 75, 75A, and 76 would significantly undermine the aim of these provisions. The provisions as drafted send that clear message for those who could and should have claimed asylum in another safe country to do so.
I commend the spirit of Amendment 76, which would introduce a new clause to strengthen our inadmissibility provisions and deter irregular entry to the UK, particularly where that means of entry indicates that individuals have travelled to the UK via a safe country. I agree with the premise of this amendment—that access to the UK’s asylum system should be based on need and not driven by criminal enterprise. The provisions in the Bill send that clear message. However, this proposed new clause probably goes too far, and would breach our international obligations. It could place individuals in indefinite limbo, which would be against the object and purpose of the refugee convention. The provisions as drafted ensure that individuals are not left in limbo, with their asylum claim neither considered in the UK nor another safe third country. If after a reasonable period it has not been possible to agree removal of the individual to a safe third country, as I said earlier, their asylum claim will be considered in the UK. The introduction of Clauses 14 and 15 as they stand aims to strengthen our position on inadmissibility, further disincentivise people from making dangerous journeys, and encourage them to claim asylum in the first safe country.
I will leave it at that. I hope that noble Lords will be happy not to press their amendments.
Lord Paddick (LD)
The Minister said that two issues were widely recognised internationally. One was the definition of a safe third country and the other was on the first safe country principle—that refugees should claim asylum in the first safe country. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees asked for the definition, in the amendments, of a third safe country, so it does not agree that it is a widely recognised international definition. The UNHCR also says that it does not recognise the first safe country principle and that there is nothing in international law about it. Does the Minister accept that, even if she says that these things are widely recognised internationally, they are not recognised by the UNHCR?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
We have had wide discussions about the UNHCR’s opinion on this and think that we are complying with international law. It is up to each state to interpret the refugee convention. I know that the noble Lord and most of this House do not agree but it will ultimately be for Parliament, through the passage of the Bill, to interpret what Parliament thinks of the refugee convention.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I will not move Amendment 76 and will consider the Minister’s comments on it.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for battling so valiantly in relation to all the points that have been raised, and am extremely grateful for all the amendments that have been spoken to. What has become clear from this discussion is that there are, on any footing, immense practical difficulties in relation to Clauses 14 and 15. In effect, I think the Minister accepted that it is not going to be straightforward to repatriate people with inadmissible claims to other EU countries without any agreement. The expression “window dressing” has been used. It is going to be very difficult.
I hope I correctly interpreted the Minister in getting my crumb of comfort from Clause 14. I think she reassured me that the exceptional circumstances specified were not closed. As a statement from the Dispatch Box in Parliament, recorded in Hansard, that is quite an important point. If Clause 14 remains, it will give at least some people some succour at any event, particularly in the circumstances I mentioned: an EU country which does not prevent those who are citizens, resident or present within the country, from persecuting others belonging to a social group, or for some other reason.
I am afraid that the overwhelming sentiment—and certainly my view—was that whatever may be said by the Government about adopting existing expressions which are generally used or have been previously used, in vital respects Clause 15 is inconsistent with the convention. This is not in a complex way, but in an obvious way. I am sorry to say this, but to my mind as a lawyer it is an egregious contravention of the convention. I ask the Minister about, for example, condition 5 in new Section 80C. Not only is that not in the convention, but I do not know where it comes from. I can see it is there as a matter of policy but it is not in the Dublin regulations, so far as I can recall. As I pointed out, in any event the Dublin regulations are being revised, so there is no point in going back to them.
There are a number of difficulties. There is one point I was hoping the Minister might be able to reply to that she has not. I would be grateful if she could explain perhaps in communication with me. How does one reconcile condition 4, which is failing to make a claim in the first country—thereby rendering you having a connection and the possibility of inadmissibility—with one of the requirements under Clause 11 to satisfy Article 31, which is arriving directly, because you never get there if you are rendered inadmissible? At the moment I do not see how the two fit together. I am not suggesting it is a straightforward and easy point; it is a lawyer’s point, but an important one. It shows a muddle somewhere along the line. But, on the basis of everything that has been said, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
If Amendment 69 is agreed I cannot call Amendment 69A because of pre-emption.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
If Amendment 71B is agreed I cannot call Amendment 72 because of pre-emption.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
If Amendment 74 is agreed I cannot call Amendment 74A because of pre-emption.
Lord Coaker
“(1A) The Secretary of State may not serve an evidence notice on a person who—(a) has made a protection claim or a human rights claim on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity;(b) was under 18 years of age at the time of their arrival in the United Kingdom;(c) has made a protection or human rights claim involving sexual or gender-based violence;(d) is a victim of modern slavery or trafficking; oron other categories of person on whom the Secretary of State considers it would be inappropriate to serve an evidence notice.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment probes the serving of an evidence notice on vulnerable groups.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rosser tabled Amendments 77 and 89. In this group we also very much support the important amendments in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton; those of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, to remove the deadline; the crucial amendments of my noble friend Lord Dubs on the weight given to evidence; and indeed the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. This is another important group of amendments.
The Government are aware that there are extreme and widespread concerns over the impact of the late evidence provisions in this part of the Bill, particularly the impact on vulnerable groups of people. I am pleased that the Government agree, because in their equality impact assessment which goes with the Bill there are hundreds of quotes that could be used to support the amendments that have been put down by various noble Lords. I have picked just a couple out. For example:
“We will continue to consider ways in which to mitigate adverse impacts on vulnerable people.”
Astonishingly, it also admits that:
“Where we do not have data, we have made assumptions.”
One hopes that if they have made assumptions on legislation which we are going to presumably pass at some point, we will continue to look at how we mitigate these consequences.
Noble Lords will be particularly interested in a quote from the Government’s own evidence to themselves:
“There is a risk that our policies could indirectly disadvantage protected groups.”
That is the Government’s own evidence to themselves. They are worried about the impact on protected and vulnerable groups—they say so in their impact assessment. If noble Lords have not had a chance to read all if it, it is worth reading in great detail. If the Government come back and say that there is no need for some of these amendments, they are actually contradicting their own evidence. So I support the Government’s equality impact assessment of these amendments and hope that noble Lords will also support it, and that the Government will welcome the amendments for further clarifying their own impact assessment.
Crucially, the amendments seek to provide more clarity on how vulnerable groups will be considered and what will be accepted as, for example, a good reason for late compliance. It is well understood, but not particularly reflected in these provisions, that those who have experienced trauma may find it intensely difficult, if not impossible, to disclose their experiences on demand.
Amendment 77, in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser, would prevent evidence notices and the strict cut-off date for evidence being served on children, people seeking asylum based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, or survivors of sexual violence, gender-based violence or modern slavery and trafficking. I should declare again my interest as a research fellow at Rights Lab, at the University of Nottingham, in respect of modern slavery and trafficking. This amendment seeks to probe what the approach will be to these and other vulnerable groups.
I was struck by my noble friend Lord Cashman’s speech, on Tuesday, about somebody fleeing persecution because of their sexual orientation. He said that when you arrive at a place of safety, your first thought is that you are safe, not whether you are complying with a notice of what you will be required to do by a certain date or else be in trouble; indeed, when you are fleeing from whatever it is you are fleeing from, you first thought is not whether you have picked up all the relevant papers. These are the sorts of things that we need to consider.
Crucially, the amendment is not limiting, as it allows the Secretary of State to recognise further vulnerable groups who should also be exempt from these provisions. There is always a problem when you generate a list that there is someone you do not include.
An LGBTQ+ asylum seeker may face obvious problems providing evidence of sexuality, given that they will have been forced to hide in their home country through fear of persecution or death. They have fled to seek safety. They may not be being interviewed through a translator, the fear has not left them, they may not have the language with which to express what they have been through, and they may be fearful for the loved ones they have left behind. I know many noble Lords will have met many victims and survivors. Part of the problem is the concern they have for people at home, back in the country they have fled. I use myself as an example, as I know other noble Lords might: I would not comply with an authority, even if I felt safe, if I thought that my sister, brother, uncle, husband, wife or whoever was going to be put in danger—I just would not. I sometimes wonder whether what the Government are suggesting complies with the real world in which we all live.
Women for Refugee Women, which supports women fleeing gender-based violence, has said that
“because there are so many legitimate reasons for why a woman who has survived gender-based violence may submit evidence late, we do not think there is a way in which these evidence notices can be implemented fairly in respect to these highly vulnerable individuals.”
The Government themselves recognise that these specific difficulties exist, yet now, if a vulnerable person cannot produce that relevant evidence by a fixed date, it will be considered to have less weight than it is actually worth. That is included in the legislation, as laid out in the clauses we are considering at the moment.
Particularly concerning is that victims of modern slavery and trafficking are included in these provisions. The Government’s own statutory modern slavery guidance says that victims may be
“reluctant or unable to self-identify … Victims may experience post-traumatic stress disorder and anyone interviewing a potential victim should be aware of the impact of trauma on the interviewee, for example difficulty recalling facts.”
Why then, on the one hand, does guidance recognise the impact of trauma in disclosing experiences, yet, on the other, the Bill includes provisions that penalise people for not being able to hand over a neat life story on a deadline? That is contradictory.
Can the Minister clarify—because it is not clear to me—whether these provisions will be applied to children? The number of children waiting for more than a year for their initial decision increased from 563 in 2010 to 6,887 in 2020. That is not because of a surge in applications; it is because of a breakdown in the asylum system. We need to be extremely careful that the Government’s answer to that huge increase is not to penalise children for a failure of the system.
The Bill provides for exemptions where a person has good reason for not complying on time, but we need more information, as we have heard in respect of other parts of the Bill, about what is meant in practice by “good reasons”. Is that a subjective judgment? Is it just left hanging? What does “good reasons” mean? Our Amendment 89 probes examples of what would be considered a good reason for providing evidence late for a PRN. The amendment includes examples of where there is evidence of post-traumatic stress and where it would potentially endanger a person to gather the needed evidence before the cut-off date. It would also require the Secretary of State to publish a non-exhaustive list of what would be accepted as a good reason. The Minister will understand that we are trying to understand what the Government mean by “good reasons”.
It is particularly interesting that the only answer to these queries that we had in the Commons was:
“Guidance … will be published and made available when these measures come into force.”—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, Commons, 26/10/21; col. 357.]
We know how difficult it is for us to consider whether that is the appropriate way forward and or whether it satisfies this Chamber given that it is, “We’ll pass it, but don’t worry, the guidance is on its way, and we’ll deal with it”. I say with all respect to the Minister that that is not good enough. Parliament is being asked to pass this Bill now, and we need greater clarity and understanding about how it will function in practice.
Clause 25, on which there is the stand part debate, states that “minimal weight” should be given to late evidence. It is extremely problematic to give important evidence minimal weight based on a deadline rather than judging it on its merits. That is prioritising process over truth and factual evidence, and it will lead to bad decisions. It completely flies in the face of the established practices and procedures of this Parliament and our judicial system. I say again that the Government are prioritising process over truth and factual evidence and it will lead to bad decisions.
The system is currently not operating as it should. The proportion of asylum appeals that were successful in 2020-21 was 47%, so evidence is already not being given the weight it should be given because almost half the decisions are overturned on appeal, and it is leading to decisions that are incorrect. Why in this situation would we build in a mechanism to take evidence less seriously? It flies in the face of the reality that we are confronted with. We must ask how this measure complies with the legal requirement on the Government and all of us to act in the best interests of the child. Can it ever be the case that giving evidence of their need for asylum “minimal weight” is in their best interest?
We therefore strongly support my noble friend Lord Dubs’s Amendments 83 and 88 to remove, as recommended by the JCHR, the provision in Clause 25 that the deciding authority must have regard to the principle that minimal weight should be given to the evidence. It is quite an astonishing principle to establish in law that evidence should be given minimal weight rather than whether it is good evidence or bad evidence or whether it is truthful evidence or untruthful evidence. The noble Lord has been in court. I am sure that if he was giving evidence and somebody said, “Well, that’s minimal”, he would say, “Well, actually, it’s true.” I am not a lawyer, but I would hope that anybody representing me would put good evidence forward and the court would say whether it was good or bad, and you would hope to establish the facts.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, we have Amendments 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 82A, 82B, 86A, 86B, 90 and 90A in this group. I have also put my name to Amendment 95A along with that of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I do not know whether she is planning to speak to it—it is the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins—but its thrust certainly falls within this group. Noble Lords will be pleased to know I am not going to speak precisely to each amendment.
I am slightly hesitant to raise this point, given the expertise of the noble Lord on the Front Bench and the noble and learned Lord sitting opposite, although it feels as if I have been sitting next to him through most of the passage of this Bill. Listening to the last exchange, is it something to do with the whole of our legal system that we place asylum seeker on one side opposite the state as the other party? The whole way this is designed is to have parties to proceedings fighting one another. I am glad to see the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, nodding at that. It has only just occurred to me.
This clutch of amendments addresses the period within which the claimant is to provide evidence. I hoped that the noble and learned Lord might be speaking ahead of me because I am sure I would be saying I agree with him. Why is the specific date a matter for the Secretary of State or the immigration officer? Different people will need different periods of time. That might be an argument for variability, but it should not mean that it can be an arbitrary date without there being a reasoned basis. The lawyers in the Chamber will tell me if I get this wrong, but I think one would usually expect to see time periods within tribunal rules with a possibility of applying for an extension, but the procedure rules are the subject of the next clause. I am concerned about whether this is a proper way to go about giving notice. It should be neutral and objectively appropriate, and Clause 17 gives the Secretary of State considerable power.
Under the new subsections introduced by Clause 18, the tribunal is required to make a statement as to whether the claimant has behaved in a way designed or “likely” to go to his credibility. When we tabled Amendments 82A and 82B, I was thinking about points noble Lords made and will make again and again about the impact of trauma on a claimant, and the difficulties someone may have—even someone who is not affected—in dealing with authority figures, accessing documents and so on. This point was very clearly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, a couple of days ago. That is why I stress the word “likely”.
This gives me the opportunity to ask the Government why Clause 18 is included. It would be good to have that on the record. Others may have a different take on the reasons for some claims having taken the course they have.
In my Amendment 86A, I am not really seeking to amend the noble and learned Lord’s Amendment 86, just to add to it by requiring adequate time before a cut-off date in a priority removal notice. Amendment 86A would add more of the people about whom we have been concerned to the list; the same point is made on Amendments 90 and 90A.
I also have Amendment 86B in this group. I got into quite a circular argument with myself last weekend about this. I am not sure I resolved it, but I will not trouble the Committee with it this evening, given the time.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 95 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who apologises for having had to leave early. This speech will be in two halves—although one will be rather bigger than the other. The first half is roughly what the noble Baroness would have said.
At Second Reading she spoke about the ways in which she believes this Bill places additional unacceptable barriers in the way of women refugees seeking asylum who are fleeing sexual violence and exploitation. The amendment seeks to remove one of those obstacles and to extend the benefit to other groups of asylum seekers who may be similarly disadvantaged, so that it is accepted that they have a good reason for a late claim.
As we understand it, the issue is that in the proposed legislation the authorities deciding an asylum claim or appeal are instructed to attach, as we have heard, only minimal weight to any evidence provided late by the applicant, unless there is a good reason for it being late. However, there is robust evidence to show that the trauma suffered by the victims of sexual violence or trafficking can impact on memory and the ability to recall information. The Home Office guidance itself makes this clear. The other categories she included in Amendment 95, such as victims of torture, modern slavery and trafficking, are just as likely to suffer the same effects on memory and should be protected in the same way. I strongly support what she would have said.
However, as the arguments from this perspective are very similar to those I made in support of Amendment 40 on Tuesday, I will focus on children, a group we have not talked much about so far, although I was very pleased that my noble friend Lord Coaker did so in introducing this group. It is the strong view of children’s organisations such as the Children’s Society—I am grateful for its help—that the Bill completely fails to protect children, a group in particular need of it. Despite recognition of this added need for protection, this Bill’s harsh reforms apply to children just as they do to adults, unless the Minister can tell me that I am wrong—I hope he can. This is not right; it is a serious failure of the Government’s duty to protect children.
We need only look at Clauses 25 and 17 to see the disproportionate impact many of these provisions will have on children and young people. Amendment 95 seeks to ensure that children are recognised as having a good reason for not providing evidence by the deadline and that any evidence they provide late is given due weight. We know from organisations on the ground that asylum-seeking children who have been forced to flee, who may have witnessed violence and the destruction of their homes or schools, or even death, and who may have endured traumatic journeys, might not be able to share all the details of their ordeal in the first instance to provide evidence to support their case. The particular difficulties children might face in providing prompt evidence are recognised by the JCHR.
The Government know this. Their only quality impact assessment, to which my noble friend referred, sets out how these clauses will have a disproportionate impact on vulnerable persons, including children. The Home Office’s Children’s Asylum Claims Casework Guidance makes it clear:
“Decision makers must take account of what it is reasonable to expect a child to know”—
or relay—
“in their given set of circumstances”.
It is inappropriate for authorities to question the credibility of a child’s claim if they omit information, bearing in mind the child’s age, maturity and other reasons that may have led to those omissions. Requiring time-limited evidence and penalising children when they are unable to meet the deadlines goes against the Government’s own assessments and guidance and does nothing to protect children or, as we have heard, their best interests.
As one young person supported by the Children’s Society, which has long supported asylum-seeking children and young people, reminds us:
“This is not a joyful moment in our lives. We have to talk through the worst parts of our past. It is very traumatic.”
Children and young people need time and a sense of safety before they can begin to disclose their experience. They also need good, child-appropriate legal representation, which we know they often do not get, unfortunately. All too often, asylum-seeking children receive poor initial legal advice, which can lead to ill-prepared claims and to them not feeling comfortable about setting out their information. Due to legal aid funding cuts, quality legal advice is not readily available.
Another young asylum seeker supported by the Children’s Society described his experience:
“My solicitor did nothing, it was horrible. They didn’t even prepare a witness statement for my interview. I had to do everything myself. I had my social worker but she didn’t know how to help me with my asylum case. The interviewer told me she had no information and I had to tell her everything.”
The Children’s Society sees many asylum-seeking children who have to provide evidence at later stages of their claim, not because of any weakness in the claim but because of the trauma they have endured or the consequences of non-existent or poor legal representation. No doubt the Minister will assure us that these concerns will be addressed in guidance and on a case-by-case basis, yet, as was highlighted in the recent report, An Inspection of Asylum Casework, guidance is often neither followed nor implemented by Home Office caseworkers. Home Office staff themselves stressed that they
“did not have time to consider each case on its own merits, contrary to the guidance they receive.”
So the aim of Amendment 95 is not to tie the hands of decision-makers or legislate for every situation in which a person might provide late evidence. Rather, it is to ensure that the most vulnerable are protected in the Bill, because we cannot leave their safety and well-being to chance. That is consistent with this highlighted observation from the JCHR:
“It is crucial that decision-makers recognise the many legitimate reasons why asylum seekers may struggle to provide evidence in support of their claims within tight deadlines.”
If Clause 25 stands part—I have to say that I will support the proposal that will be put by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti that it should not—this amendment represents the minimum necessary to protect children, women, women fleeing gender-based violence and others in the most vulnerable circumstances.
I want to return briefly to what the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said. Given the Home Office guidance, we cannot see any logical or humane reason why the Government would not accept this amendment and establish on the face of the Bill that, in these circumstances, for these victims, any late evidence should always be accepted as being late for a good reason, and their application or appeal should not in any way be disadvantaged because of it.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I will speak briefly to Amendment 85 on the destruction of documents. I am a sponsor of this amendment, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, who is unfortunately unwell and in isolation.
The purpose of these subsections is to indicate matters that might damage a claimant’s credibility in respect of an asylum or human rights claim. The destruction of documents is clearly one of these. Why else would this be done, except to make it much more difficult to identify the claimant and therefore much more difficult to assess their claims? Noble Lords will remember that claimants arriving by air used to cut up their passports and dispose of them in the aircraft’s toilet. That was dealt with by photocopying their documents before they boarded the aircraft. This time round, it is rather more difficult to counter, but it should certainly be regarded as relevant to an assessment of the validity of their claim.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to the five amendments in this group—Amendments 83, 88, 90B, 95A and 137, and the question of whether Clause 25 should stand part—all of which I have co-signed or are in my name. The four I have co-signed are inspired by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and are in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. He has had to leave and has asked me to give his apologies.
The provisions whereby the presentation of evidence, after a date specified by the Home Office or in a priority removal notice, is required to be treated as damaging to credibility or to be given minimal weight are unfair, unjustifiable and should be removed. I agree with everything the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said.
I have also tabled Amendments 90B and 95A in the alternative, as it were. Under Clauses 21 and 25, the decision maker on priority removal notices or in an asylum or human rights claim would at least be obliged to consider whether the presumption of damage to credibility was fair, rather than looking solely at whether there were good reasons for the delay. Taking lateness into account should be rejected if it would be unfair.
The motivation for all these amendments is fair access to justice—both to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights and, as set out in Amendment 137 about removal notices, to uphold a common-law right to access justice. Yesterday, I had the pleasure of being at the Joint Committee on Human Rights session at which the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, gave evidence. We discussed having the common law as an inspiration, as well as the ECHR, in the application of human rights. I am sure the noble Lord will be able to tell me that the Government at least accept Amendment 137.
I do not need to say more because the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, put it very well. To say that evidence is not convincing is one thing; to say that, because it has not been submitted by date X it is incredible or has no weight, is putting process over substance.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak against Clause 25 standing part. I agree with so much of what has already been said. This is a particularly tawdry little clause in an outrageous Bill, which, as we have heard, has been slammed by UNHCR, the custodian of the refugee convention, by the JHCR, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and everybody, it seems, except noble Lords opposite.
My noble friend Lord Coaker need not apologise for not being a lawyer. It is not necessary to be a lawyer to see how tawdry Clause 25 is and how it absolutely puts process over substance.
This area of the law is not about parking regulations, or the tax owed to the Revenue or even major civil or commercial litigation between powerful opposing forces. This is the David and Goliath situation referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. When an asylum seeker presents themselves to whoever—the Border Force or the Home Office—they are putting themselves in the trust of Her Majesty’s Government in the hope that this is the right place to be.
Noble Lords have been making arguments in Committee, and those opposite have been making arguments about forum shopping, wanting better lives and all those things as if they are terrible but, in essence, the refugee convention is about desperate people escaping and having a fair crack at being believed. They may not all be telling the truth. Whether they are or not, they may not all qualify for convention protection, but there should at least be a kind and fair reception and a fair crack of the whip. That means not taking tawdry little process points such as this.
I have been a refugee lawyer, in and outside the Home Office. When I worked as a lawyer in the Home Office—I am going back now to before the new Labour Government, when my first boss was the noble Lord, Lord Howard—we did not take tawdry process points like this. That was in 1996.
In a moment, the ever-avuncular and brilliant advocate, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, will get up and tell us not to worry, because this will come into play only when there are no good reasons. So, fear not, Women for Refugee Women, UNHCR, Amnesty International, ILPA and every other bleeding heart. The Home Secretary would call them activist human rights lawyers and they are perhaps almost as contemptible as refugees in her eyes. The noble Lord will say not to worry because, where there are good reasons, this does not come into play and there will not be an issue about evidence.
But why put this in the statute book? Immigration officers, the Secretary of State, the First-tier Tribunal, the Upper Tribunal and SIAC—these bodies are well capable of looking at evidence and credibility. It is an insult to their intelligence for them to look at whether there were or were not good reasons for late evidence. Sometimes late evidence is incredible and sometimes it is perfectly valid, because there are very good reasons—a host of good reasons, more good reasons than not—in relation to trauma.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
Would the noble Baroness like to say whether evidence is ever deliberately produced late in order that it is impossible to remove people for whom such a decision has been made?
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I have no doubt that that is sometimes the case, but my point is that you do not need Clause 25 to deal with that case, because the decision-makers listed here are well capable of looking at evidence whenever it is served. If the idea is that this is late, incredible or mischievous evidence, or the other concerns of the noble Lord, these decision-makers are capable of getting there by themselves. They do not need this insult to their intelligence that they must give it minimal weight. I never knew about this principle of minimal weight. It has been invented. Sometimes late evidence is good and sometimes it is bad, but this is asylum; refugees are at stake.
The noble Lord opposite always wants to talk about the numbers. He is very concerned about the numbers and I appreciate that, but this is not about numbers. It is about getting decisions right and protecting even the one claimant in a thousand who is the torture victim, who has been persecuted, who may be a child and who may have been trafficked. To turn this into a matter of a parking fine or commercial litigation, in which your case is prejudiced because you were only just advised that being gay is relevant and that you do not have to be afraid to say so, because this is Britain and Hungary, is tawdry. To make that process point, when we are talking about life or death—not big bucks or small bucks but life and death—is totally tawdry.
Clause 25 does not help. If anything, it will make life more difficult for the Home Office because, I promise you, there will be endless litigation about what good reasons are. That is why the amendments are helpful, because they are beginning to tease out what will eventually be the subjects of litigation. We do not need it. We all know that late evidence is sometimes an abuse and is sometimes incredible, but sometimes it emerges because people have only just got decent translators or lawyers, or country or other vital information, which is sometimes hard to get.
I am sorry to hear that the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, is unwell. I am sure that the Committee will join me in wishing her a swift and full recovery.
On the point about identifying documents, let us go back to the history of the refugee convention. Some of the most genuine refugees have to escape without identifying documents, and some of the least oppressed people are the ones who have fantastic documents. That is why Amendment 85 has to go. This is not the biggest problem in a terrible Bill, but Clause 25 is a tawdry little clause, unworthy of Her Majesty’s Government; let us strike it from the Bill.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I have deep concerns about Clauses 17, 19 and 25. Others have already expressed why, so I will not overly repeat myself. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Coaker on brilliantly moving the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Rosser. Equally, I associate myself with the amendments in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, my noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton.
The reality of what is sometimes the last line of defence, not only in LGBTQ issues but in other vulnerable situations, is that it is the last thing you want to have to deal with yourself. Sometimes the very notion of coming out to yourself is deeply painful, because the recognition in certain cultures, countries and religions means to shut yourself off, not only from a body of support, your religion or community, but from your family. Initially, to come out to yourself is a huge step. Then you have to make the decision, day in and day out, whether to come out in other, very ordinary situations. You are here and you have put in your claim, and someone might say, “How was your weekend? Did you spend it with your girlfriend?” You have to decide whether to lie or tell the truth. If you tell the truth, you may become isolated in the asylum community, and perhaps from your country or religion. This is the community that you associated yourself with, to give yourself support and belonging, in a country where you seek to belong. Then you come out in late evidence, with that last line of defence. If your claim is rejected, you are possibly putting yourself in danger at home, in that you could be returned to one of the seven countries where you are criminalised simply for the reason of being LGBTQI+, or to one of the 11 countries where you could face the death penalty.
I remember in the 1990s working on the case of an 18 year-old Iranian who came out in this country. His asylum application was going to be rejected. A group of us were privileged to intervene on his behalf. What that teenager had said publicly would have been recorded and noted back home. We were successful—I do not say this boastfully, but it is one of the few things I am proud of in my life—in preventing that young man being returned to Iran, where, like three other young men in the weeks before, he could have been hung by his neck on the gallows until he was dead. How will the Government deal with exceptional cases where people bring in late evidence in order to substantiate their claim?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 83 and 88, which I have co-signed, and Amendment 96, but there are some other superb amendments. I am not a lawyer—I am not going to apologise for that because I have had an interesting life— but I did get a lawyer to look at this for me; not yet a QC, but obviously it is a possibility. Their thoughts were that these evidence notices treat asylum seekers like criminals—in fact, worse than criminals; they treat asylum seekers as if they were dreadful criminals.
In a criminal case, late evidence might be treated as less compelling than if it had been raised earlier on, but evidence is evidence, and if evidence demonstrates a fact, then that is a fact. Facts do not care about your timescales. Rather than allowing a tribunal to determine how much weight to give the evidence, Clause 25 forces them to give minimal weight if the evidence is supposedly late. Even if it were the most compelling evidence, a tribunal would be forced to give it minimal weight. That really cannot be right; it is not justice. I cannot believe the Minister will stand up—in a few moments, we hope—and say that this is justice. This is an artificial exercise. It is not founded in justice. It is a purely political venture to make it harder and harder for people to claim asylum, and to make it easier for them to be deported. It must be stopped.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendments 82, 84, 86, 90, 91 and 96. I would like to start by taking up the point about the so-called principle specified in Clause 25(2) of the Bill
“that minimal weight should be given to the evidence.”
I am not aware of such a principle. Of course, there can be times when time limits are imposed in a court—and perhaps it can be done by statute—for evidence to be delivered, and if it is not delivered by that time it is excluded. But once evidence is before the court, as the Minister will appreciate, it has to be taken into account even if the relevant evidence—it may be documentary evidence—has been obtained improperly, when it should not have been disclosed or it has been disclosed inadvertently. Once the evidence is there, it is taken into account and given such weight as it is due. We do not have a principle in this country, so far as I am aware, of simply saying that if evidence is late we are not going to have regard to it. That seems to be a denial of justice. I certainly support all those who have spoken against that so-called principle.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his introduction to the difficulties faced by minority groups, particularly LGBTQI groups, in relation to the giving of evidence. In deciding whether there is good cause for late evidence, or for failure to comply in a timely manner with a priority removal notice and so on, all my amendments—apart from one—put forward that there be, on the face of the Bill, a provision so that the difficulties and particular situations of people who have a protected innate or immutable characteristic must be taken into account. I went into this, your Lordships will remember, on Tuesday in relation to Clause 11, and there is no need for me to repeat it. It has been put very well by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Cashman.
Apart from all the difficulties of having discreet, secret lives—particularly in the case of the LGBTQI community—and therefore perhaps not having any evidence as such, seeking information when it is required, and corroboration, from people back in the country from which asylum seekers come poses great difficulties. An asylum seeker will not want to implicate his or her family or friends, because they could suffer as a result. There are all sorts of adverse consequences as a result of conduct that is disapproved of in the many countries that proscribe sex between same-sex couples. There is a combination of a whole variety of things, in addition to all those other points made by people about the difficulty of coming to terms with one’s sexuality.
The same applies for single women. They have many similar problems: the shame of having left an abusive relationship, the shame on the family, the consequences for the family, the clandestine nature necessarily required for those women to come here—and then they may face a male authoritative figure. All these grave difficulties have to be taken into account.
I explained why this ought to be on the face of the Bill, despite the fact that the noble Baroness the Minister said it would all be dealt with in guidance, because, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, said, the record of the Home Office in relation to this is not good. I gave the statistics on Clause 11 earlier this week. In 2018, 29% of LGBTQI applicants were permitted asylum, but on appeal, taking the average from 2015 to 2018, nearly 40% of the appeals succeeded. That reality reflects the grave difficulties and the disbelief faced by these desperate people. That is why noble Lords will see in those amendments—apart from one; I will come to Amendment 91—that they are all to do with putting on the face of the Bill the need to take into account, wherever there is a reference to reasonable cause or what is practicable, the particular protected characteristic of the asylum seeker.
The one that is different is Amendment 91, which is one of the two amendments I have to Clause 22. Clause 22 provides for a new Section 82A to be inserted into the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and provides for “Expedited appeal to Upper Tribunal in certain cases”. For there to be an expedited appeal, the Secretary of State has to
“certify P’s right of appeal”—
that is, the person served with the priority removal notice—as being appropriate
“unless satisfied that there were good reasons for P making the claim on or after the PRN cut-off date (and P’s right of appeal may not be certified if the Secretary of State is satisfied that there were good reasons)”.
What is important is that, whatever the Secretary of State has to be satisfied about, they should be reasonably satisfied. My amendment is to impose a requirement that the Secretary of State can certify the right of appeal under this clause only if satisfied on reasonable grounds, so that there is some principle that can be examined in the light of the particular facts of the case.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee explained, Clause 17 has the potential for time limits to be placed on the submission of evidence in support of an asylum claim. I am immediately reminded of the criminal caution in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which says:
“You do not have to say anything. But, it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court.”
There is no time limit, you notice. I accept it is not a perfect analogy, because we have already established that asylum seekers are not illegal immigrants and, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, this should be an inquisitorial process not an adversarial one.
In this context, a notice served on a claimant saying something along the lines of “It may harm your claim if you do not provide evidence in support of your claim as soon as it is becomes available” seems reasonable. As in criminal cases, it should be left to the court, or in this case the tribunal, to place whatever weight it thinks appropriate on the evidence based on when it was submitted, and if it considers that the timing of submissions reflects on the credibility of the claimant or not. Placing a deadline for the submission of evidence seems completely arbitrary and unreasonable, hence Amendments 78 to 81. How long it takes to secure, collate, and submit evidence will be different in every case, and may be especially delayed in the case of vulnerable claimants for the reasons we discussed on Tuesday, and the reasons noble Lords have explained this afternoon, hence Amendments 78 and 82. Even if the Government want to instruct officials, why not do this through the Immigration Rules, as has always been done?
The rest of Clauses 17 and 18 seem superfluous. To instruct a judicial body by primary legislation what conclusions it must come to when it is presented with evidence appears unnecessary, unreasonable and unconstitutional. I say that not knowing anything about the constitution, but thinking in terms of separation of powers between Executive and judiciary.
Clauses 19, 20 and 21 relate to priority removal notices. These too set an arbitrary deadline that must be complied with—in this case, after which a person is liable to be removed and deported. I say that, but Clause 20(4) says:
“A priority removal notice remains in force … even if the PRN recipient ceases to be liable to … deportation”.
Amendment 87 asks why that is. I am guessing that it is to avoid having to serve a separate evidence notice.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate, which has ranged fairly widely. I will try to cover everything in my response. I start with Amendments 77, 89, 90B and 95A, which were spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on behalf of Lord Rosser.
We acknowledge that there may be many good reasons why an individual is not able to comply with either the requirements of an evidence notice or the requirements of a priority removal notice. We also accept that those good reasons may often be linked to the trauma that they have suffered. Where such reasons exist, they will be fully considered by decision-makers on a case-by-case basis and thereafter by the judicial system, should a claimant appeal the refusal of a human rights or protection claim.
The key point here is that every claim is unique; that is trite to say but none the less true. I therefore suggest it is correct that case-by-case scrutiny is given to all individuals. The good reasons test therefore takes into account objective factors, such as difficulties in obtaining evidence, but it would also include subjective factors, such as an individual’s particular vulnerabilities—related perhaps to their sexual orientation, as the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, mentioned; gender identity; or, indeed, mental and physical health. I suggest that the good reasons test, which I think is appropriate, means that Amendment 77 is unnecessary.
To respond specifically to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, who invited me to parse or gloss what good reasons are and are not, I respectfully say that the test is deliberately open, not circumscribed, to ensure that all relevant factors in the individual case can be considered. Specifically, I can confirm that LGBTQ+ protections will be dealt with in guidance that specifically addresses good reasons and how they may relate to LGBTQ persons and issues, because of course you can have an LGBTQ issue even if you yourself are not LGBTQ.
Further, under Amendment 77, a vulnerable individual who did not fall within the specified groups listed in the amendment may nevertheless be served with an evidence notice. If they provided late evidence, a decision would be needed on whether or not they had good reasons for that lateness; whereas at the same time an individual who happened to fall within the categories set out in the amendment would be free to raise evidence at any time. For reasons that may be entirely unconnected with the reason for their exemption, they would none the less be automatically free from any disadvantage under the system or the consequences in the legislation, based on what is essentially something of a tick-box exercise. I suggest that that would be unfair.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked how the test would apply to children. This was taken up by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, speaking also on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins. Guidance will be published setting out how decision-makers should consider the age of the child in the exercise of their discretion. This should be obvious but let me state it from the Dispatch Box anyway: evidence provided by a child will be considered in the light of their age, degree of mental development, and maturity, currently and at all material times previously. As part of our obligations under the public sector equality duty, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, equality impact assessments have been completed in respect of these clauses. Those assessments incorporate a consideration of the impacts on children.
We are concerned that Amendment 77 could also lead to perverse outcomes, whereby individuals who do not fall into one of the categories identified by the amendment could abuse the process by falsely claiming that they did. That would perpetuate the issues that these clauses are designed to address, to the detriment of genuine claimants, undermining their usefulness.
For similar reasons, Amendments 90B and 95A are unnecessary and would confuse the test to determine the acceptable reasons for something being raised late in response to an evidence notice or a priority removal notice. Unlike the good reasons test, which is fair and is an established principle in the assessment of credibility of an asylum or human rights claim, an unclear and, at least in practice, a rather subjective test of “fairness” risks inconsistent decision-making, which could lead to an increase in uncertainty for both decision-makers and claimants. For those reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to not move her amendments.
Amendment 89 introduces a requirement to publish guidance on good reasons within 30 days of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. This is an arbitrary deadline which is not necessary to include in the Bill. I have already said that good reasons will be set out in published guidance for decision-makers. This will be made available when the measures come into force. The amendment does not assist those in genuine need of protection and would in fact limit the discretion of decision-makers and undermine the effectiveness of the priority removal notices. For those reasons, I invite the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, to not move those various amendments.
I turn to Amendments 84, 90 and 96. In accordance with the public sector equality duty, protected characteristics must be considered by decision-makers when they are considering good reasons for lateness following service of an evidence notice or a priority removal notice. However, it is not intended that the good reasons are limited to the characteristics listed in Chapter 1 of the Equality Act 2010. For example, mental health issues or past trauma do not amount to a disability under the Act, but they will also be considered. These may be as important, perhaps even more important, than a protected characteristic in determining whether or not someone has a good reason for lateness. Therefore, the amendment is not only unnecessary but could have the unwanted effect of leading decision-makers to believe that they should be prioritising a narrower range of factors than those already intended within the Bill itself. I invite that amendment to be not moved.
I turn to Amendment 85, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, and my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe. Again, I associate myself with the remarks of other noble Lords: we wish her well. Clause 18 adds two new behaviours to the existing credibility provisions in Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. It introduces the principles that providing late evidence without good reason or not acting in good faith should be damaging to the claimant’s credibility. Where there are good reasons for providing late evidence, that will not impact on their credibility.
The concept that certain conduct should be damaging to credibility is not new. Decision-makers must consider egregious conduct by the claimant, and it is then open to the Home Office decision-maker or the court to decide the extent to which credibility should subsequently be damaged. The good-faith requirement is intended to address behaviours such as those mentioned in the amendment, as well as any other behaviours that a deciding authority thinks are not in good faith. Therefore, there is no need, I would suggest, to single out, as this amendment does, particular behaviours to highlight them specifically.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, is the Minister saying that in practice—I hope he is—if someone has quite clearly destroyed their documents, that will be taken into account when considering their claim?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I really do not want —as I said earlier—to get into a position of glossing the wording of the Bill. It is very important that decision-makers and the courts are able to look at the Act—I hope that it will become an Act—and not my gloss on it. What they will have to do is to ask themselves whether there are good reasons or other circumstances, and whether the claimant acted in good faith. Those are the tests which they will have to apply. Although it is tempting to do so, I am going to resist the temptation to say that this would be included and that would not be included, because my underlying point is that this has to be assessed on a proper case-by-case basis and the statutory tests applied. I am going to leave it there, because I think I have said it clearly enough.
Let me now turn to Amendment 86A in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. For the priority removal notice to achieve its objective and operate efficiently, it is essential that those who receive the notice should raise any relevant claims and provide information and evidence before the date specified in the notice. That is to ensure that all claims can be considered sufficiently in advance of the person’s removal, reducing the extent to which removal can be frustrated, and to allow those, on the other hand, in need of international protection to be identified and supported as early as possible. For individuals who have received a priority removal notice, there will be standard timescales for recipients to respond, which will be set out in guidance. Guidance for decision-makers will also set out the circumstances where it would be appropriate for these timescales to be adjusted or extended.
When considering whether to extend the standard timescale, decision-makers will be required to take into account a wide range of factors and will not just be limited to the recipient’s experience of, or alleged experience of, sexual or gender-based violence or torture, or modern slavery or trafficking. The approach is certainly not arbitrary, to use the noble Baroness’s word. The guidance will, therefore, actually go further than these amendments and will require decision-makers to consider a wider range of issues when determining what is a reasonable and fair timescale for an individual to be able properly to respond to a PRN. For those reasons, I invite the noble Baroness not to press her amendment.
It should also be noted, while I am on this point, that all recipients of a PRN will receive a legal aid advice offer to support them in responding to the notice. Having experience of sexual or gender-based violence or torture, or modern slavery or trafficking, does not necessarily mean—I underline the word “necessarily”; I do not want to be taken out of context here—that an individual will acquire additional time or a longer period to respond. There are many factors and reasons why an individual may require additional time to respond. Again, each case has to be looked at on its own circumstances. Therefore, we need to adopt a case-by-case approach, and not the approach set out in this amendment.
Turning now to Amendment 87, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, a person who has been issued with a priority removal notice can be subject to the conditions of the notice while it remains in force. That is a 12-month period after the cut-off date or, where a claim is received prior to the cut-off, the 12-month period after they have exhausted their appeal rights. We suggest that that is a reasonable period, which recognises that personal circumstances can change over time.
Lord Etherton (CB)
Is the Minister able to give an assurance that this guidance, which has been referred to a great deal, rather than putting what I would describe as cautionary provisions in the Act itself, will be ready before the Act comes into force and will be made sufficiently public so that there can be discussion and consideration of it by the general public?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I think I was asked a similar question, in a different context, on the police Bill. I will give the same answer, not least because I am conscious that a lot of these provisions are actually Home Office provisions. I can assure the noble and learned Lord that I will write to him with the answer to that question, so that when this matter comes back he will be in possession of the answer—rather than make an educated guess, which might turn out to be slightly inaccurate, from the Dispatch Box. I hope that is sufficient.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, on that very important point, perhaps the Minister will take back to the Home Office that this Committee would very much like the guidance to be published in draft form in good time so that Members of the House and others can look at it.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am sorry for interrupting, but I am becoming a little confused again, I am afraid, probably because we have been at this for a very long time and it is very late and so forth. Is the Minister saying that the deadline that is set for the submission of evidence will be set on a case-by-case basis, for example, if the applicant is particularly vulnerable? If vulnerabilities come to notice that were not initially brought to the notice of the decision-maker, will the deadline then be adjusted and perhaps extended as a consequence of that? Although there might be general guidance about what the deadline might be in every case, is it movable and adjustable in every case and might it be adjusted further as the case progresses? In which case, why on earth is this part of the Bill?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
Let me come to that point in a second. First, let me say that I almost took it as implicit in the request from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, that the Committee would like to have the guidance, but I have heard the point made, and I will certainly pass it on. I do not want to go over points I have already made, and I think when the noble Lord looks in Hansard, he will see that I have set out quite clearly why, first, we need to have a system whereby, in particular cases, the date can be extended or adjusted, but also, secondly, why that does not undercut the principle of actually having a date and having this structure. However, I am very happy to look again at what the noble Lord has just said. If, having read it, it seems to me that I can add to what I have already said, I will; otherwise, I respectfully direct him to what I said earlier.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
It may be that, because it has been a long day, I have missed something, or it may be that I have jumped the gun and the Minister was about to come to this point, but I have not yet heard the justification for having Clause 25 at all.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
There are a number of ways of skinning this particular cat because there are separate amendments but common themes. If when I am about to sit down, I have not dealt with it fully, I am sure the noble Baroness will intervene, but I will try to come to Clause 25 head on.
However, I was going to go next to Amendments 82A and 82B, both in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Different elements of Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 have different thresholds in how they are applied to the facts of a case and how credibility is consequently damaged. Clause 18 is drafted to take this into account, so that decision-makers will take into account the relevant thresholds on a case-by-case basis. Clause 18 will encourage claimants to engage with the process in good faith and, along with the measures relating to late evidence in Clauses 17 and 25, to provide evidence in support of their claim at the earliest opportunity. As I said earlier, we think that by encouraging people to bring all their evidence upfront in protection or human rights claims, we can protect those who need protection and identify any unmeritorious claims as early as possible.
Turning to Amendment 82B, the good faith requirement is intended, as I think is obvious, to address behaviours that a deciding authority thinks are not in good faith. Where an individual who makes a protection or human rights claim exhibits a pattern of non-compliant behaviour during their dealings with immigration authorities, their credibility should be damaged to reflect that behaviour. It is also designed to stop claimants deliberately obstructing the one-stop and expedited judicial process—for example, by not taking up our enhanced legal aid offer and then making a last-minute claim based on lack of access to legal advice. The good faith requirement therefore goes further than the behaviours currently described in Section 8 of the 2004 Act. It puts beyond doubt that past behaviour that is deliberately designed to frustrate or delay proceedings should be damaging to the claimant’s credibility. We think that is right, for the reasons I have outlined.
I turn to Amendments 83 and 88, which would remove the credibility provisions in Clauses 18 and 21. For the reasons that I set out earlier, we think that it is entirely reasonable to require evidence in support of a protection of human rights claim, or a claim of being a victim of modern slavery, to be provided in a timely manner, unless there are good reasons why that is not possible.
However, I underline that a person’s credibility is not necessarily determinative of their claim under the current rules and procedures, and the Bill does not change that. Decision-makers will still be required to consider credibility in the round, as they currently do, and, where a person has raised evidence late, which causes delay and wasted resource, it is right that decision-makers consider whether there is any merit in the reasons for that lateness.
I turn now to Amendment 90A, again in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. We recognise that, due to an person’s individual circumstances, it may be harder for them to provide material in a timely manner. Since this is essentially an amendment to Amendment 90 in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, I respectfully direct the noble Baroness to the response that I gave to the noble and learned Lord.
As I am on the noble and learned Lord’s amendments, I will now deal with Amendment 91 on reasonable grounds. It is right that, where an individual has been assessed as a priority for removal or deportation, they should avail themselves of the associated legal aid advice offer and provide any matters listed within Clause 19(3)(a) before the cut-off date and they should provide reasons for lateness where a late claim is raised, under subsection (7).
Decision-makers cannot reasonably be expected to speculate on or investigate why an individual who has received a removal notice and associated legal aid advice offer would raise a late protection or human rights claim. If no reasons for lateness are provided, or if the reasons provided are not considered to be good reasons, it would be clear to the decision-maker that any appeal must be subject to the expedited appeals process. In answer to the noble and learned Lord, I say that the good reasons test is adequate and sufficient.
The clause already provides significant safeguards for recipients of a PRN in the form of the legal aid advice provision and the good reasons test for individuals who raise late claims. I set out earlier what those good reasons can amount to. It is a very open-ended test. Therefore, I respectfully suggest to the noble and learned Lord that the amendment is unnecessary and, indeed, would risk complicating an otherwise straightforward and, I suggest, suitable test.
I turn now to Amendment 95 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, but spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. By introducing a statutory requirement to provide evidence before a specified date, the Bill redresses the current balance. It is right that decision-makers should have regard to the principle —I underline “principle”—that minimal weight is given to evidence that is late, following receipt of either an evidence notice or a priority removal notice, without good reason.
I will come to the thrust of Clause 25 in a second, but I will first say that this amendment would place an obligation on decision-makers, not only in the Home Office but also the judiciary, to accept that there were good reasons for late evidence in all asylum and human rights cases where either the claimant or the claim type fell into one of the listed categories. That would remove the requirement that decision-makers should have regard to the principle that minimal weight should be given to the evidence. That would be the case even if the reason for lateness was wholly unconnected to the category of claim or the personal factors. No causal link between the two is set out in the amendment. I respectfully suggest that that is overly prescriptive and would tie the hands of the decision-maker. Of course, in all cases, the decision-maker can take these matters into account—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
It is not my amendment so maybe it could be worded better. The noble Lord gave great emphasis to the case-by-case basis earlier, which sounds very reasonable, and he talked about subjective factors. Has he read the recent research from the British Red Cross about women seeking asylum? It found that frequently their claims are met with disbelief and they are not treated very well at all. There is a lack of recognition of gender-based violence that they may be fleeing from, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, talked about earlier. I suggest that the noble Lord and those responsible for this clause look at this research, because I worry about putting so much emphasis on subjective factors and the case-by-case basis.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I think I have received the email from the Red Cross, as I think it emailed everyone. I have set up a folder for all these briefings, so I do not want to say that I have read it, but if I have been sent it I certainly have it and will read it. However, due to pressures of other business, I cannot say that I have read all the material yet.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I absolutely understand—I do not think it was in its general briefing, but it produced a separate report last week or the week before, and it is worth looking at.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
In that case, I will certainly read it over the weekend. I know that those in the Home Office responsible for this area are obviously looking at the debate and will have picked up what the noble Baroness has said.
I was just dealing with Amendment 95, after which I will come to Clause 25 itself. I lost count of how many times the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, used the word “tawdry”. It really is not, if I may say so. We obviously disagree, and I will make no comparisons either to parking fines or international commercial litigation. At one point it seemed to me that the noble Baroness was saying that, on the one hand, this clause was terrible and, on the other, that this is what tribunals do in any event and we can trust them to do the right thing.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am saying that, if we trust—as I am sure the Government do—immigration officers, the Secretary of State, the First-tier Tribunal, et cetera, to be intelligent, effective operators in the system, they are by definition capable of looking at late evidence on a case-by-case, open-textured, well-reasoned basis and determining those occasions where there is a good reason and those where there is not. That goes without saying, so why do we have to have this diktat in the Bill, with “must” give it “minimal weight”? I suspect it is because, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, suggested, the Government are trying to dictate to the tribunals in particular what is and is not a good reason. That is the sinister aspect of this. It is also impractical, because you then have to have arguments about what is and is not a good reason. I promise the Minister that this will be litigated ad nauseam. It would be better, as he said to other noble Lords, to leave this to open-textured judgment and decision-makers who are capable of applying it.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
As regards the in terrorem threat that things will be litigated ad nauseam, I am tempted to say that that is not really a change from the current position. More substantively, and with respect, to say that the clause sets out that the tribunal “must give … minimal weight” to the evidence, as the noble Baroness just put it, is not what it does at all.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
It does not do that either.
It does not say that the tribunal “must give the evidence minimal weight”; it says that the tribunal
“must, in considering it, have regard to the principle that minimal weight should be given to the evidence”.
The tribunal is perfectly entitled to say, “Well, we’ve looked at that principle. Actually, we’re not going to apply it here”—for reasons A, B and C. There is no requirement and no fettering of the tribunal; there is no compulsion that the evidence be given minimal weight. What the decision-maker has to do is have regard to the principle that minimal weight should be given to any late evidence unless there are good reasons why it is provided late.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I promise that this is my final intervention on the Minister, but I do not understand why we have to have the provision at all. He is saying that it is perfectly open-textured enough, that good reasons do not have to be specified in the Bill because the Government are not going to put glosses on it or be overly prescriptive, that they can be objective good reasons or subjective good reasons, that it is only about having regard to the new principle that they are inventing et cetera. Why have this at all?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
It is because there is absolutely nothing wrong with Parliament saying to a tribunal, “We want you to have regard to this principle, but of course the final decision is yours”. We do that in other areas of the law as well. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, kindly said, I gave evidence yesterday to her committee in what I hope was an interesting session. One thing we talked about was Section 12 of the Human Rights Act. The layout there was not a million miles away from this. It too gives a very clear direction to the court, but ultimately it is the court’s decision. I find it slightly surprising that, on the one hand, the noble Baroness is saying that this is tawdry and dreadful but, on the other, is saying, “Actually, you don’t need it all because the same result is going to eventuate”. Both points cannot be right at the same time.
As we all know, the asylum and the legal systems in this regard are overwhelmed. We see repeated unmeritorious claims at the very last minute designed to delay removal. This clause is a proper part of an overall system to make sure that we give protection to those who need it—I always put that first; that is the most important thing—and at the same time to identify unmeritorious claims.
Finally, Amendment 137 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and spoken to by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, seeks to implement a recommendation made by the JCHR in its ninth report. Of course, we welcome the JCHR’s positive comments on Clause 45. Migrants who are subject to removal must be given sufficient opportunity to access justice. The clause improves and enhances the status quo. It gives a statutory guarantee that migrants will receive a minimum notice period of five working days. As a result, some migrants will get more time compared to the current policy. It introduces a separate statutory requirement for a notice of departure details to be provided to the migrant before removal.
On a practical level, Clause 45 will be supplemented by policy guidance that accords further respect to the common-law right to access to justice. I say respectfully that it is not clear to me what deficiency in Clause 45 Amendment 137 tries to address. I would genuinely welcome engagement from the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to identify what offending aspects of Clause 45 there may be and how Amendment 137 would solve them.
Therefore, having taken probably too much of the Committee’s time already, I invite the various noble Lords to consider not pressing their amendments.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this very important debate. I also thank the Minister. Yes, it was a long reply, but it was an important one and it did not take up too much time. Sometimes long replies are needed, and the Minister was right to take the time that he took to respond. There are a large number of points on which I could reply to the Minister, but it is clear that we will have to come back to some of them on Report.
If the Minister does not mind me chiding him slightly, I will say that that was a bit of a “no worries, no problem” defence: “Everything is fine. It will all be sorted in guidance, although we will not see it until some future time. Do not worry about the children problem that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, raised, because we have all taken into account the sensitivity of children and how old they are. Do not worry about LGBTQI because they will all be very reasonable. Do not worry about the good reasons either—it will all be sorted. Good reasons mean good reasons. Nobody will do anything about it if the reasons are good.”
One example where the Minister was in trouble at the end essentially concerned Clause 25(2). When is a principle not a principle? Is it a principle when it is written down? I love the phrase “have regard to”; it is always put in. The Minister said that we do not have to take X or Y into account. In a sense, he agreed with the JCHR that a better word would be “may” instead of “must”. This is quite a significant change—something may be taken into account, or it may not be. At the moment, it says “must”. This is the problem with which he was trying to wrestle—first, whether there is a principle at all, and secondly, whether “may” or “must” should be used.
The Government are seeking to deal with the problem that the asylum system is in chaos. Half the decisions are overturned on appeal. Panic has broken out. The Government say, “We cannot have this. The public are going mad. Everybody is dissatisfied. We will get more and more of this. Everyone is making late appeals. They are not abiding by the rules. We have to do something.” A whole series of new measures is being taken to overcome a bureaucratic problem. In the end, it needs good—probably trained—decision-making, speedily done, to get a system that works. The Government will not address the very real problem in the Bill, particularly in respect of late priority notices, except on a piece of paper. In a year or two or three, there will be a Nationality and Borders Bill mark 2. If they are not careful, whoever is in government—I hope it will be a different Government—will be panicking in the face of it not working. They will bring in other measures.
Much of what has quite rightly been raised by noble Lords across the Chamber will have to be revisited on Report. I thank the Minister again for his courtesy and for the time and trouble he took to try to respond. Finally, the sooner we have a look at the guidance, the better. It is very frustrating when the Government say that they will publish the guidance and it is published after the Bill is passed. We deserve to see the guidance as soon as possible. I would be very grateful if the Minister could pass this on. I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have put my name to the proposal that Clauses 22 and 23 should not stand part of the Bill. When I first saw the term “expedited appeals”, my antennae twitched. It sounds such a benign and helpful term but then so did “detained fast track”—the accelerated process for considering asylum claims introduced in 2002, involving detention immediately after the asylum screening interview, which was followed shortly by the substantive interview, with a decision the following day and two days to appeal. The High Court found that the DFT, as operated, carried
“an unacceptably high risk of unfairness”
to vulnerable or potentially vulnerable applicants, and to that extent it found it to be unlawful, and the Home Office eventually suspended it. Expedited appeals are not the same but some of the issues are really quite similar.
As we have been discussing, the Bill of course provides for priority removal notices to be served on anyone liable for removal or deportation; we have discussed the cut-off date for the provision of evidence. However, it does not set out the factors that may lead to a PRN being issued. That is left solely to Home Office guidance. I support what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, just said about needing to see guidance—but only so far because guidance, by definition, can be changed and although we may be reassured in February 2022, come February 2025 things might look quite different, with the same Government or another Government producing rather different guidance.
Listening to the previous debate, I was concerned that for an appropriate date to be set, the Home Office needs to know whether somebody is vulnerable, but it will know that only after the event of the notice. I understand the difficulty of trying to start without a starting point, which is the point that the Minister was making. Without a date, you cannot look further, but the extension of that is important. I found it quite difficult to follow all that. I am mentioning it now because it is part and parcel of the same issue and certainly Hansard will require careful reading.
The PRN will remain in force until 12 months after the cut-off date or exhaustion of appeal rights. We have talked about whether or not there is a principle. Clause 22 provides for an expedited appeal route for appellants who have been served a PRN and have made a claim on or after the cut-off date but while the PRN is still in force. In that circumstance, the Secretary of State may “certify”—an interesting term in itself—that any right of appeal against a Home Office refusal will be to the Upper Tribunal instead of the First-tier Tribunal. The Secretary of State can also certify that she or he is satisfied that there are good reasons for making the claim on or after the date. I cannot think of an alternative to what is probably an inappropriate term about being judge and jury in your own case, but I think noble Lords will understand what I mean.
The result of an appeal being certified is that one tier of appeal—the First-tier Tribunal—is lost. Under the Bill, the rules must provide for expedited appeals in the Upper Tribunal to be determined more quickly than an ordinary appeal in the First-tier Tribunal and allow for the Upper Tribunal to make an order that the expedited appeals process may—I stress “may”—not apply
“if it is satisfied that is the only way to secure that justice is done in the case of a particular expedited appeal”.
When someone is subject to the expedited process, Clause 23 provides that any other appeals they may have, for instance
“in respect of protection and human rights claims … deprivation of citizenship … EU citizens’ rights”
and so on, are dealt with as a related expedited appeal.
Ousting the jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal, and so prohibiting an appeal from a first-instance decision, is clearly a significant matter. It would give no one the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal and, necessarily, not to the Supreme Court afterwards either. As we have discussed, the appeals concerned involve international protection rights, human rights, European Union and EEA citizens’ rights and the deprivation of citizenship, all areas where the UK has bound itself to abide by international agreements. For such a fundamental right as the right not to be sent back to a country where one is at risk of persecution to be excluded from an onward appeal to the Court of Appeal—even if the decision of the Upper Tribunal contains an error of law or a breach of natural justice—is extraordinary. This is not a criticism of the Upper Tribunal in any way; it is just not how things should be done. Removing Clauses 22 and 23 would leave the existing appeals structure in place.
How will one challenge Upper Tribunal decisions if these clauses stand? My noble friend made a caveat about the use of “constitutionality” but I think that it applies here, as well as on the impact on the rule of law. The Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House said in its report:
“The House may wish to consider the effect of clause 23 on the functioning of the appeals process and consequently on access to justice.”
That is quite strong stuff for a Lords committee.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I apologise but, in the war of attrition that this Bill has become, we seem to have lost any contributions other than from the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Front Bench.
Bearing that in mind, I will add to what my noble friend said rather than repeat anything she said. This clause smacks of the Home Office trying to remove or deport people before they have had a reasonable chance to appeal against a removal or deportation decision. No doubt it is embarrassing when repeated stories emerge of government charter flights taking off almost empty because the courts ruled that the majority of those with a seat on the plane should not be deported, but the answer is not to deport them before they have a reasonable chance to put their case before the courts. The answer is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the Home Office to ensure that there is a cast-iron case for deportation that cannot be overturned in the courts at the last minute. Yet again, the Bill focuses on the wrong solution to the problem.
I am sure the Minister will agree that as the Home Office becomes better at making its decisions and more and more appeals are turned down, as opposed to the current situation where the majority are accepted by the tribunals, there will be fewer appeals as lawyers say to their clients “Look at what’s happening now. There’s absolutely no point in appealing.” That is the answer to this problem, not Clauses 22 and 23.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, the Bill’s system of penalisation includes curtailing appeal rights, as set out in Clauses 22 and 23. These clauses create an expedited appeal route for those who have been served with a priority removal notice and who have provided evidence or a claim after the PRN cut-off date. Most importantly, the right of appeal would be limited to the Upper Tribunal. However, where a person provides a good reason for lateness, they will not be subject to this clause.
Clause 23 wraps certain other appeals a person may have into the expedited appeals process, further restricting appeal rights. The Government say the reason this clause is needed is prevent delaying tactics, remove incentives for late claims and protect the system from abuse. It is probably fair to say that in this Bill, where so much of it is driven by the party-political considerations of the Government, they will be part of the so-called lefty-lawyers amendments—we have one or two others—who seem to have become the bête noire as far as this Government are concerned.
As has been said, I have added my name to the clause stand parts to Clauses 22 and 23, to start, at least, to probe concerns that have been raised about these provisions. The Law Society, the Public Law Project and Justice have recommended that these clauses be removed from the Bill. The UNHCR has raised legal concerns. I suggest that these are not concerns the Government should take lightly.
The UNHCR has said the expedited appeals process, as designed under Clause 22, risks “miscarriages of justice”. Its legal observations agree, as do we, that accelerated processes can be appropriate for
“manifestly unfounded or repeat claims, as long as they are sufficiently flexible and contain adequate safeguards to ensure that they can be determined fairly and justly.”
The UNHCR is, though, entirely clear that appeals
“should not be accelerated … for reasons that are unrelated to their merits.”
The widespread expediting of appeals under these sections is, in the words of the UNHCR, “arbitrary” and
“unrelated to considerations of justice or efficiency.”
It risks people having their human rights violated as a result of a truncated appeals process for asylum claims. The incorrect decision can cost an individual their safety, security and livelihood.
Clause 23 is particularly troubling on the “arbitrary” point as it joins certain pre-existing appeals to the expedited process, even where they pre-date the priority removal notice and were made entirely on time. I ask the Government: what in this clause actually targets the expedited process on vexatious and unmerited claims? That is the reason Ministers give for why the clause is needed but, as far as I can see, it is not what the clause as drafted achieves.
I will make a couple of further points. First, the Public Law Project has said that making a system quicker is patently not the same as making it efficient. In order to be efficient, a system must move both more quickly and more accurately.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, in the last group I spoke at some length. This time I hope to be more brief. The principles have been discussed in some other groups and the points at issue are of relatively narrow ambit, although they are important.
Clause 22 creates a new expedited appeal that will be heard in the Upper Tribunal. Too often, those facing removal or deportation utilise delay tactics to thwart removal action, such as withholding relevant information in their initial claim, which can be used later if they are first refused, resulting in late and repeated claims and subsequent appeals. That is both costly and an unfair burden on the courts and tribunals system. With this clause, appeals in relation to late human rights or protection claims brought by recipients of a PRN are determined quickly, with decisions being final. That removes the incentive for bringing late claims.
Where a person provides good reasons for a late claim, their right of appeal will not be certified as an expedited appeal. Furthermore, the Committee will note in Clause 22(5) that the Upper Tribunal retains discretion and when it considers that the only way that justice can be done in an individual appeal is to remit to the First-tier Tribunal, that is what it will do. Therefore, while I agree with the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, that better decision-making is important and certainly part of the answer, I do not accept the implication of their contributions, that it is the only answer. This is also an important thing that we can do to improve the system.
Clause 23 works together with Clause 22 to ensure that individuals cannot utilise the appeal system as a tool for delay. Clause 22 provides expedited appeals to be determined quickly and finally by the Upper Tribunal. There may be additional rights generated by other claims that an individual may want to exercise in parallel with an expedited appeal. Those other appeals might usually be heard in the First-tier Tribunal. Therefore, without Clause 23, an expedited appeal might have concluded but there would be an outstanding appeal in the First-tier Tribunal, which would prevent removal. Clause 23 provides that the other related appeals will be heard by the Upper Tribunal at the same time, so provides a suitable one-stop shop. Again, there is a safeguard to ensure that in cases where the Upper Tribunal thinks that justice can be done only by continuing the appeal in the First-Tier Tribunal, it can do that. That is the burden of Clause 23(7).
For those reasons, which are brief but, I hope, persuasive, I beg to move that Clause 22 stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Ludford
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to amend the Bill to provide those receiving a slavery or human trafficking information notice with an equivalent amount of civil legal services support as for those receiving a priority removal notice.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, as I said in an earlier group, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who is the lead signatory of these amendments, could not stay so I am moving our amendments in this and the last group.
Clauses 65 and 66 amend LASPO—the Legal Aid, Sentencing and something Act—to allow for people already in receipt of legal aid for an immigration, asylum or human rights claim, under the exceptional case determination procedure, to receive legal aid advice in relation to a referral into the national referral mechanism, whereby they seek a positive reasonable grounds decision as a potential victim of slavery or human trafficking.
However, these provisions help only victims who already receive legal aid and know how to ask for it. It does not cover all victims. Exceptional case funding for legal aid is very difficult to secure in practice, so Clauses 65 and 66 will help only a small number of people, not least, as the Anti-slavery Commissioner has noted, because it requires a lot of time-consuming work up front to get that exceptional case funding and the solicitor is paid only if the application is successful.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights supports the request of the Anti-slavery Commissioner that legal aid advice of seven hours—or preferably more, as my noble friend’s Amendment 94A probes—should also be available to those in receipt of a slavery or trafficking notice in the same way as for those in receipt of a priority removal notice, to avoid victims of severe trauma remaining unidentified and unassisted. The Joint Committee on Human Rights, like others in Parliament, as I know from these Benches, has also repeatedly expressed its concern about legal aid deserts, but that is a wider debate. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have Amendment 94A in this group. I am sorry that I could not respond to the Minister on the previous group, but I am sure we will come back to that. I was going to observe that the Chamber seemed largely to have cleared, possibly because other noble Lords could not bear this Bill any longer today, but some noble Lords have rejoined us.
It is clearly better that legal aid is available than not, but I am aware, as my noble friend is, of the shortage of provision and some of the problems here. I would say that it is not a matter for today, but actually it probably is. It is very significant, because the words in the Bill will not provide the advice. The Minister has referred two or three times very confidently to the legal aid offer; we are concerned to ensure that that offer has substance.
I have heard over the years of the difficulties of solicitors—if you can find one—advising and taking instructions in immigration removal centres, with the restrictions there on time, of 30 minutes eaten into by the client having to be fetched and then returned. I do not need to say again, but I will in one sentence, that the client often needs a lot of time over a period to tell his or her story.
My amendment seeks to understand how the Government have landed on seven hours. The Minister gently chided me for the use of the term “arbitrary” before. I will acknowledge that my proposal of 20 hours is arbitrary, but it is my way of probing why the Bill provides for seven hours. I asked ILPA whether that would be sufficient, and the reply was:
“I do not think seven hours of legal aid is sufficient to advise on the notice, the person’s immigration status, the lawfulness of removal, and immigration detention. The immigration system is complex, and the Bill makes it more complex through the expedited processes, priority notices, and new definitions/standards … It is also of concern”
that the Bill
“would allow a power to alter that 7 hour time limit.”
There must have been evidence for coming to the seven hours. If that is so, what evidence would the Minister apply to reduce that figure—or indeed extend it? ILPA says it does not
“have a sense as to the specific number of hours needed for this advice, as it would be so case-specific,”
which is entirely understandable,
“including the immigration and procedural history of the case, novelty of any legal arguments, number of bases on which to raise a claim, the legality of detention”
and so on. So I hope that the Minister can flesh out this provision in the Bill so we can understand what the Government think can be achieved with the seven hours of scarce legal aid.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for the reasons my noble friend Lady Ludford has explained. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee has explained, Amendment 94A is not to replace one arbitrary number with another but to probe how much legal aid should be provided in such cases. The Minister described, in a previous group, how cases are of different complexity and how people will be given more time to secure and collate evidence if they are from a vulnerable background. For example, if they come from an LGBTQIA background, they are less likely to be able to acquire evidence quickly, and therefore, the date on the notice they are given would change even during the process. Surely that points to the fact that each and every case is different and will require a different amount of legal aid, depending on how much aid is needed to advise in each particular circumstance. I understand that people who are in this situation do need legal aid, but surely the number of hours should be as case-specific and flexible as the deadline date of any notice for them to submit their evidence.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
We too support the amendments we are debating. I suppose, in a sense, this clause is a rare section of the Bill, in that we welcome it but desire it to go much further, as has already been said. Amendment 94A is a probing amendment, but it is a very valid one, because, clearly, the Government have come to the view that the seven hours of support that will be available will be sufficient.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have contributed. These amendments obviously deal with matters of legal aid, and I remind the Committee that LASPO is the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act, just to put everybody out of their misery—otherwise they will not be able to sleep when they get home. I will be quick, but I will just make one point: with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, this is not a matter of generosity. This is not about the Government being generous. I do not want to sound high-falutin’, but this is about the rule of law. Abiding by the rule of law is not a matter of generosity; it is simply non-negotiable, and this provision is in the Bill because it is a proper and necessary thing to do.
Amendment 93 and 94 seek to provide up to seven hours of free legal aid to individuals with a slavery or trafficking notice. They are unnecessary because existing legal aid rules will already ensure that individuals can receive more than seven hours of advice if they receive a slavery or trafficking notice. The key point to bear in mind—and I accept that this is complex—is that a slavery or trafficking notice can be issued only to individuals who have made a protection or human rights claim. That is relevant because it means that they are already within the immigration system and legal aid is already available in order to make that protection or human rights claim. So, in a case where an individual is in receipt of legal aid for their protection or human rights claim and they then receive a slavery or trafficking notice, they are already entitled to advice on that notice as part of their protection or human rights claim. Importantly, there is no limit on the number of hours that can be provided on someone’s protection or human rights claim. Legal advice is available until the matter is resolved, and it may well be for considerably more than the seven hours—or, indeed, 20 hours.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I am really sorry, I know we are looking at the clock, but if I have understood it, and I am sure the Minister is briefed to the hilt, the problem is that he who has, gets more, as it were. If you are already in the asylum system and then you get the notice, you will get even more legal aid—but what if you have not already made a protection claim? What about those people?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The noble Baroness must have had access to my notes, because that was just the point I was going to make. I have written down here that I know the Committee will ask about individuals who are not receiving legal aid for their protection or human rights claim—and sure enough, the Committee did. My answer is that there could be multiple reasons for an individual not receiving legal aid in those circumstances. The individual might not have passed the means or merits test, and those two tests, as the Committee will know, are there to ensure that legal aid is targeted at those most in need who cannot afford advice themselves. That is one possibility, and I will come back to that in a moment. Another possibility—and this does happen—is that the individual has just made an application to the Home Office by themselves and has not sorted out a lawyer. If so, I would strongly encourage them to seek out a legal aid lawyer, who would be able to provide more than the seven hours of advice that could be provided.
Turning to Amendment 94A, the short answer to why we have specified up to seven hours in Clause 24 is that a balance must be struck between giving free legal advice and using taxpayers’ money responsibly. Seven hours is intended to reflect that this is an opportunity for initial legal advice to help individuals understand what the notice is and what it is requiring them to. It is available on a non-means-tested and non-merits-tested basis. That means that anyone with a PRN is guaranteed access to legal aid for up to seven hours, but it does not mean that, after seven hours, there is no further access to legal aid. Some individuals will need further advice; it is not intended that seven hours will resolve every immigration issue. At the end of the seven hours, any individual who has an issue within the scope of the legal aid scheme and who passes the means and merits test will be eligible for ongoing legal advice funded by legal aid until the matter is resolved.
I am conscious that that gets us into the territory of means and merits tests. I answered an Oral Question in this area on Tuesday, when I said that there was a review of the means test under way at the moment, on which I have personally spent a lot of time. I hope very much that we will soon be able to go out for consultation on that. We are conducting a really thorough review of the means test.
Finally, I will address the noble Baroness’s concerns that the exceptional case funding scheme might not be up to standard. Respectfully, I disagree. That scheme is specifically designed to act as a safety net and to provide legal-aid funding to individuals who can demonstrate that, without it, their human rights might be breached. In 2019-20, of the immigration cases that applied for exceptional case funding, 80% were granted legal aid, so that shows that the system works. We are continuing to work with legal aid practitioners and the Legal Aid Agency to improve the scheme if we can.
For the reasons that I have set out, I hope that the noble Baroness, speaking also for the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will be content to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
Before my noble friend responds, could the Minister at least acknowledge that it is not just a matter of hours? It is a matter of the difficulties of finding a legal aid lawyer and the very clear existence of legal aid deserts and so on? Even when it is not a desert, there are difficulties which are, to a very considerable extent, related to the terms for the lawyers themselves. I do not know whether it ever occurred to the noble Lord that he might pursue a career in legal aid; he probably felt as guilty as I used to, when I was in practice as a solicitor, that my firm did not do legal aid, or at least it gave up doing it. That is partly because you need to specialise in legal aid, as well as the subject that you are dealing with, and that is very difficult for a lot of lawyers. It has led to two classes of lawyers, and that is a very bad thing.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The noble Baroness’s question is quite broad. She knows that we have had a number of discussions about legal aid, which will continue. I did not do much legal aid in my practice. I do not want to advertise from the Dispatch Box, but my brother-in-law is one of the finest criminal legal aid solicitors in London—I am sure that no one here will ever need his services, but he is absolutely brilliant, none the less.
More seriously, I am very conscious of the need to make sure that people have access to a lawyer with the relevant skill set, because a general right to legal aid is not much use if you cannot find a legal aid lawyer—I absolutely appreciate that. On Tuesday, I explained some of the efforts that we are making in this area. To say any more now might trespass on the Committee’s patience, but I am obviously well aware of this point.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I appreciate the care with which the Minister has responded to these amendments. Although he started by saying that they were unnecessary, he conceded that there is a group of people who do not get legal aid. We might differ in our views on how meritorious they are in any claim for legal aid, but he said that they could find a solicitor and get legal aid that way—but that might not be the easiest thing in the world, for reasons that include what was just discussed. I am afraid that I am not really persuaded.
I will read the Minister’s remarks in Hansard, but I do not think that he denied that there are people who do not get legal aid. The fact that the anti-slavery commissioner was on the case with the JCHR shows that it is not just these Benches over here that think that this is an issue. For the time being, I have to accept that the Minister has given his response and I cannot get any further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Ludford
(a) any relevant appeal brought in relation to the decision would be likely to be disposed of expeditiously; and(b) any relevant appeal brought in relation to the decision could be resolved within the time limits set out in subsection (3) without giving rise to unfairness or injustice.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to limit the cases that are brought within the accelerated detained appeals process, to prevent unfairness or injustice arising.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
This clause is about accelerated detained appeals. In moving Amendment 97 I will also cover Amendment 99, both of which I have signed. As I have said, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is leading on these amendments, but he has had to leave.
I support the deletion from the Bill of Clauses 26 and 27 in order that claimants should retain a meaningful right of appeal. The Government are trying to revive, though with an even wider scope, the detained fast-track system, despite the fact that their arguments were rejected by the Court of Appeal in 2015 and later by the Tribunal Procedure Committee. These provisions would deny access to justice, including for the reason that five days is far too short for a claimant to prepare an appeal, particularly if they are detained—it is even worse if they are in prison or a detention centre. Clause 26 would apply to a greater number of people even than the detained fast track, including those facing deportation.
The Home Office has been struck down and rebuffed twice but is coming back for more. Its decision-making is frequently flawed and unlawful. As we have heard this afternoon, half of all appeals against immigration decisions were successful in the year to June 2019, so people must have access to effective means of appeal.
After the Court of Appeal declared the detained fast track unlawful in 2015, the Government tried to revive it in tribunal rules. However, the Tribunal Procedure Committee said that if the rules were to operate fairly, which is vital given the high stakes for the claimant, they needed procedural safeguards—an additional case management hearing, for example—such that there was no guarantee of a fast conclusion of the appeal. By trying short cuts, the Government are yet again creating more potential delays. Justice cannot be achieved with the kind of short cuts the Government are trying in this Bill.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness is right to say this is the detained fast track brought back again, in effect. I simply say that this is a very good idea. Leaving aside the detail, if experienced officials can see that a case is really very unlikely to be a genuine one, there should be a fast track and the person should be detained. The details can be sorted, but it is the right way to go. It is what we need to do, given the enormous wave of applications we are now receiving.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I speak in support of the amendment in my name in relation to Clause 26, Amendment 98. It is that
“The Secretary of State may not give … certification if the appellant claims to have a protected characteristic … which is innate or immutable, and that the characteristic is relevant to the appeal.”
Cases in which the appellant is an asylum seeker who has an innate and immutable protected characteristic that is relevant to the appeal are not appropriate for the very short timescale set out in Clause 26(3). I think the noble Lord the Minister himself acknowledged, and the noble Baroness the Minister accepted earlier, that many of these cases raise difficult issues and that guidance that we wait to see will be issued to provide assistance. The paradigm case again is that of the LGBTQ+ asylum seeker. Establishing whether or not they are in fact LGBTQ, the adequacy of the evidence in support on that issue—whether or not there is a genuine fear of persecution because of that characteristic, whether what they have done in relation to pursuing their claim has been reasonable, even if it was not always in compliance with the required time limits—makes their appeal inappropriate for an accelerated appeal.
Once again I say, as others have said, that this conclusion is reinforced by the significant proportion of successful appeals that have been brought by LGB refugees. That is something we simply cannot ignore. Nearly 40% of appeals taken in the period from 2015 to 2018 succeeded.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, for the reasons I explained in a previous group, accelerating appeals processes is not the solution to the last-minute successful appeals against removal or deportation. Rather, it is improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the Home Office. Clause 26 is another clause with the wrong solution to the problem, and while Amendments 97 to 99 seek to limit the damage that accelerated appeals might cause, it is more lipstick on more pigs.
To my shame, I am struggling to keep my head above water on this Bill and asking that Clause 27 does not stand part of the Bill does not go far enough. Already the Home Secretary can certify that the decision to remove or deport can be appealed against only once the claimant has been removed or deported, which makes such an appeal more difficult. We should have tabled an amendment to remove that power, let alone Clause 27, which proposes to go one step further, allowing the Secretary of State to certify that a claim cannot be appealed against at all if she thinks it is clearly unfounded. That should be a decision for the tribunal and not the Executive.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
In this group, I have the Clause 26 stand part amendment, and Clause 26 requires the Tribunal Procedure Committee to create a fast-track route for certain appeals made from detention. The accelerated process would apply where the Secretary of State “considers” that an appeal brought in relation to the decision would
“likely be disposed of expeditiously.”
Of course, that raises the question of the basis on which the Secretary of State will decide that an appeal brought in relation to the decision is likely to be disposed of expeditiously. Will it be done on a whim? Will it be done on the basis that we need to speed things up and this may be the way to do it? Will they be getting legal advice on whether they should consider that it is likely to be disposed of expeditiously? What happens if they do decide that an appeal brought in relation to the decision is likely to be disposed of expeditiously, and they then find that it cannot be disposed of expeditiously? What is the redress in that situation?
The Explanatory Notes state:
“This clause aims to establish an accelerated route for those appeals made in detention which are considered suitable for a quick decision, to allow appellants to be released or removed more quickly.”
As far as the Explanatory Notes are concerned, it is being done for the highest of motives, and nothing to do with simply trying to speed up the process.
The Law Society, Justice, the UNHCR and the Public Law Project have recommended that the clause be removed from the Bill. They raise that the fast-track system largely replicates, as has been said, a system that was already found to be unlawful in 2015 in a Court of Appeal ruling.
We support the amendments and concerns raised in this group, but I intend to speak only to the amendment in my name, which is to oppose Clause 26 standing part of the Bill. The concerns are very clear. As I said, various organisations have recommended that the clause be removed from the Bill. Their basis for saying so is that it amounts to a new detained fast-track procedure that was found to be unlawful in 2015 due to being “structurally unfair”. The Court of Appeal described the timetable for such appeals as
“so tight that it is inevitable that a significant number of appellants will be denied a fair opportunity to present their cases”.
It held that the policy did not sufficiently appreciate
“the problems faced by legal representatives of obtaining instructions from individuals who are in detention”,
nor did it
“adequately take account of the complexity and difficulty of many asylum appeals”
and
“the gravity of the issues that are raised by them”.
Since that ruling, the Tribunal Procedure Committee has repeatedly taken the position not to introduce specific rules in relation to cases where an appellant is detained. In its report of March 2019, the TPC concluded that
“a set of specific rules would not lead to the results sought by the Government. If a set of rules were devised so as to operate fairly, they would not lead to the increased speed and certainty desired.”
Following the clear and somewhat damning court ruling and the position of the TPC, the Government’s response has been, as we now see, to legislate to reintroduce a fast-track procedure by forcing the TPC’s hand and requiring it to create one.
The questions for the Government are fairly simple. What is it about this scheme that is significantly structurally different from the scheme that was found to be legally unsound? What about this scheme will prevent it having a timetable
“so tight that it is inevitable that a significant number of appellants will be denied a fair opportunity”?
Why, and on the basis of what evidence, do the Government disagree with the TPC when it says that such rules should not be brought in since they cannot both operate fairly and achieve the desired result of speed?
One wonders whether the Government are risking further judicial proceedings in replicating a scheme that has been found to be unlawful or, indeed, whether they would care too much anyway if there were such future judicial proceedings. I await the Government’s response.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I will come to the amendments in a moment but, since we have had a number of references to the old detained fast-track scheme, I will start by saying a word about that.
Obviously we considered carefully the legal challenges to the detained fast-track. We are confident that the new accelerated detained appeals route will ensure fairness as well as improving speed. It is right to say that the courts have been clear, in upholding the principle, that an accelerated process for appeals made in detention, operated within certain safeguards, is entirely legal. We believe that the new accelerated detained appeals route will contribute significantly to the timeliness with which appeals can be decided. We will be able to remove swiftly people found not to be eligible to remain while those people with valid claims can be released from detention more quickly, which is also important.
So far as the Tribunal Procedure Committee is concerned, the Bill sets out a clear policy intent but, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, says, changes to tribunal procedure rules are for the TPC to draft and are subject to its statutory consultation requirements and procedures. We have already begun to engage with the TPC on the elements of the Bill that will require tribunal rules to be made or amended and will continue to do so as the Bill progresses and passes into law.
I turn to the amendments before the Committee. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and, in his absence, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for Amendment 97. I understand the motivation behind it. It is right that appeals made from detention should be dealt with in a timely way so that, as I have said, people are not deprived of their liberty for longer than necessary, but we recognise that not all appeals made from detention will be suitable for the accelerated detained appeals route. So Clause 26 specifies that if a decision is certified as suitable for an accelerated detained appeal, in those circumstances the Secretary of State must consider that any appeal to the decision is likely to be disposed of expeditiously. Importantly, the tribunal may remove a case from the accelerated detained appeals route if that is the only way to ensure that justice can be done in a particular case.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I may not have been listening as attentively as I should have been, but if the Minister has already said it I ask him to repeat the criteria under which the Secretary of State will make the decision that he or she considers that the appeal is likely to be disposed of quickly, which was a question I asked. Another point rises from something he said—that the clause now sets an extremely high bar for an appeal to be released from the scheme, and provides that it can be done only where
“it is the only way to secure that justice is done.”
Am I not right in saying that this has been amended by the Government during the Bill’s passage, and that the original language permitted the release of a case if the tribunal
“is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so”?
Why is it no longer the case that “the interests of justice” are a good enough reason to take action?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I shall reply to the second point first, if I may. The language in Clause 26(5) is essentially the same language as in Clause 23(7).
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Is it the same or essentially the same? My understanding, and I may be wrong, is that the Bill now says that
“it is the only way to secure that justice is done”,
where previously it said
“that it is in the interests of justice to do so”.
They may be similar but they are not the same words.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar
My Lords, I think we are at cross-purposes. I was not saying that the language had not changed; I was saying that the test in Clause 26(5) is the same test as in Clause 23(7). On the question of whether the language has changed, I think the noble Lord is right. I will write to confirm the position—I do not want to get it wrong at the Dispatch Box—but I think there was a change in this clause. The test as set out is entirely proper. Is the only way that justice can be done to take the case out of this tribunal? If that is the only way justice can be done, it ought to be done. If this tribunal therefore, by obvious logic, can deal with the case justly, it should do so.
On the first question, I am not sure how much more I can say. The Secretary of State must consider, in order to certify a case as suitable for an accelerated detained appeal, that any appeal to that decision would be likely to be disposed of expeditiously and that the other conditions are met. In coming to that conclusion, the Secretary of State would obviously have to look at all relevant factors. I am not sure that I can take it much further than that, but let me look again at the noble Lord’s question in Hansard. If I can add anything more, I will do so, so he is in possession of everything I can say before we look at it again—no doubt on Report.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord again for his detailed responses. On the first point, on Amendment 97, I just hope that we do not find ourselves back in litigation. He asserts that the Bill avoids the pitfalls that the Court of Appeal found in 2015 and that the Tribunal Procedure Committee found later. Let us hope so, because obviously, resorts to litigation will also be something that gums up the system, which the Home Office already says is broken. Time will tell if this is going to stay as it is.
On Amendment 99, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, is right. If my memory serves, the wording has changed since the Bill was in the other place. Certainly, the JCHR would suggest that wording that says that the tribunal “must”—not just “may”—if the interests of justice and fairness require it, take an appeal out of the accelerated detained system is stronger than the wording that is there at the moment. It says that the tribunal “must” if—and it is a broader test—it is in the interests of fairness and justice. It is a better test, and a fairer and more just test, so I am disappointed that the Minister does not like that amendment—although I guess I am not terribly surprised. On that note, I can only withdraw my amendment.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Tuesday 8th February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-V Fifth marshalled list for Committee - (8 Feb 2022)
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is linked to the amendment to leave out paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 3.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I hope that I will not bore you for long. I shall take careful note of the Chief Whip’s remarks but I am very pleased to introduce Amendments 100, 101 and 102. I thank those Lords spiritual and temporal who have added their names to these amendments and who are supportive of the contents.
These amendments seek to remove amendments to Section 77 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 from Schedule 3. The intention is to erase the proposal contained in the Bill to introduce powers to export offshore any person in the UK who is seeking asylum without first considering their claim. Few would disagree that protection and control of our borders, primary responsibilities of any Government, are noble and necessary objectives. A Home Secretary must be able to discharge her duties in this respect, which include expediting deportation swiftly and without delay where illegality has been determined under the rules. This was certainly my approach when I served as Immigration Minister in the 1990s.
Most would agree that the process by which we pursue these objectives matters no less than the solutions on the table. Indeed, solutions need to be effective, but they must also be pragmatic and practical, and enforceable under domestic and international law. They need to be imaginative but also financially viable. They must be firm but also fair. I am afraid that Clause 28 and Schedule 3 fail on these counts. In very literal terms, Clause 28 amends the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which states that a person seeking asylum cannot be removed from the UK while their asylum claim is being processed—in other words, before a final decision is given on their refugee status, including access to an appeal. However, paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 to the Bill withdraws those rights by allowing the transfer of any asylum seeker to any country which will be listed in Section 77 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 as amended by Schedule 3.
Before Brexit, under the Dublin regulations, the UK Government could remove an asylum seeker from the UK while their claim was still pending but only to return them to the EU country of first entry and only after having issued a certificate under Schedule 3 to the Asylum and Immigration Act that permitted them a legal right to do so. With the end of the UK’s involvement in the Dublin regulations this option became inaccessible. However, Clause 28 would provide the Home Secretary with the legal power to forcibly remove any asylum seeker from the UK while their claim is still pending to another country which the Government have deemed safe. Clause 28 would allow them to do this without seeking and issuing a certificate under Schedule 3 to the 2004 Act. This goes against our legal and constitutional principles and surely should be repudiated.
All credible immigration systems must first acknowledge the distinction between immigration and asylum. A person who comes here for economic reasons is definitely not the same as a person who comes here to seek safety. The Bill’s failure to disentangle these definitions is significant because in the Government’s bid to control overall immigration, it will be vulnerable people—those fleeing conflict and persecution—who would be disproportionately and adversely affected.
Many years ago, I oversaw an inquiry that included the viability of offshoring. At the time, the proposal was to create processing centres off the mainland but within British territorial jurisdiction. We quickly judged that to be deeply flawed as an idea, but the problems we identified around domestic offshoring are almost trivial compared with the problems we would face by offshoring asylum seekers to foreign territory. For one thing, it would be a clear breach of our principles in the 1951 convention on refugees. We may be abrogating our responsibilities for dealing with applications, as well as those to the asylum seekers themselves, who, by international law, should be able to retain control over where and when they submit those requests. Indeed, a person’s physical removal from the UK would effectively terminate their claim for asylum in the UK, transferring it instead to a third country.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, in rising to support Amendments 100 and 101, to which I have added my name, I declare my interests in relation to both the RAMP project and Reset, as set out in the register.
When people arrive on our shores seeking protection, we have a responsibility to treat them as we would wish to be treated if we had to flee for our lives. It is right that we have a process to determine who meets the criteria for refugee status, but while we determine this, we are responsible for people’s safety, welfare and care. If we move them to other countries for the processing of their asylum claims, I fear a blind eye will be turned to their treatment. How will we be sure that they are being treated humanely and fairly, and would our Government even give this much concern once they had left our shores? If we look to the experience of Australia and the refugees accommodated in Nauru, as the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, has just mentioned, we hear deeply shocking accounts of abuse, inhumane treatment and mental and physical ill-health.
As mentioned in relation to an earlier amendment, I visited Napier barracks last week to see improvements that have been made since the exposure of the disgraceful conditions at the beginning of last year. If what we have seen at Napier is permitted to happen in the UK, what can we expect overseas, where accountability and monitoring will be so much harder? The monitoring of asylum accommodation contractors in the UK is poor, which gives us some idea about the level of monitoring we could expect of offshore processing.
What standard will be set for offshore accommodation? Will it be detention? How can UK safeguards be enforced in another country? Will there be a maximum period of stay? Minister Tom Pursglove stated in the Public Bill Committee that
“we intend their claims to be admitted and processed under the third country’s asylum system.”—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 26/10/21; col. 397.]
This is deeply concerning. These asylum seekers are the UK’s responsibility; they came to us to ask for protection, and we cannot simply wash our hands of them. What will be the acceptable standards of a country’s asylum system for us to discharge refugee determination to them? Can the Minister confirm that, if an individual is granted asylum offshore, they will be granted any form of leave in the UK and readmitted?
We had assurance in the other place from Minister Tom Pursglove that unaccompanied children will not be included in offshoring, but will children in families be offshored? If not, can the Minister assure us that families will not be split up in this process? We need to see any such commitments written into the Bill. I also want reassurance from the Minister that offshore agreements will not be linked to international aid agreements. This would be wrong, so can she give us that reassurance?
Offshoring would be a huge cost to the taxpayer. Can the Minister tell us what work has been done on the costs? Have such costs been endorsed by HM Treasury?
The financial cost is not the only one: there would be a significant cost to our international standing. Are we so keen to tarnish our reputation as a country where human rights are upheld for this inhumane policy, rather than one that is rooted in what will actually work to reduce the need for people to have to use criminal gangs? We will discuss these policy proposals in future debates.
People seeking asylum have arrived on our shores, seeking UK protection. We are responsible for them. It is not a responsibility we can pass over to others. The potential for standards and safeguards to drop is a very serious risk, with the challenges of monitoring and accountability at distance. They would far too easily become forgotten people. Offshoring must simply be ruled out of order.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I too support Amendment 100, in the name of my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, to which I have been pleased to add my name. I refer to my entry in the register of Members’ interests.
The question of offshore detention is undoubtedly one of the most controversial aspects of this Bill, which is designed to stem the flow of small boats from France. The stated objective of this policy is one of deterrence, but opponents of the policy have rightly been asking: at what cost?
Before we look at the issue of offshoring, I will take a moment to look at and think about the sorts of journeys taken by those fleeing violence and war. Asylum seekers are frequently exposed to intolerable levels of risk as they travel. Irregular migrants face dangerous journeys: they are unprotected, they accumulate debt, and they have no legal recourse. The limited opportunities for legal migration force individuals to use people smugglers where there is a risk of being trafficked. Asylum seekers who fall prey to human traffickers can be exploited in both transit and destination countries. During the asylum seeker’s journey, the fine line with human trafficking—the acquisition of people by force, fraud or deception with the aim of exploiting them—can be easily crossed.
Just imagine you go through all that and end up on these shores. It has taken your savings and months of your life to arrive here from, say, Afghanistan, Syria or Iran. On arrival on our shores, we greet you and, before we have even assessed whether or not you are a refugee, put you on a plane and take you back to the continent from which you came. That action alone could kill someone, but my question is also: what does that make us?
Before I set out my reason for asking the Home Secretary to think again about the use of offshore detention and processing, whether in Rwanda, Ghana or Ascension Island, as we have heard, I will return to the point I made last Tuesday. The best hope of a fair, just and affordable solution to the issue of the Calais boats still lies with a diplomatic solution with the French and EU nations. Will my noble friend the Minister comment on the Telegraph story on Wednesday about the French President’s apparent openness to a deal over channel crossings? As I have suggested a number of times, a returns agreement with the French is likely to be the only viable way to stop the crossings. I imagine this taking the form of an agreement that those who have crossed here irregularly are sent back to be assessed in France; in return, we commit to taking a certain number from Calais. This is a win-win solution that would genuinely destroy the economic model of the people smugglers, would cost less and would be far more humane.
Could my noble friend the Minister also provide an estimate of the cost of offshore processing? A cursory glance shows that a room at the Ritz costs between £650 and £700 a night. Extrapolate that and one finds that it costs around £250,000 to stay at the Ritz for a year. The estimates of what the Australians pay for one asylum seeker held in detention vary from that amount to eight times that. How can that be justified?
It is not only the cost that concerns me. Can the Minister provide reassurance that no children will be sent offshore and that women who are vulnerable to sexual violence will receive proper protections? The concerning stories that emerge from processing camps in other countries should give us pause for thought before we embark down this road. When there are other potential diplomatic avenues that the Government are yet to properly consider, offshoring looks like an oversized hammer being used to crack a nut, with the potential for corrupting our character as a nation and our international reputation, and increasing racial tensions domestically and the administrative burden and cost to the state. I urge the Minister to think again and for this House to give the other place an opportunity to think again.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Outside on the streets today are people supporting those of us who are fighting this Bill. They understand the damage it does not only to the refugees and people seeking asylum here but to the Government’s reputation. I do wonder. We have to say these things, because our consciences would not let us not say them, but are the Government listening? I rather think not. Essentially, these clauses are about being able to deport refugees while their asylum claim is being processed. That is not fair on the individuals involved and, I would argue, is inhumane. They are simply being herded like cattle and packed off to be trafficked, essentially.
Clause 28 and Schedule 3 make provision for safe countries, but no provision for safe accommodation. We know that the accommodation we provide here in the UK is pretty substandard and, sometimes, outright revolting, so I have no trust that safe countries will do any better than we have. I have a question that I would like answered today: what steps will the Government take to assess the conditions and that these people are being treated well in those safe countries?
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I will follow on from what the noble Baroness and my noble friend Lord Kirkhope said. I will say a little bit on the Australian experience, which is the only relevant extant experience that we have at the moment.
What happened in Australia was that, in 2001, the Liberal Party of Australia and the National Party of Australia, the equivalent of our Conservative Party, introduced offshoring as a policy. I have no knowledge of how it worked at that point—I just do not have any information—but it carried on until 2008, when the Australian Labor Party was elected in a general election and desisted from offshoring. After that, there was a huge increase in the number of boats coming into north Australia, up to about 50,000 a year, and, as a consequence of that, the Labor Government did a U-turn and reintroduced offshoring. Unfortunately, this was too late in terms of political consequences: it lost the general election, and, in 2013, a new Liberal and National Government came in, reintroducing offshoring and beefing it up, with the army and navy playing a role in all of that. That is the history of it.
It was then highly successful: the offshoring completely stopped the human traffickers’ business—they had no more scope to bring people over because people simply did not believe that they would get into Australia—and the whole thing was a success, so much so that the opposition Labor spokesman agreed that, essentially, the boats had been stopped by the offshoring techniques. Thereafter, the Australian Labor Party changed its policy, and the policy now has cross-party support in Australia—both the Liberal Party and the Australian Labor Party support it—and boats no longer go across from Indonesia to Australia. The policy succeeded.
As my noble friend said, it is perfectly true that there are some issues in Nauru and Papua New Guinea—essentially residual issues arising from previous years—which have been difficult to resolve. I am sure that we would all want those to be resolved quickly and properly for humanitarian reasons.
However, clearly the Government are looking at this. Of course, there is no guarantee at all that such a policy, which was successful in Australia, would be successful here—one cannot pretend that that is necessarily likely to happen. The fact is that, although the situation is the same, in that people are crossing by sea to England and the UK as they were to Australia, the geography and the politics are different, and it is quite possible that it would not work in British circumstances. That is the truth of the matter.
None the less, it would be a dereliction of duty if the British Government did not try to look at this and examine whether it can work. The first thing that they have to do is, as the Australians did, pass the relevant legislation that enables them to put this into practice and see whether it does, in fact, work. That is where we are now—we have not done anything about it, and it is not in place. It will not be in place until some time after we have passed this legislation—
Baroness Stroud (Con)
Could my noble friend outline his thinking on, for instance, the proximity of Nauru to Australia and whether that is not more the equivalent of saying that France or another European nation would be the location of the offshoring, rather than, say, Rwanda, which is on completely the other side of the world? Could my noble friend perhaps acknowledge the differences and unpack that for us a little?
Lord Horam (Con)
Yes, I do acknowledge the differences, which is why I said that there is no guarantee at all that, even if this is tried, it will work in British circumstances. All I am saying is that it worked in Australian circumstances, the Government are clearly interested in this and, as I say, it would be a dereliction of duty if they did not put this among their options and pass the legislation that enabled us to try this out. That is where we are now.
I point out that, after the success of this policy in Australia, the Australian Government were enabled to expand the legal routes for asylum seekers to go to that country because it ceased to be controversial: immigration was less controversial as a consequence of the anti-boat policy being successful. The fact is that, as I have said before in these debates, if the public do not buy into the policy, you will have problems in persuading them to have more immigration. If they buy into it because they can see that you are controlling your borders, they have a more relaxed attitude to immigration and accept higher levels of it because they can see that they are in control of both the amount and the type of immigration coming in.
Therefore, there is a prize at the end of this for those who genuinely want to have more immigration, frankly, than we have at the moment, and if you can seem to be in control. What worries people is if you are not in control—if they can see clearly that people are behaving illegally getting here, jumping the queue and all the rest of it. In view of what the Whips on both sides have said, I do not want to go on any longer, but we ought to consider this in a rational and sensible way, as a clear option that any responsible Government of whatever kind should pursue; and I point out that, in Australia, for example, it does have all-party support.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, we have obviously been reading different things because everything that I have read and heard about the policy in Australia suggests that it is far from successful, and certainly not for asylum seekers themselves.
Lord Horam (Con)
If the noble Baroness reads the evidence given by the Australian high commissioner to the House of Commons—evidence-taking on a section of this Bill—she will find that much of what I have said is corroborated there.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I tend to give more credence to people on the ground, but there it is.
I share concerns that have already been raised about potential health and human rights implications and the general dehumanising nature of a power that allows the British Government, in the words of the UNHCR,
“to externalise its obligations towards refugees and asylum seekers to other countries with only minimal human rights safeguards”.
No doubt, we are talking about poorer countries on the other side of the world to which asylum seekers will be moved like cattle, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said.
I want to raise a few questions; some have been covered so I will not repeat them but build on them. First, with regard to children, who a number of noble Lords have mentioned, in the Commons the Minister assured Caroline Nokes, a former Immigration Minister, that unaccompanied children would not be transferred for offshore processing. When she asked about accompanied children, and about what would happen to a child who turned 18 during the process of applying for asylum, answer came there none. I hope that there will be an answer to those questions today.
Can the Minister also say what would happen to a child whose age is disputed? When we reach that group of amendments—probably around midnight, so it will be great scrutiny—we will hear of the widespread fears among medical and social work professionals and children’s organisations that Part 4 of the Bill will lead to many more children being wrongly assessed as adults. If so, I fear that many unaccompanied children could be transferred because it is not believed that they are, in fact, children. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on that. Can she assure us that no young person will be transferred while the age-assessment process is going on?
Secondly, building on what the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said, the UNHCR observes that the Bill
“is silent on what, if any, legal obligations the United Kingdom would consider itself to have”
towards asylum seekers once their asylum claims have been dealt with. It expresses concern that there is nothing in the Bill that confines the application of the changes to extraterritorial processing, which is the stated purpose in the Explanatory Notes.
Detention Action warns that, even if a third country’s authorities recognised the asylum seeker as a refugee, the Bill provides no power for the UK to re-admit them or grant them any form of leave. Can the Minister say whether this interpretation is correct? If it is not, can she assure us on the record that those who are deemed to qualify for refugee status will be readmitted to the UK—that is, the country from which they sought refugee protection—and explain under what legal power in the Bill they would be so readmitted? If Detention Action’s interpretation is correct, this is not simply about offshore processing, which is a euphemism, but, even more shockingly, it is about the Government wiping their hands of all responsibility for those who qualify for refugee protection via a claim for asylum—not short-term offshore processing but long-term deportation. If so, the case for Clause 28 and Schedule 3 not standing part of the Bill is that much stronger.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Government’s position in justifying this and other measures in the Bill rests on the UK’s so-called excellent track record on refugees, and the Minister has repeatedly pointed to the UK’s track record on resettlement schemes. The UNHCR thinks differently:
“Resettlement programmes, while welcome, are, by themselves, an inadequate means for fairly distributing global responsibilities towards refugees and sharing the burden currently shouldered by major host countries.”
It goes on to give the facts about the numbers who are making their own way from areas where people are being persecuted. It concludes:
“For all of these reasons, the Bill undermines, rather than promotes, the Government’s stated goal of improving the United Kingdom’s ‘ability to provide protection to those who would be at risk of persecution on return to their country of nationality.’”
As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has just said, one of the reasons for offshoring is to temporarily house asylum seekers while their claims are being considered. Would the Minister like to comment on an article in the Times on Saturday that claimed that Priti Patel, the Home Secretary,
“wants to … reject Channel migrants’ claims for asylum within a fortnight of them reaching Britain”?
The story claims that
“government lawyers raised concerns over the plans”
but the Secretary of State
“believes a fortnight is a ‘reasonable’ window for immigration officials”
to make such a decision. According to the article, a Home Office spokesperson told the newspaper:
“We do not comment on leaks”,
so I ask the Minister a different question. Does she believe that two weeks is a reasonable timeframe to consider asylum seekers’ claims? If so, there would not appear to be any need for offshoring.
The Bill goes from bad to worse. As Amnesty and Migrant Voice put it,
“the prevailing attitude emanating from the Home Office … appears determined by any means and at almost any cost to seek nothing more than avoiding its responsibilities while demanding other countries should take theirs. This is a hopeless prescription from which no good can possibly come”.
The Home Office is seeking the power not only to remove an asylum seeker to any country while it considers their claim, but to do so and then tell that country, “If you think they are a refugee, you take them. It’s not our problem any more”. I do not know how the Government think they can persuade another country to take the UK’s unwanted asylum seekers on either a temporary or a permanent basis. According to Amnesty and Migrant Voice, offshoring by Australia effectively excluded legal, judicial, medical, humanitarian and media scrutiny; has cost a fortune—over £500 million a year, according to the British Red Cross—and, contrary to what the noble Lord, Lord Horam, seems to have seen or heard, has failed to stop those seeking asylum, including those arriving in Australia by boat.
I understand that academic evidence on the whole offshoring scheme was given by a university in Australia to the Public Bill Committee in the other place that appears to contradict the evidence that the Australian High Commission gave to the same Committee, so there is clearly a serious difference of opinion as to whether the scheme is successful. Apparently, the independent academic assessment of the scheme thinks it is a failure. The UNHCR says:
“As UNHCR has seen in several contexts, offshoring of asylum processing often results in the forced transfer of refugees to other countries with inadequate State asylum systems, treatment standards and resources”,
which amendments in this group seek to address.
“It can lead to situations in which asylum seekers are indefinitely held in isolated places where they are ‘out of sight and out of mind’, exposing them to serious harm … UNHCR has voiced its profound concerns about such practices, which have ‘caused extensive, unavoidable suffering for far too long’, left people ‘languishing in unacceptable circumstances’ and denied ‘common decency.’”
I am hoping that this apparently unworkable and morally repugnant provision is yet another paper tiger, designed to appeal to the Daily Mail in deterring genuine asylum seekers, but that it is no more than propaganda. Clause 28 and Schedule 3 should not be part of the Bill. All the other amendments in this group are well- meaning, but they are window dressing.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
It seems to me that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and indeed all those in this group have to be right. The idea of offshoring is immoral and it would not be in line with the traditions of this country. It is also impractical; for one thing, it would be horrendously expensive, as the Australian experience shows. Offshoring in Australia has proved as damaging to its exchequer as to the reputation of Australia. Of course, that is not what the high commissioner said. I used to be a diplomat and one tends not to say that sort of thing about one’s own country when on diplomatic duty.
However, the real and biggest reason I am against this provision is that it is illegal. It is a clear breach of the refugee convention. We had this argument before, so I can do it in shorthand: there is no provision in the refugee convention that fits with proposed new subsection (2B)(b) of Schedule 3, which is at line 20, where a safe country is defined as
“a place from which a person will not be removed elsewhere other than in accordance with the Refugee Convention”.
The refugee convention, however, says nothing about removal to third countries, safe or not. It says that a refugee is a refugee in a place when he says he cannot go home, because he will not be protected at home and would like to ask for the protection of the host state in the country where he is. That is what the refugee convention says. It says nothing about how he got there, nothing about a “first safe country” and nothing at all about exporting him somewhere else, so the language of new subsection (2B) in Schedule 3 is a misreading of that convention.
Of course, we know that the Government are deliberately misreading the refugee convention. I still think it would assist our debates greatly if the Government would change their mind and let us see the legal advice which has caused them to take the eccentric view that they take of the convention, and hence to propose Clause 11 and all that follows.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I intervene briefly and for the first time in this debate, provoked into doing so by what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has just said. It is fundamentally wrong to legislate in a way that obliges you to break international law. It is very simple, but that is it. We do not have islands around our shores where we can gather together vast groups of potential refugees and asylum seekers.
The other day I was reading a review of a book, which has just come out, about the Isle of Man in the Second World War. There was of course great panic about people of German origin—although most of the poor people were of Jewish origin as well—domiciled in this country. They were rounded up and taken there. There are some fairly inspiring stories but also some very depressing stories. We have to tread exceptionally carefully here. We have gone on a lot about global Britain, but if I am to be proud of global Britain, I want to be proud of a country that is upholding the highest international standards.
Although I take on board what my noble friend Lord Horam said a few moments ago—he made a gently forceful speech that deserves consideration—I just cannot for the life of me think that to herd people into encampments in Rwanda and other far distant places is anything other than a repudiation of our standards as a great country. It would be fundamentally wrong for us to go along this line. Treat thy neighbour as thyself. There is a lot of wisdom in the 10 commandments. A bishop should really be saying this rather than me, but I really believe that it is essential that whatever we do is consistent with our record as the great nation that abolished slavery throughout its dominions and before that abolished the slave trade. There were battles in Parliament for both, but my parliamentary hero is William Wilberforce and I do not want to see his reputation traduced.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I have been sitting on my hands because whenever you tell a personal story, it looks as though you are not pleading what the noble Lord talked about—law. We arrived in 1974 and were treated with such great respect, love and care. For about 20 years we travelled on a British travel document. That kind of hospitality was of great help to us all.
The way I read this clause is almost as a revisitation of Guantanamo Bay—a very bad piece of work—or voluntary rendition, whereby people were taken from one country to another to sort out whether they were terrorists or not. This country should not use offshoring. The word “offshore” already does not have a good reputation in terms of money and offshore investment. This is a country that has been the mother of parliaments and the mother of legislation and where the rule of law is what governs all of us. How can we get a third country to take what we call refugees?
I can assure noble Lords that there will be many countries in Africa that will volunteer to do it. The question we have to ask is: how do those seemingly wonderful countries treat their nationals? Do they treat them in the same way that this country does? I would be very doubtful. For the sake of the rule of law, for the sake of this great Parliament and for the sake of the British people who have been very good in welcoming the likes of me, this clause should—please—not become part of the legislation.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I am also very impressed by the moderate contribution from my noble friend Lord Horam on the Australian experience. I have a question, therefore. How do the Australians get round the alleged breach of the refugee convention?
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I reiterate what was said a little while ago: this is about asylum, not general immigration policy. There is a considerable difference between the two; that does not always get recognised.
This proposal to offshore asylum claims is inconsistent with the global humanitarian and co-operative principles on which refugee protection is founded. Frankly, if everybody did what we are proposing, there would not be much of the refugee convention left, as I am sure everybody recognises and, in their heart of hearts, knows to be true.
Having made those introductory comments, I will endeavour to be brief. I want to ask one or two questions. The Minister in the Commons said:
“Schedule 3 aims to reduce the draw of the UK by working to make it easier to remove someone to a safe country where their claim will be processed. It amends existing legal frameworks to support our future objective to transfer some asylum claims to a safe third country for processing.”—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 26/10/21; col. 388.]
As I have just indicated, the Minister referred to “some asylum claims” being transferred. Will the Government spell out in their reply what categories or types of asylum claims would be processed in another country, and what categories or types of asylum claims would be processed in this country? In addition, based on claims made over the past three years, what number or percentage of total asylum claims and claimants would be processed in and removed to another country, and what number or percentage of total asylum claims would still be processed in this country? I assume that the Government have figures on that.
Information on the countries we have reached agreement with for offshore processing has been, to say the least, a bit thin on the ground, with Ministers saying to date that they are not prepared to enter into a “running commentary” on the conversations that are taking place. I hope that the Government will be a little more forthcoming today on which specific countries we have reached agreement with, or confidently expect to reach agreement with, and which countries have declined to reach an agreement with us. Also, how many different bilateral negotiations are we currently involved in?
It is unacceptable to be told by the Government that we should agree to a policy and its associated clauses and schedules, which, however repugnant, are meaningless and cannot be implemented unless appropriate agreements are reached with other countries—and then, when asking the Government to give information on whether and what agreements have been concluded, to be told by them that it is none of our business. That is what the Government have been doing to date. We expect better from their response today. However, if the Government are going to continue to play dumb on this issue, perhaps it would be better for them to withdraw Clause 28 and Schedule 3 until such time as they have concluded agreements with other countries, without which the policy cannot be implemented.
The only thing the Government have said is that the model the Home Office intends to proceed with is
“one where individuals would be processed as part of the asylum system of the country that we had an agreement with, rather than people being offshore and processed as part of our asylum system.”
So it is not just offshoring; it is also treating and dealing with people under another country’s asylum system rather than our own. The duty to ensure that the rights of asylum seekers are respected would still fall on the UK; it would be helpful if the Government could confirm that in their response.
Essentially, as has already been said, the UK would be outsourcing its refugee convention obligations, potentially to less wealthy nations. The UNHCR has been highly critical of efforts to offshore asylum processing, noting how
“offshoring of asylum processing often results in the forced transfer of refugees to other countries with inadequate State asylum systems, treatment standards and resources. It can lead to indefinite ‘ware-housing’ of asylum-seekers in isolated places where they are ‘out of sight and out of mind’, exposing them to serious harm. It may also de-humanise asylum-seekers.”
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I add my name to that of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, in giving notice of my intention to exclude Clause 28 and Schedule 3 from the Bill. To move an asylum seeker to a detention or reception centre offshore while their claim is being assessed is wrong in principle, oppressive in practice, contrary to the 1951 convention and lacking sufficient safeguards under the Bill. Many speakers referred to Australia’s policy of offshore processing, as an example both of how awful it can be and, by one speaker, of a successful operation to deter unlawful immigration. It is worth putting a little flesh on the Australian experience.
In 2013, Amnesty International published a report, This Is Breaking People, highlighting a range of serious human rights concerns at the Manus Island, Papua New Guinea, immigration detention centre. In an update, Amnesty International reported that, in two days in February 2014,
“violence at the detention centre led to the death of … a 23-year-old Iranian man, and injuries to more than 62 asylum seekers (some reports suggest up to 147 were injured).”
It said in the report:
“There are credible claims that the asylum seekers … were attacked by private security guards, local police and possibly other contractors working at the centre. The response by security guards and local police to protests by asylum seekers was brutal and excessive.”
Amnesty’s report raised a number of concerns about living conditions, including overcrowding, cramped sleeping arrangements, exposure to the elements, as well as a lack of sufficient drinking water, sanitation, food and clothing. The update said:
“Since the violence on … February 2014, Papua New Guinean nationals no longer enter the compounds for catering or cleaning … Asylum seekers are delivered meals in take-away packs for self-distribution and also bear sole responsibility for cleaning the ablution blocks.”
At the time of Amnesty’s site visit in March 2014,
“ablution blocks in all compounds were dilapidated, dirty, mouldy, and”
some latrines were
“broken and without running water.”
Amnesty International expressed concern about the issue, saying:
“Australian and Papua New Guinean authorities are deliberately denying asylum seekers’ right to access lawyers and human rights organizations.”
In an article published by the Australian Institute of International Affairs in February 2017, it was said:
“LGBT asylum seekers are particularly vulnerable … and face significant disadvantages and dangers. In detention they experience discrimination, harassment and violence from other detainees and from members of staff. The detention environment has serious long-term effects on their mental and physical well-being.”
From time to time, Ghana and Rwanda have been floated in the media as places to which asylum seekers in the UK might be transferred, although Ghana has officially denied any such possibility. The appropriateness or inappropriateness of such locations for LGBTIQ asylum seekers is manifest. In Ghana, same-sex sexual acts carry a potential sentence of up to 25 years. There is a current proposal to raise the minimum sentence to 10 years and to require conversion therapy. LGBTIQ people face homophobia, physical violence and psychological abuse.
In Rwanda, same-sex sexual relations are not unlawful, but there are no anti-discrimination laws relating to sexual orientation or gender identity, including in relation to housing, employment and access to government services, such as healthcare. A 2021 report on Rwanda by the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada cites sources disclosing discrimination and stigma facing LGBTIQ people in religious and civil society, the media and business, harassment by the police and the use of indecency and vagrancy offences against transgender and gender-diverse people. The experience in the offshore detention centres I referred to in Australia and the position in Ghana and Rwanda show the inappropriateness of holding asylum seekers in offshore detention or reception centres.
In particular, the following are not answered in the Bill, the Explanatory Notes or any other guidance from the Government. First, how will asylum seekers have access to legal advisers with knowledge of the law and practice relating to UK asylum claims, assuming that they are being processed under UK law, which is complex and difficult? Secondly, legal aid and advice is available to refugees in the UK, but there is nothing to suggest that it will be available to refugees in offshore holding centres. Thirdly, and as has previously been pointed out, if conditions in the proposed offshore centre are so bad as to cause physical or mental harm to refugees, whether through physical conditions in the centre or—in the case of single women or LGBTIQ members, for example—because of discrimination, harassment, bullying and violence from staff or other asylum seekers, will they be able to have recourse or bring proceedings in the UK, or will they be restricted to such remedies as might be available in the foreign country?
Until these fundamental questions are answered and set out expressly in the legislation, there should be no question whatever of exporting refugees to offshore holding centres. To do so would be inconsistent with the spirit and the letter of the refugee convention and the UK’s own history of welcome to genuine asylum seekers over the centuries.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments, and I thank my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate for tabling his Amendments 100, 101 and 102.
On the back of my noble friend’s point, it might be helpful to clarify the definitions of “asylum seeker”, “refugee” and “economic migrant.” An asylum seeker is a person, either in transit or awaiting a decision, seeking the protection of a state under the terms of the refugee convention. A refugee is a person who meets the definition of “refugee” in Article 1 of the refugee convention—they do not have to be recognised by a state to be a refugee—and so it follows that a “person with refugee status” is a person who meets the requirements under the UK Immigration Rules to be granted refugee status.
The term “economic migrant” is inexact. It may, of course, refer to a person who is using or looking to use economic routes, such as FBIS, to enter a state. However, there will be people who meet the definition of Article 1 of the refugee convention but are looking to enter the UK and choosing it over other countries purely for economic reasons. One of the objectives of the New Plan for Immigration is to ensure that the most vulnerable can be protected, which in turn means that those attempting to enter the UK for economic reasons should use the appropriate routes.
Changes within Clause 28 via Schedule 3 are one in a suite of critical measures designed to break the business model of people smugglers and are the first step in disincentivising unwanted behaviours—for example, by dissuading those who are considering risking their lives by making dangerous and unnecessary journeys to the UK in order to claim asylum. By working to establish overseas asylum processing, we are sending a clear message to those who are risking their lives and funding criminal gangs both here and abroad or abusing the asylum system elsewhere that this behaviour is not worth it. We must make it easier to ensure that such people are simply not allowed to remain in the UK.
It also might assist noble Lords—and indeed my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate—to know that for nearly 20 years, it has been possible under UK law to remove individuals from the UK while their asylum claim is pending if a certificate is issued under Schedule 3 to the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, so this is not a new concept. What this measure does is amend our existing legal framework to make it easier to remove such individuals. I do not know which noble Lord asked this, but Schedule 3 also defines the term “safe third country”.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
The problem is that the Minister only said, “unaccompanied children”, and did not refer to children in families. I am sorry, but we do not have the confirmation that this addresses the whole range of scenarios—such as families being split up—which we have raised but have not been answered.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Before the Minister replies, I also asked some questions about children and, more specifically, about when they turn 18 and whether their age will be challenged.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank both the right reverend Prelate and the noble Baroness for those points. Generally, in the asylum system in the UK, when someone is about to turn 18, their status changes.
The right reverend Prelate is absolutely right; I did not answer questions about all children in all situations. On the previous day in Committee, I went at length through the routes by which children and families can come to the UK—there are several routes, and I think I cited four.
My noble friend Lady Stroud asked about victims of modern slavery and human trafficking. We will only ever act in line with our commitments under our international legal obligations, including those which pertain to potential victims of modern slavery.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
The Minister has made me even more disturbed. She has not said—and neither has anyone in the other place—that families and children will not be offshored.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
As I have just said, I will not go any further than my honourable friend did in the House of Common, save to say that people who—
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I understand that the Minister may be unable to respond immediately to the extremely valid question the right reverend Prelate has asked. Presumably, however, the Government as a whole know the answer to his question. Why does the Minister not agree to write to us and tell us what those answers are?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I have said I will write, but to be more explicit than my honourable friend was in the Commons might risk exploitation on routes taken by children. Therefore, this is as far as I will go today. I will lay out the various safe and legal routes through which children can come to this country and reiterate what my honourable friend said in the House of Commons.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am very sorry but the noble Baroness is not answering the right reverend Prelate’s question. It is not about safe and legal routes but about who will and will not be offshored, which is an awful term. She seems to be saying that children who are accompanied, who are in families, could well be offshored. Is that correct? The Minister in the Commons refused to answer the question and avoided it; I am afraid that is what the Minister is doing here.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am not trying to avoid it; I am saying that that is about as far as I can go. However, I will try to outline any further detail that I can in writing to noble Lords. Noble Lords will know—
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I will not take the intervention just yet. I do not generally make misleading comments standing at the Dispatch Box. I will further write.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I am most grateful and apologise. Can my noble friend say whether she expects that, by the time we reach Report, she will be able to answer that question? Can she also say whether there are any countries with which we are close to agreement and, if so, what countries those are?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I cannot say what countries we are in discussion with, other than confirming to my noble friend Lady Stroud that we are having some very positive discussions with France. On the other question, I cannot acquiesce to going further at this point, because I do not want in any way to make comments that might put children in danger. As I have just said to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, I will write in as much detail as I can following Committee.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
I thank my noble friend for giving way. I think I heard that her concern is that saying that children with families would be exempted from being offshored could lead to a fuelling of the trafficking of children to ensure that those families who wanted to travel to the UK would be accepted here. Is that what my noble friend is saying? Some clarity on that would be really helpful, as well as some distinctions in that policy, which obviously she wants to mitigate, and the policy around families who are obviously families—who have proof of it—coming here. Would the Government split them up, let them remain here or be offshored?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I agree with the noble Baroness that we need to strike that balance between abuse of the system and providing refuge to those genuinely in need, but she will also know that we have several family reunion routes, which I went through the other day in Committee. With all that, and the commitment to write to the right reverend Prelate—
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am sorry to intervene just when the noble Baroness thought she had finished. She said that there is already a power to remove asylum seekers while their claim is being considered. Is she referring to when the Secretary of State issues a certificate to say that a claim has no merit and someone can therefore be deported before their appeal is heard? In that case, that is a limited number of people and a very different system from the one proposed here. Can she tell the Committee how many people have been issued with such a certificate and been deported during their application process in that way, compared with the numbers the Government anticipate will be affected by this new proposal?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
The noble Lord talks about deportation; we generally refer to deportation in the context of criminals. No, it is not under those provisions.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry, but a whole range of noble Lords asked a question, in different ways, about what happens to the asylum seekers if they are granted refugee status in the country to which they have been offshored. Are they allowed back into this country or are they just left there? If they are left there, they have, in effect, been deported.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I do not have the answers before me, so I will write on the questions that I have not answered, if that is okay with the noble Baroness.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her responses and all noble Lords for their very important contributions on a really significant part of the Bill. I stand by what I said in my remarks, and I think that others will do so too, despite assurances that we may have received. I would be very grateful if the Government would perhaps be prepared to discuss this matter further between now and Report. On that basis, without further ado, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, any anxiety that I may have felt earlier this afternoon about the Whip’s injunction to be brief largely evaporated in the distinguished debate that I just heard, because, the more I heard the eloquent succinctness, particularly of noble Lords opposite—the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, and others—the less anxious I felt about initially crossing sections of my notes out and eventually remaining silent. So I feel equally confident about the solidarity and inspiration to come.
With the Committee’s indulgence, I propose to open up this section on interpretation, which goes on for about three groups, but not to pop up on each group; rather, I shall make my points about this whole concept of reinterpreting the convention here. I do so knowing full well that noble Lords from around the Committee will ventilate granular and very important concerns about reinterpreting “social group”, for example, from the disjunctive to the conjunctive approach to trip up some claimants—or about doctoring the burden and standard of proof and turning persecution, in the context of non-state persecution, into something that does not grant refugee protection where the reasonable steps in which the other state is engaged are totally failing, and so on. Initially, then, I will leave others to extrapolate those concerns and, instead, my own part in the collective approach in this Committee will be on the fundamental problem with reinterpreting the refugee convention in this legislation, which begins with Clause 29 and goes on. I hope the Committee is happy for me to make my contribution on that basis.
I have a fundamental objection to the entire approach with this reinterpreting of a shared post-World War II refugee convention, not because I do not trust this country to take control of its borders and laws and so on, but because in order for the convention to work, it has to be an international enterprise, and also because I trust our courts. Although Ministers have said at various points on previous days of this Committee that it is for Parliament, not the UNHCR, to interpret the convention, what they really mean is that it is for the Home Office and not the courts—neither the courts over there, nor the courts here.
What is really going on is that the Government are not taking the approach that they took with the internal market Bill of just being open and honest about an intention to violate international law; they are doing it by this sleight of hand. You could almost call it “violation laundering”, because they will palm it off on Parliament and, once they have done that—once this rewriting of the jurisprudence of the convention has been passed through Parliament—we will be the laundromat: it will be on us that decades and continents-worth of international human rights jurisprudence around this convention will not bite any more to protect those seeking asylum in the UK. I certainly do not want that on my conscience, and I suspect the Committee does not either.
This is wrong because it is a violation of the principle that this treaty has been entered into in good faith, which is obviously a principle of common sense and the Vienna convention, and so on. It is outrageous because it is telling the courts, including our own, that all this jurisprudence that has been built up over years of dealing with cases, with some of the greatest jurists in our history, including Lord Bingham, can go out of the window because the Home Office has a better idea—one which is, of course, designed to trip people up. Let us be clear: it is not designed to extend convention protection to more people; it goes back to the stump speeches we heard from various noble Lords last week about numbers and so on and is not at all about refugee protection and honouring the convention.
I get to the point where I actually think that maybe it would be more honest for the Government to do what some noble Lords have occasionally tempted them to do, which is to put their hands up and say, “We don’t believe in this refugee convention anymore. It is inconvenient and old-fashioned; we don’t like the numbers, and we’re not having any of it.” There is something Orwellian, distasteful and misleading of the electorate to go through these contortions and perversions of language and law.
Maybe other noble Lords in Committee will have a different view of that, but it is coming to the point where these contortions of language and jurisprudence are so obscene and genuinely Orwellian—I know that word is overused, but for me it was never about having six cameras in the street instead of three; for me, it is about Politics and the English Language, Orwell’s greatest work, and the abuse of language that leads to the abuse of people. That is what is wrong with this whole section—it is not in good faith; it is not a reflection of the jurisprudence; it is an attempt by sleight of hand to undermine it.
This is not just terrible in the context of refugee protection, which, given what is at stake, is bad enough; it is really bad for Britain and the rule of law, which is arguably one of our greatest exports—not David Beckham’s left or right foot, not even Shakespeare or Elgar, but the rule of law. It is the reason why, unfortunately, so many oligarchs want to come here, in addition to hiding their money. They want to sue each other in our courts and hire some of our noble and learned Lords to go and judge their arbitrations in secret, because there is something magical and special about our law.
When we share our jurisprudence in good faith with supreme courts and constitutional courts around the world, we are not just affecting refugee protection here but influencing that jurisprudence all over the world; and that is an export too. You cannot measure it in pounds and pence, but you can measure it in a truly global Britain and a better world. There needs to be this international conversation between judges here and over there, in good faith and influenced by each other’s jurisprudence. By reinterpreting the convention, we throw it all out. It is year nought in the Home Office, and all that jurisprudence goes out the window because we have rewritten the convention via this totally offensive clause. Of course, Ministers have an oath, and they are supposed to respect international law—enough said about that.
I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is having a break now, not just because it is good to have a break but because it gives me the opportunity to put a question to the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, that I tried to put last night in the context of a different Bill, about whether the Government have already instructed parliamentary counsel on the Bill to scrap the Human Rights Act. In the last group, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, invoked convention rights, the ECHR and our participation in that in defence, so it is an important question in practical terms, because it can always be said that we will not be sending anybody for Article 3 treatment and so on and so forth. It is also really important because Section 3 of the Human Rights Act requires that all other legislation be read compatibly with convention rights as far as it is possible to do so. In this pandemic period, I have heard noble Lords opposite, and Ministers in particular, invoking that in defence of the CHIS Bill, the overseas operations Bill, the police Bill: “Don’t worry, because remember, there is always the Human Rights Act as a catch-all protection—particularly the interpretation provision but also the duty on public authorities to comply.” If parliamentary counsel have already been instructed to draft the Bill that will scrap the Human Rights Act, we need to read all of this in a slightly different light, do we not? Frankly, even in the light that we currently have, it is bad enough.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my name is to the opposition to Clause 29 and the other clauses mentioned in this group as well. Of course, opposing Clause 29 is a consequence of opposing the other clauses, all of which, we say, should go. I have written down “clauses on interpretation”; the term “laundering” had not yet occurred to me, but I follow the point about the interpretation or laundering of the refugee convention. The overall point, as I say, is that they should all go.
On Second Reading, I described it as perverse to use domestic legislation to impose an interpretation of an international convention. Since then, at earlier points in this Committee, we have heard much more powerful, analytical, legally informed responses, and, though I am speaking before the contributors to whom I am referring, I think I would be much better following them—that is not intended to be at all disrespectful to the Minister, nor indeed to the very experienced lawyer from whom we have just heard. The humanitarian arguments have been very well put, but the short point I took away from an earlier day is inarguable. We are party to the convention: it is our law; it is well-established law. If we were to leave the convention—which, of course, I am not advocating—that would be another matter. But we have not left it, and I hope we are not going to.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I shall continue to limit my interventions in Committee to expressing views that I hold simply as a lawyer. The course I took on Tuesday of last week, when we were discussing Clause 11, gave us an early introduction to the very provisions with regard to reinterpreting the convention that we are now concerned with. I reserve the right, when we come to Report, to come in on what I regard as the more obviously mean-spirited and ill-judged other provisions, which are, as is patent, designed to deter as many as possible of those who would otherwise wish to seek refugee status in this country.
Clause 29, as has already been pointed out, is an omnibus provision that takes you into further and more specific, and therefore more specifically objectionable, provisions, which take the convention apart and reinterpret it piece by piece. As both noble Baronesses have said, that is itself intrinsically an objectionable way to proceed with regard to one’s legal obligations.
There are three further stand part notices in this group. I will not touch on all of them because time is the enemy today, as it will be on Thursday. On Clause 33, the protection from persecution, as the Bingham Centre for the Rule of Law has valuably pointed out, this clause fundamentally changes the approach to protection from persecution from a focus on meaningful and effective protection against persecution, which our long-established jurisdiction establishes is the correct focus, to a focus on the existence of a reasonable system to prevent, investigate and prosecute instances of where, despite the system, there has been persecution. This refocusing mischievously—and, I suggest, in legal terms, fatally—sidesteps the all-important question of whether the system is likely to protect the individual concerned.
In the interests of time, rather than make comparatively lesser points on the other two named clauses, Clauses 34 and 35, I will pass on. I say only on Clause 35, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that this is directed to Article 1(F) of the convention. Clause 35(2) goes to Article 1(F)(b), concerning serious non-political crimes, and we will come in the next group to Clause 37, which deals with Article 33 of the convention on non-refoulement. Whatever the position on non-refoulement that may be arrived at under the refugee convention, even if, for example, the asylum seeker was found to be a war criminal and so is denied refugee status under Article 1(F)(a) of the convention—see Clause 35(1) of the Bill—it still is not possible to return that person to their country of origin if they would be persecuted. That is simply precluded by Article 3 of the ECHR.
I have had a helpful exchange of emails with the Bill manager. I asked the Minister at our Cross-Bench meeting a question which he referred to the Bill manager; namely, whether any of these provisions in the Bill were intended or calculated to alter any of the well-established and authoritative case law in this country. Except for one point which the Bill manager made regarding Clause 37, which corrects an ambiguity that arose under Section 72 of the 2002 Act, I am unpersuaded that where there is a departure from our case law, as is recognised, it is properly made under this Bill. I finish at this point.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I have been here for only eight years, which is not long in your Lordships’ House, but I have never seen so many attempts to delete clauses from a Bill—and of course that is completely the right thing to do here. With this Government, I always look for dead cats being thrown on the table to distract us from something much worse that is happening under the table, but there are so many dead cats in this Bill that I am assuming they are all genuine bits of the Bill that the Government want to pass, which is quite disturbing.
Here the Government are trying to unilaterally rewrite international law, and they are doing so to appease the far right, both in their party and in the country. That is a pointless thing to do; you will never appease the far right. It is an example of the Government throwing away decades of international progress on domestic and international policies only to appease a segment of society who are outspoken and noisy—like the Greens, I suppose, but, unlike the Greens, they actually have malign intent.
We are sending a signal to the world that we are not competent to run our country any more, and certainly not worthy of being part of any international grouping that believes in progress and the rights of the human being.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I add my voice to those of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, my noble and learned friend Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Chakrabarti, in saying to the Minister, for whom I have considerable respect—I know of his own track record in the area of international law and the upholding of human rights—that beyond the legal arguments that have already been put to him is the reputational damage to this country, not least because of international issues, some of which he will be aware of.
Anything that we do to dilute our commitment to the 1951 convention on the treatment of refugees—any unravelling or unscrambling of our commitments—is to be deplored. I will give two examples to the Minister. I co-chair the All-Party Parliamentary Group on North Korea and am vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Uyghurs. In the case of North Korea, we, the United Kingdom, will regularly raise with the People’s Republic of China the refoulement policy of sending North Koreans from the PRC, to which they have escaped, back to North Korea, knowing that terrible things, including executions, will happen to them when they are sent back—a clear dereliction of the commitment to which the PRC signed up in the 1951 convention on the treatment of refugees.
In the case of Uighurs, Turkey is presently considering sending back Uighurs because of an agreement that it has reached with the People’s Republic of China. Everyone in your Lordships’ House—notably the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, who is in his place; he raised this issue with me as recently as last week, in another debate—is well aware that there are 1 million Uighurs in detention centres and camps in Xinjiang, and we know of terrible atrocities that have occurred. Our own Foreign Secretary has said that a genocide is under way. In that context, for any country, and in the case of Turkey a NATO country, to be sending people back, again in violation of its duties in the 1951 convention, seems to be deplorable. However, the United Kingdom can hardly start lecturing others not to do these things if we ourselves are going to unscramble and diminish the importance of the 1951 convention.
I suppose that, as a post-war baby, I have maybe too much admiration for what was not entirely a golden age, but think about all the things that were put in place at that time: everything from the Marshall aid programme to the 1948 Universal Declaration on Human Rights, with its 30 articles that set out our rights on an international basis, and the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide. Given all those things that have been put in place, we should think extraordinarily carefully before we do anything to diminish or dilute them. That is why I hope the Minister will give proper consideration to the interventions that he has heard so far—I am sure he will—and, between now and Report, see what more we can do to ensure that we do nothing to diminish the importance of the 1951 convention.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is, as he says, about more than our reputation and not being able to lecture or set a good example to others? It enables others to point to us.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Yes; not for the first time I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It was British lawyers who crafted these things. Look, for instance, at the Nuremberg trials and the role of people such as Hartley Shawcross, who was the Labour Member of Parliament for St Helens, and the law officers from the United Kingdom in the establishment and creation of these things. They were a gift to many other nations. That is why we should be holding and enhancing them, not doing anything to diminish them.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, I struggle with some of the dilemmas presented by Clauses 29 to 37, for very much the reasons given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke of Nottingham, in his frank and powerful speech of 1 February on Clause 11. There are, after all, circumstances in which Parliament may legitimately set out its interpretation of treaty provisions and overrule decisions of our courts. There is also a desire, which others on these Benches may share, to give the Government the benefit of the doubt if they can show us why their proposals are not in breach of international law.
The problem I have in that regard is that we have seen impressive formulations of the case against these clauses: for example, from the UNHCR, in the opinion of Raza Husain QC, and in the briefing from the Bingham Centre to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, has referred. What we—or at any rate I—have not seen is how the Government seek to justify these clauses against the requirements of the refugee convention, as interpreted by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
For example, under Article 31.3 of the Vienna convention the interpretation of a treaty can legitimately be influenced by state practice. Do the Government rely on the statute or case law of other states as support for the interpretations that they ask us to enact? If so, which states and in relation to which clauses of the Bill? Do they say, in relation to each relevant provision of the refugee convention, that those practices establish
“the agreement of the parties regarding its interpretation”
within the meaning of Article 31.3(b) of the Vienna convention?
As a second example, the United Kingdom made various reservations and declarations at the time it ratified the refugee convention. Do the Government contend that these clauses, or some of them, constitute de facto reservations in so far as they purport to constrain, as a matter of law, the interpretation or application of the refugee convention? In that case, what are their arguments for their timeliness and permissibility and, if they are permissible, their compatibility with the object and purpose of the convention?
I appreciate, of course, that there are conventions regarding the publication of law officers’ legal advice, but surely a way can be found of conveying to your Lordships, and to the public, a detailed and authoritative explanation of the Government’s legal position in more detail than can be explained, however lucidly, by a very lucid Minister in this Chamber. Whether such advice will be enough to allay the concerns of those of your Lordships who take seriously our obligations under international law I cannot say, but at least these clauses will not be lost by default, which I suspect may be the alternative if we are left in the dark.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, if I may intervene briefly, I am not an expert in this field but once the lawyers start quoting clauses, sub-clauses and those sorts of things, one has to be careful. This is obviously an important point, and I was really taken by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. He has spent a lot of time on this and one has to respect the work he has done. He talked about us unscrambling. When my noble friend comes to wind up, can he say whether we are unscrambling or simplifying?
Some of the way this seems to read is that we are making a thing clear for everybody. Therefore, far from undermining what we stand for, we are making it clearer for everybody, and as such for the people of this country, to understand what the Government are trying to do, and thereby increase the degree of informed consent—a concept about which I am very keen. I understand the complications of the legal interpretations put forward by many noble and noble and learned Lords, but I would like my noble friend to tell me: are we simplifying or unscrambling? If we are simplifying, that seems a desirable thing to do.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, taking up what the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, just said, my lay and naive understanding of international conventions, such as the refugee convention, is that processes of clarifying or simplifying should involve international co-operation and coming to a global agreement over what those interpretations, clarifications and simplifications are.
Amnesty and Migrant Voice put it differently. They say:
“Clauses 29 to 38 constitute an attempt by the Home Office via legislation to unilaterally re-write the UK’s international refugee law obligations and, in doing so, reverse the decisions of the UK’s highest courts”.
As I have said before in this Committee, international conventions, as far as I am concerned, serve no purpose unless the signatories abide by a common understanding of what the convention means. Any deviation from the settled and accepted interpretation of an international convention must be agreed universally, not unilaterally, as these clauses attempt to do. Any attempt by the Bill effectively to rewrite what it means could result in the UK breaching its international obligations and we believe that none of these clauses should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
As has been said, this part of the Bill provides for “interpretation” of the refugee convention. It includes some entirely new provisions and replicates or amends some existing provisions.
On existing provisions, this part of the Bill repeals the Refugee or Person in Need of International Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006. These regulations transposed a key EU directive on standards for asylum systems, the qualification directive, into UK law. The Bill repeals the regulations and puts versions of the provisions into primary legislation instead.
The UNHCR noted with concern the Government’s approach to interpreting the refugee convention. I will read an extract from its legal observations on the Bill in full. It said:
“We note with concern the Government’s approach to interpreting the Refugee Convention. Any treaty must be ‘interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.’ In the case of the Refugee Convention, as the UK Supreme Court has noted on more than one occasion, ‘There is no doubt that the Convention should be given a generous and purposive interpretation, bearing in mind its humanitarian objects and the broad aims reflected in its preamble.’ In addition, the Vienna Convention specified a range of sources that ‘shall be taken into account’ in interpreting a treaty; these all reflect the agreement of the parties, and include other agreements and instruments from the time the treaty was concluded, as well subsequent agreements, State practice and international law. In other words, States cannot, under international law, unilaterally announce their own interpretation of the terms of the agreements they have made with other States. This, too, has been repeatedly recognised by the House of Lords and the Supreme Court of the UK.”
I do not want to repeat what has already been said, but I just ask: do the Government agree with that extract from the UNHCR’s legal observations on the Bill? If they do agree with it, do they believe that they are still abiding by it?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
The starting point is that we are no longer members of the European Union and, by extension, the Common European Asylum System. In response to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, these provisions are not a direct response to the case of AH (Algeria). They are about having an opportunity to define clearly and unscramble refugee convention terms following our exit from the EU. It is right that, at this time of legal change, we take the opportunity to reassess the operation of our asylum system and reconsider our approach not only to fundamental policies but to processes, so that we can create a clearer and more accessible system.
The fact is that the development of the asylum system through international conventions, European law, domestic legislation, Immigration Rules and case law has created a complex legal web that can be difficult to understand and apply; that goes for claimants, decision-makers and the courts. I do not propose to use props—I understand that that is not permitted—but, for my own assistance on a later group, I brought a book called, rather laughingly, The Immigration Law Handbook. We consider it a desirable law reform to define clearly key elements of the refugee convention in UK domestic law. In response to my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, that is exactly what we are doing. We want to make the position clearer for everyone, including decision-makers and the courts.
A lot has been said that touches on the same point but, with great respect, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, perhaps put it most forcefully. She used a number of metaphors. Let me respond to them. This is not about tripping anybody up. It is not a sleight of hand; it is difficult to do one of those on the Floor of your Lordships’ House. This is about bringing clear definitions before Parliament and having them all in one place. The central point is this: there is nothing wrong—indeed, I suggest that there is everything right—with the UK, through this Parliament, interpreting its obligations under the refugee convention. That is entirely lawful. I use “lawful” in both its narrow and wide senses. It is lawful in the sense that it is in accordance with the law; it is also lawful in the broader sense of being in accordance with the political or constitutional principle that we call the rule of law. Further, it is in accordance with the Vienna convention. Everything we are doing complies fully with all our international obligations, including the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. I will come back to the question that the noble Baroness asked me in that regard a little later.
With respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, it is not perverse to use domestic legislation to give effect to and interpret international treaties. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that I am not in the business of appeasing the far right; nor am I in the business of deleting obligations under international law. Many of the definitions, which repay careful reading, are very similar to those already used in the UK—for example, those contained in the 2004 qualification directive, which was transposed into UK law via the 2006 regulations.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his kind words. I assure him that I of course give proper consideration to international reputational impacts, but surely there can be no adverse impact by complying with international law and interpreting treaties in accordance with the Vienna convention.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I am sorry, I missed my moment; I should have spoken as soon as the Minister spoke to me. I did not accuse him of trying to appease the far right. I hope I did not say that—I certainly did not mean to—but I do accuse the Government of it. I know that the Minister did not write this Bill, but that is something I see the Government as guilty of.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I did not take it personally. I agree that I did not write the Bill. It would be a far worse Bill, and the noble Baroness would like it even less, if I had written it. But I replied in that way because I take the view that if I am standing here defending government policy, then I will stand here and defend government policy. I certainly would not defend a government policy which was simply appeasing the far right. So, that is why I replied in those terms. I know that the noble Baroness was not making a personal attack; I did not take it that way.
To finish my point to the noble Lord, Lord Alton—
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, can we have a little less talk about the far right? Some 70% of the population think that the present Government’s policy on asylum is a failure.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I do not want to get into the question of whether the Bill is going too far or not far enough, and whether our policy is good, bad or indifferent, on this group of amendments. If I may say so, those are Second Reading-type questions. I was simply responding to the point put by the noble Baroness.
To return to the point on Turkey, whether its acts are in accordance with the refugee convention is really a separate issue. I do not mean to diminish or demean this, but what we are talking about here are not acts, so to speak. We are talking about the fundamental question of whether it is proper—because the charge put against me is that it is not—for this Parliament to set out its interpretation, the UK’s interpretation, of the international obligations we have under the refugee convention.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
Before the Minister leaves that point, I was not specifically asking him to respond to Turkey’s actions. I was saying that it diminishes our ability to speak to countries such as Turkey or China—which I also referenced—if we are ourselves een to diminish our responsibilities under the 1951 convention. That comes to the question that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, put about how this is seen beyond our shores by international institutions that have examined what we are trying to do. I hope the Minister will address that point as we proceed.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I was going to come to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. Let me just say a sentence about it now: the UNHCR is not the interpretive body of the refugee convention. Each state under the convention is there to interpret its obligations, in accordance with the Vienna convention. That is the system which the state parties have set up. When we have a phrase—we will get to one a little later—such as “serious non-political crime”, the state parties have to interpret it. We will get to an example in the next group—this is a little cliffhanger—of where different countries have approached the question differently. There is nothing wrong with that, provided that they are all acting in accordance with the Vienna convention in good faith in seeking to interpret their obligations.
Respectfully, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, essentially accepted that basic proposition under the Vienna convention, and he was obviously right to do so. He sought characteristically carefully—if I might say so—to seek disclosure of the legal advice on which the Government are relying, while recognising the conventions which apply to that. I listened carefully to what he said. I will read Hansard to see whether there is anything more I can say in writing to him; I do not want to rush from the Dispatch Box. There may or may not be anything more I can say, but I will read that point carefully. I think he recognised that there are conventions in this area which do apply.
However, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that it is not a question of having to agree with all the other signatories. This is not about amending the refugee convention; it is about interpreting it. That is a very different thing. If you want to amend a contract, you need the other party’s agreement, but interpreting a convention is for each state party.
I will say a few words about the substantive clauses, although I think it is fair to say that those were not really the Committee’s focus. Clause 29 sets out how key terms which are defined in the following clauses will be applied; they are the key components of the refugee convention. Clause 29 also revokes the Refugee or Person in Need of International Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006. Those are the regulations through which we transposed our obligations under the EU qualification directive 2004. Because we are out of the EU, we need to do that in a different way.
However, we will continue to grant humanitarian protection to eligible individuals who cannot be removed from the UK to their country of origin if their removal would breach the UK’s obligations under Articles 2 or 3 of the ECHR. It is important to clarify—I am sure Members of the Committee know this—that these are not individuals protected under the refugee convention. However, we will make further changes to align the entitlements of permission to stay granted on the basis of humanitarian protection to that provided to group 2 refugees.
In response to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, we believe that Clause 33 provides a system of effective protection from persecution. Clause 34 deals with relocation, but I do not think any noble Lords spoke to it directly, so I will just refer to it and move on.
On Clause 35, of course we have a proud history of providing protection to those who need it, but that should not apply to those who commit serious crimes, putting the communities that host them at risk and endangering national security. We believe we are right to define and legislate in this area. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that that is a good example of serious non-political crime. That is a phrase in the refugee convention, but it is not further defined in it. Each state has to look at it and define it, in accordance—always—with the Vienna convention.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
The Minister keeps saying that each state will define the refugee convention, and he alluded to the EU qualification directive; there is also the procedures directive. I declare an interest, as I worked on both directives as an MEP. Of course, that was an attempt not for each state in the EU to do its own thing but to have a collective set of laws which interpreted the refugee convention in detail and, as far as I know, complied with it. That prevented each country doing its own thing in a potentially destructive way.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
I have an associated point, to save the Minister bobbing up and down too much. I entirely take the point about non-political crime. I just wanted to make it clear that I was referring only to that bit of the Bill when I mentioned the case. I was not suggesting that it was the prompt for the whole of this part. But can the Minister explain more about the impact of our leaving the EU? Does that give us a legal opportunity, or is this happening because it is a convenient political point in the calendar, as it were?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
On the first point, of course the EU sought to interpret the refugee convention for all its members. But that actually makes my point, because it is only for the members of the EU. All the other states will interpret it in their own way. If you want to hand over your interpreting power to the EU, that is fine if you are a member—but I suggest that that does not cut across my basic point.
As to the effect of leaving the EU, if we have hitherto signed up to various interpretations through EU regulations, we now have an opportunity to look at the matter afresh, as I said when I began. To go further into that point would go way beyond the scope of this group.
Finally, I come back to the question put to me by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, about “scrapping” —I think that was the word she used last night as well—the Human Rights Act. I said last night, and I will give the same answer now, that the Human Rights Act brings into English domestic law the European Convention on Human Rights. We have reaffirmed— I did it yesterday; I will do it again now—that this Government will stay in as a signatory to the convention.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for that, but will he answer my question a bit more specifically? Has he instructed parliamentary counsel to begin the drafting process for the Bill that will replace, repeal or reinterpret the Human Rights Act and/or the convention on human rights?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
As a matter of policy, I am afraid I am not going to get into the discussions I have with government law officers and parliamentary counsel. The Government’s legislative programme has been set out. The Lord Chancellor, the Deputy Prime Minister and I have given evidence on this. We have made it clear that we will be staying in the European Convention on Human Rights. In so far as the burden of the noble Baroness’s challenge was that we have to be careful, because the Government are watering down rights, we are staying in the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore—
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I was going to wait until the Minister had finished his sentence but, before he sits down, I revert to the question of the Government’s legal case. The Minister is reticent to disclose government legal advice, which I entirely understand but, before the Committee and others can reach a fully formed opinion on this, they need a worked version of the Government’s legal position. It may be that that takes the form of a position paper or submission, rather than the replication of advice already given. But, until we see in detail what Raza Husain and the UNHCR got wrong, and why these interpretations are fully consistent with the Vienna and refugee conventions, the evidence is all one way. I am sure that I speak for many other noble Lords when I say that I would be very much assisted by seeing something of that nature.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I hope the noble Lord does not take it amiss if I say, with respect, that he makes the same point as he made earlier. and I understood it. I need to be very careful that I do not get inadvertently drawn into disclosing legal advice, but I hear the point from the noble Lord that he and others would like to see a greater fleshing out of the Government’s legal position. I have said that I will see what I can do to assist in that.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
Very diffidently, am I entirely wrong in thinking that, under Article 35 of the convention, some heed is required to be paid to the UNHCR’s expression of its approach to the convention? My recollection is that Lord Bingham said as much in one of the cases I mentioned last week, Asfaw. Is that not right?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
Respectfully, what I said earlier is that it is not the arbiter of the interpretation of the convention. I do not think that is inconsistent with the point the noble and learned Lord just made.
I was proposing to sit down, after suggesting to the Committee that we should keep these various clauses in the Bill.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, I was wondering whether he would explain some of the changes that are being made or cover them in a subsequent letter. As I understand it, Clause 33 replaces Regulation 4 in the Refugee or Person in Need of International Protection (Qualification) Regulations 2006, which is repealed by Clause 29. The wording is largely the same but, as I understand it—and I may be wrong—the existing regulations reference
“protection from persecution or serious harm”,
whereas Clause 33 references only “protection from persecution”. Why has that change to the language been made and what will its practical effects be?
There are changes of language in other areas, such as from a “may” to a “must” in Clause 34. What problem is that intended to solve? Is it not the Government’s intention to explain the reasons for the changes they have made where they have made them?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The “may” and “must” point, to which the noble Lord referred, will come up in a later group because, from memory, there is a specific amendment on it. I was proposing to deal with that when I respond to that amendment. I think we are going to come to the persecution and serious harm point later but, if I am wrong, I will write to the noble Lord and explain it. However, we are coming to “may” and “must” on a later group.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who contributed to this group. I believe there was a great deal of consensus in the Committee, but I am sure the Minister was grateful for the support of his doughty and always agreeable noble friend the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.
I say to the Minister that asserting does not make it so. Asserting, reasserting, “We’re in the convention” and “We will honour the convention” are not enough in the face of the very detailed analysis of these provisions by the UNHCR, the Bingham Centre, Raza Husain QC and, if I may say so, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, again in his always agreeable way, was trying to help the Minister out. The Minister might take his hand and shake it. It is not a hand, it is a lifeboat, but I will be told off again for using metaphors. Last week I was told of by the Minister for using the word “tawdry” too many times; I thought I was on “Just a Minute”. Today, it is metaphors.
I will try one more metaphor with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who asked a very pertinent question of the Minister. Is this not a simplification, rather than a dilution or repudiation? I believe the noble Lord comes from a business background and has often referred to the Wharton school of business. We all draw on our experience and I think a basic contract is not a bad analogy to draw here. It is the equivalent of the chief executive of a company that has been in a contractual relationship with another company for many years getting a bit fed up with various provisions of this contract that has nevertheless been working. We are talking 50 or 70 years of this contract between the parties, when the chief executive thinks, “Maybe we need to reinterpret the various articles of this contract”. He decides not just to repudiate it, because that would be embarrassing, illegal and unlawful, but he says to his board, “What we are going to do in the boardroom is reinterpret all the provisions in a way that is different from the way that we ourselves have honoured them in the past”. “We ourselves” include learned judges such as Lord Bingham and others from all over the world. We are now going to year nought and are rewriting it. We are not just simplifying; we are making material differences, in some places to the convention and in others to decades of jurisprudence, by changing “or” to “and” and changing standards of proof. This is not insignificant.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
The noble Baroness’s description of how business works, with an agreement that has lasted for a number of years, is far from the reality of any business in which I have ever worked. It is not a good analogy to use with my noble friend on the Front Bench. There may be all sorts of reasons, as we have heard, about international law, European law, UK law, UK primary legislation and UK secondary legislation, all of which cut across. They are completely different from a single arrangement in business, in which there is a contract, of one sort or another, between two firms. This is not a good analogy at all. I much prefer the complications, which my noble friend referred to, seeking to sort this out.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Forgive me; I stand corrected by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts—as always, certainly in matters of business. I was merely trying to suggest that we cannot repudiate a contract by pretending that we are reinterpreting it, when we are making material differences to the relationship between the contracting parties.
Finally on the UNHCR, it is set out in Article 35(1) of the refugee convention:
“The Contracting States undertake to co-operate with the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, or any other agency of the United Nations which may succeed it, in the exercise of its functions, and shall in particular facilitate its duty of supervising the application of the provisions of this Convention.”
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights that the standard of proof for an asylum seeker to establish a well-founded fear of persecution under the Refugee Convention should remain a composite standard of “reasonable likelihood”.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 103, 104 and 111 in particular, but before I do so, I want to say that, having listened to the Minister in the previous debate, it seems that he has almost answered the points that I was going to make. I do not want to be repetitive, because the Chief Whip asked us to be brief. A lot of the key points of principle that were covered in the previous group of amendments are also covered in this group starting with Amendment 103, so I shall be brief.
I was a little surprised—and this has gone right through our debates on this Bill—at the Minister saying that we can interpret the Geneva convention as we wish, that we are quite free to do it and that the UNHCR does not have any authority to indicate what is right and what is wrong in terms of the convention. I had always been brought up to accept that the UNHRC was in fact the guardian of the Geneva convention, and that it is the authority rather than each country doing its own thing. If each country does its own thing by interpretation, we shall not have an international convention at all and achieving international agreement will be much more difficult. Having said that, I was dismayed at the Minister’s view and equally dismayed when he said that the Bill would be even worse if it was his own Bill—I think that is what he said. I hope then that he does not have too much influence on things.
On Amendments 103 and 104, as I understand it from our deliberations in the Joint Committee on Human Rights and what it says in its report—I am still a member of that committee and contributed to the reports—the decision-maker need only be satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood of persecution as defined by the refugee convention. That seems to be the present practice. However, the Bill seeks to change that—it talks about things like the “balance of probabilities”—by limiting the effect of the reasonable likelihood of persecution provision and making it harder to achieve an effective decision about asylum in favour of the applicant.
It seems to me that the Government do not like the Geneva convention and are seeking by a series of measures throughout the Bill to weaken it. That is clever if you want to get rid of the Geneva convention. The Government will say that they stick by the convention, but by being able to interpret it in all sorts of ways one can effectively weaken it to the point where it would be a different convention from the one which we have traditionally come to accept. I think that is what the Government are trying to do. I do not think the Minister will necessarily agree, but I suspect that is what it is.
Amendments 103 and 104 relate to the change from “reasonable likelihood” of persecution to a “balance of probabilities”, which is defined in various ways which I shall not go through now. Amendment 111 is about criminality and serious crime. It has always been possible, even within the Geneva convention, for Governments to deny asylum to people who have committed a very serious crime. That has been the practice. It has not happened very often, but the Government are now seeking to redefine that provision so that a serious crime becomes something lesser than what we traditionally regarded as a serious crime—in other words, again weakening the Geneva convention. That is regrettable. I do not think that the Government had any need to weaken the convention in this way, by a process of interpretation, so I regret that, which is why I am keen on these and other amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I followed with great interest the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in speaking eloquently to the clauses stand part in the last group. Like the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I shall speak only to a particular amendment, that put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, to which I have lent my signature, as have others. Once again, I am grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for its background briefing, and I shall refer briefly to the report of the Constitution Committee in which its concerns were quoted.
I am grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for highlighting its concerns, which I share. This is a probing amendment to understand the background following on from my noble friend’s summing-up in response to the previous group. I find myself half way between my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who is not a lawyer, and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who is a lawyer of some repute. I am a member of the Faculty of Advocates but have not practised for a considerable period. However, I enjoyed the one case on which I was a junior before the European Court of Human Rights—the proceedings were very similar to those enjoyed in our erstwhile proceedings when the House of Lords enjoyed the right of final appeal.
The reason why I believe that Clause 31 does not fit well with the Bill goes back to the standard of proof test set out in the leading case for asylum cases, Ravichandran v Secretary of State for the Home Department, as a “well-founded fear of persecution”. In the Court of Appeal in 2000, it was confirmed that the standard of proof in civil proceedings—the balance of probabilities referred to in Clause 31(2)—was not suitable for immigration matters. Instead, what was important was making an assessment of all material considerations such that it
“must not exclude any matters from its consideration when it is assessing the future unless it feels that it can safely discard them because it has no real doubt that they did not in fact occur”.
Lord Justice Sedley described the balance of probabilities as
“part of a pragmatic legal fiction. It has no logical bearing on the assessment of the likelihood of future events or (by parity of reasoning) the quality of past ones.”
For the past 20 years, the approach taken in the Karanakaran case was consistently followed by the courts. In Scotland, the Outer House of the Court of Session reaffirmed that case as the correct standard of proof approach to be applied in the case in 2020 of MF (El Salvador) v Secretary of State for the Home Department. In that case, it was held that the First-tier Tribunal judge had erred in law by applying the wrong standard of proof in respect of an application for permission to appeal brought by an asylum seeker.
In Kaderli v Chief Public Prosecutor’s Office of Gebeze, Turkey, in 2021, the High Court reaffirmed, while referencing the Karanakaran case, that the question as to determining a well-founded fear of persecution is that of an evaluative nature about the likelihood of future events. In that case, it was held that the judge erred in holding that it was for the appellant to prove on the balance of probabilities that the corruption alleged had occurred. The true test involved the application of a lower standard: whether there was a real risk that the appellant’s conviction was based on a trial tainted by corruption. This was consistent with the approach to the fact-finding in the immigration context.
In the view of the Law Society of Scotland,
“the change in clause 31 appears to go against the intention of the New Plan for Immigration, and flies in the face of 25 years judicial scrutiny.”
So my question to my noble friend the Minister, in summing up this evening, is: on what basis are the Government prepared to set aside the cases that I have set out this evening?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 105 in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, who cannot be here tonight, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to whom I am grateful. I also thank Women for Refugee Women and ILPA for all their work on this amendment.
The amendment would remove the narrow restrictive and requirement in Clause 32 that, in order to qualify under the “particular social group” grounds of persecution for recognition as a refugee under the convention, two conditions must be met. The amendment would replace this with an either/or condition. As I will explain, this would be in line with international standards and UK case law.
This is a small amendment, but it is significant, as the UNHCR has made clear. The UNHCR explains that Clause 32 is one of a
“series of changes that would make it more difficult for refugees who are admitted to the UK to be recognised as such.”
The case for the amendment is, in effect, set out in its detailed legal observations, which have been invaluable to our scrutiny of the Bill. The UNHCR warns that narrowing the definition of “particular social group” in the way that the clause does
“could exclude some refugees from the protection to which they are entitled … In the UK and other jurisdictions, the particular social group ground has proved critical in the protection of those with claims based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, status as former victims of trafficking, disability or mental-ill health, family and age.”
This view is endorsed by the Bingham Centre, which warns:
“The result will inevitably be to refuse protection to people who, as a matter of international law, are refugees.”
It picks out this clause as one of a number that are particularly troubling to it from a rule of law perspective.
The UNHCR explains the origins of the two conditions and why it has recommended that they should be treated as alternative, rather than cumulative, tests. The argument was endorsed by the late Lord Bingham, acting in his judicial capacity, when he ruled that the cumulative approach taken in Clause 32 was wrong because
“it propounds a test more stringent than is warranted by international authority.”
Thus this approach, the UNHCR points out, has been affirmed in the UK courts over an EU interpretation. I cannot resist observing that it is rather odd that a Government committed to taking back control from the EU is so keen to apply an EU interpretation that has been rejected by the British courts. Indeed, on the previous group, the Minister said that our starting point should be that we had left the EU, so could he perhaps explain why that does not apply to this clause?
In their briefing, Women for Refugee Women—WRW —and ILPA include an example, taken from Garden Court Chambers barristers, of what this might mean:
“a trafficked woman would need to show not only that her status as a trafficked woman is an innate characteristic”—
one shared with other members of a group—
“but also that trafficked women as a group are perceived as having a distinct identity in her country of origin. The latter is of course much more difficult to establish than the former because this is judged by the perceptions of the society in her country, and it can be very challenging to find objective evidence on women as a distinct group.”
WFW and ILPA also point out that there was “no pre-legislative consultation” on this clause because it was not included in the New Plan for Immigration. Can the Minister explain why this is the case? Moreover, the equality impact assessment on the Bill, which has been described as “superficial and inadequate” by barristers at Garden Court Chambers, fails adequately to assess the impact of the change on groups in vulnerable circumstances.
As I have already noted, the UNHCR has warned of the likely implications for a wide range of such groups. I particularly draw attention to how this clause is likely to have an adverse impact on women fleeing gender-based persecution—a group that the Government claim to care about. As I made clear on an earlier amendment, it is one of a number of such clauses that have to be viewed in the context of the failings that already exist. According to WRW and ILPA,
“Over the years, there has been substantial research on the failures of the Home Office in delivering a fair asylum process, and on the reasons why many women who flee gender-based persecution may be wrongly denied protection.”
Most recently, as I noted last week and gave the Minister some weekend reading on, the British Red Cross has published research that details experiences that
“highlight the distrust and disbelief women can face when discussing traumatic experiences of violence”,
especially, but not only, when interviewed by men. One survivor’s words are recounted:
“you feel so low and you feel so degraded and you’ve been violated and you were [telling] your story, you were expecting to be heard and to have someone who shows you some form of sympathy.”
In the Commons Public Bill Committee, the Government justified their position by asserting that the new clause was necessary to bring certainty to an area bedevilled by conflicting authority. But ILPA and WFW give that argument short shrift, pointing out:
“There is no conflicting authority: the UNHCR and the senior UK courts have a clear and constant interpretation. It is the Government that seeks to depart from this shared interpretation of the Refugee Convention, and it does so without warrant or proper justification.”
So can the Minister provide a more convincing justification today of a clause that, in the words of Women for Refugee Women and ILPA
“reverses case law of senior UK courts, contravenes UNHCR standards, and reinstates an erroneous EU law standard”?
If not, will he agree to this amendment?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, all of these clauses seek to restrict access to the protection of the refugee convention. I will speak to Amendments 103 and 104 to Clause 31 and Amendment 111 to Clause 37, which are all in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and which I have co-signed. However, I share the view of my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that all of these clauses should in fact be removed.
The problem with Clause 31 is that it changes the standard of proof for the test of whether a person is a refugee. It creates two limbs of the test and changes the bar from “reasonable likelihood” to
“on the balance of probabilities”.
Although the refugee convention does not prescribe the standard of proof, UNHCR’s handbook says:
“The requirement of evidence should … not be too strictly applied in view of the difficulty of proof inherent in the special situation in which an applicant for refugee status finds himself.”
So, for 20 years, the UK courts, including the Supreme Court, have applied a “reasonable likelihood” standard of proof in a composite and holistic manner.
Clause 31 overturns this established interpretation of the law by dividing the overall test into a series of sub-questions and applying different standards of proof to different limbs of questioning, to require the person to prove on a balance of probabilities that they fear persecution and the decision-maker to revert to a test of reasonable likelihood in assessing whether the person would face persecution and lack state protection. It is quite a mishmash, and a complex and confusing one—not least for already burdened caseworkers. As we have heard so frequently in this Committee, if the Government really want to fix a broken asylum system, why are they making everything more complex and building in delay?
As the Bingham Centre points out, Clause 31
“allows for rejection of a person as a refugee because they failed one of the steps”
imposing that higher hurdle,
“whereas if the test was taken in its totality, the person may have been accepted as a refugee.”
The process may well lead to exclusion from sheer error because of all these complex, different bits of the test. Either the JCHR Amendments 103 and 104 should be accepted, or Clause 31 should be deleted.
On Amendment 111 to Clause 37, as the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has said, we object to the lowering of the threshold for regarding a crime as particularly serious such that a person can be expelled. It is designed to—and will—exclude many more people from the protection of the refugee convention. Not only is the threshold sentence reduced from two years to 12 months but it changes the rebuttable presumption of “particularly serious” into an unchallengeable assertion.
This is disproportionate; a blanket exclusion is incompatible with the refugee convention, which envisages a crime that is a major threat and expulsion as a last resort. Bear in mind that the Bill seeks to impose a four-year sentence for the mere act of arriving in the UK without permission, which most refugees have to do. That gives you a measure of the lack of proportion in what is supposed to be a serious crime under the remit of the Bill; I am not validating or endorsing any crime, but under the refugee convention it has to be “particularly serious”, and the Government are departing from that.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I confine my brief comments on this group to Clauses 31 and 32, both of which have been touched on, respectively, by the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Lister.
Clause 31 is peculiarly objectionable. As has been described, it divides up what should be a single, holistic question into a series of sub-questions and compounds that error by the differentiation in some important respects of standards of proof. It imposes an objectionable higher standard of proof on one critical provision. As the Joint Committee on Human Rights says in its report HL Paper 143—pages 39 to 41—it raises the standard of proof from a “reasonable likelihood” to a “balance of probabilities”.
The overall holistic approach to Article 31 was established as long ago as 1995 in a case called Ravichandran, which reported in 1996 in immigration appeal report 77. I confess that I wrote the lead judgment, but it has been consistently applied by the higher courts ever since. To quote one passage, the approach to Article 1A of the convention should be
“a single composite question … looked at in the round and all the relevant circumstances brought into account”
to see if there is a real risk.
Those promoting this clause should read a devastating critique of Clause 31 last month by Hugo Storey, the immediate past president of the International Association of Refugee and Migration Judges who has just retired from being an Upper Tribunal judge. He has no doubt that it will lead to “prodigious litigation”; in six compelling pages that those responsible for the Bill must read, he explains precisely why.
Clause 32, on the question of the particular social group, has been dealt with. It seeks to overturn Lord Bingham’s judgment in the case of Fornah, in the Appellate Committee of this House back in 2006, which was all about a 15 year-old girl trying to avoid female genital mutilation in Sierra Leone. I was a junior member of that court, and this clause tries, contrary to that clear judgment, to introduce a conjunctive approach to the two relevant criteria. It would be a grave mistake and cause grave injustice.
The Lord Bishop of Gloucester
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 105 and the intention to oppose Clause 31 standing part of the Bill. I too am grateful to Women for Refugee Women and others for their briefings and support.
In the New Plan for Immigration and the briefings for the Bill, the Government have argued repeatedly that the existing asylum and refugee system is weighted against vulnerable women. The Home Secretary has repeatedly made the point that the large majority of channel crossings are by men aged under 40, for example. Given this, there might be some expectation that the Bill would contain some good news or ambitions on the part of the Government for better reaching and helping the women and girls who make up 50% of the world’s refugees and displaced people. Unfortunately, I do not see any such commitments. As a sting in the tail, in Clauses 31 and 32 we find proposals that seem to significantly disadvantage women further.
I will not repeat but endorse the arguments that it is already disproportionately difficult for women, particularly survivors of gender-based violence, to have their claims for refugee protection status correctly determined. Clause 31 can only exacerbate this situation, which is a disaster for many vulnerable women. That is also true of Clause 32, unfortunately, and I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for laying out the issue here so clearly. I am very pleased to add my name in support of her Amendment 105.
I have no wish to take up time repeating the arguments, but it is critical to reiterate the point that the “particular social group” reason is an essential lifeline for survivors of sexual and gender-based persecution not otherwise covered by
“race, religion, nationality or political opinion”
in the reasons set out in the 1951 convention, as we have heard from other noble Lords. I will listen closely to the Minister’s response on this, but it is very difficult to see the justification for this move, which goes in the face of existing legal practice. It is so important for these survivors.
Many of my best memories of this place come from last year’s excellent debates on the Domestic Abuse Bill, which really showed politics in its best light. I know that this cause is taken seriously by the Government, but it seems that there is a blind spot on migrant women. We will discuss this again on later amendments, including my right reverend friend the Bishop of London’s forthcoming Amendment 140, but I end with a plea to the Minister to look again at these clauses and, if these amendments are not right, to present others that will ensure that vulnerable women are not further disadvantaged by this change.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I offer the support of the Green group for all the amendments in this group and express horror at the whole nature of this part of the Bill. It is a great pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate and to agree with everything that she said about the gender aspects of the Bill as it now stands, as also mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.
I want to address Amendment 111 and make a simple observation: the average length of a prison sentence in England and Wales in 2021 was 18.6 months, compared with 11.4 months in 2000. Is this really something extraordinary? Is the UNHCR right in saying that this change in terminology is not right? I think that it clearly is.
I want to draw out what the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady McIntosh, said, both of them reflecting on different elements of how this law is throwing out 25 years of British legal tradition. I am not going to reopen the discussion on the last group about particular political labels, but I will note that this is happening in a country where only a couple of years ago we saw our most senior judges under attack on the front pages of certain newspapers. That is the context in which this is occurring.
I want to reflect—a number of people have talked about this but I shall boil it down—on what the Government’s proposals are likely to do: produce a large number of people who are denied status but who cannot be sent home because it is clearly impossibly unsafe and dangerous to send them there. That leads to a situation of more chaos and more forced black-market employment, which surely no one could want.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
My Lords, I want to give practical expression to what those who have spoken, including the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, have said, and to the exposition of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown: if a law is going to be passed, it needs to be clear, simple and not confused, as in Clause 31.
I shall tell a story. A friend of mine was going to be best man at our wedding, but Amin’s soldiers were hunting for him, so he left Uganda on the very day that we got married, dressed like a woman, and landed up in Kenya. That was the only way he could get away. He had nothing. Friends in Kenya managed to get him a ticket and he came to Oxford with nothing. There he studied law and did very well as a result, but if the test had been on the grounds of probability, he probably would not have done so. It comes down to the question of “reasonable likelihood”. All he could do was describe how he left Uganda. If you are from Uganda, you know you do not go around dressed like that, but the people who listened to his case at Oxford could associate with it.
I ask this for the reasons that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, has given: why in one clause do we have “reasonable likelihood” and in another “the balance of probabilities”? That confuses the legislation.
I have been able to represent some asylum seekers when they have come here. I think the Joint Committee on Human Rights is right that this is what should be incorporated in our law and we should not try to change it—unless of course we are following the analysis of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that instead of making it clear as we incorporate this into our legislation, we are saying, “Throw it out. We know better and we are going to do it in our own way.” I do not think that that makes for good law. It is not simple, straightforward or clear. In the old days, it was said that any good law must be understood by the woman or man on the Clapham omnibus—if they cannot understand it, your law is not very clear. The judgment of Lord Bingham is clear.
Why abandon our case law as we begin to incorporate this into our law? This time the Minister will have to give us reasons why that is the case, instead of—forgive me—what sounds like a bullish reaction to every reasonable thing that has been said. I plead with the Minister to use simple language and retain “reasonable likelihood”, because that is much easier to deal with when people come here without papers or documents and their lives are in danger.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I could simply repeat what I said at the conclusion of the last group: the UK should not engage in the unilateral reinterpretation of the refugee convention—not that we are rewriting it, but we are reinterpreting it—but I shall go into a little more detail.
The JCHR, supported by Amnesty and Migrant Voice, believes that the standard of proof as to whether an asylum seeker has a well-founded fear should remain as “reasonable likelihood”. Amnesty makes the additional point that, as well as raising the standard, Clause 31 makes the decision more complex and the Home Office is getting it wrong too many times already.
We support Amendments 103 and 104 but we also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that Clause 31 should not stand part of the Bill. Amendment 105, to which I have added my name, attempts to bring the definition of “particular social group” into line with international standards and UK case law. Again, based on the principle that the Bill should not be unilaterally reinterpreting the refugee convention, as I said in the previous group, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that Clause 32 should not stand part of the Bill.
Amendment 111 seeks to prevent the definition of “particularly serious crime” from being reduced to 12 months’ imprisonment. As my noble friend Lady Ludford said, bearing in mind that the Bill attempts to set the maximum penalty for entering the UK without authority at four years’ imprisonment, the two changes could potentially exclude all asylum seekers who do not enter through resettlement schemes. As before, we support the assertion of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that Clause 37 should not stand part of the Bill.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. We support the intentions of the amendments. I thank my noble friends Lord Dubs, Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Chakrabarti, who have been leading on these amendments.
I found it interesting to hear from my noble friend Lady Lister that there was no pre-legislative consultation on the issues covered by Amendment 105. Normally if we want changes in the law, we are told that such things have to go through a lengthy and elaborate process, but these seem to have appeared with a certain degree of rapidity.
I really only want to ask the Government a couple of questions. First, in each of the three cases—that is, Clauses 31, 32 and 37—what is the problem that the Government claim to be fixing? What is it, particularly in relation to Clause 31, about the current standard of proof that they believe is failing?
Secondly, could the Government tell us where the pressure has come from to make these changes in the law? Clearly this is not simplification; it is changing the law, so let us not beat around the bush on that. Where has the pressure come from? Has it been intense? From what sources has it come? Who, or what organisation, has been after achieving these particular changes in the law? I do not recall—though I may be wrong—having heard people marching through the streets demanding these changes, which makes one wonder if some requests for change were made at a political fundraising dinner where no one else knew what was going on.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure whether it is the time of the evening that prompted that reference to dinner; otherwise, it is not immediately apparent to me what the relevance of it was. I will come back to that rather less substantive point—if I may say so, respectfully—at the end.
Let me deal first with Clause 31. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. He is right that there are points of principle that underlie these amendments; they underlay the last group as well. I too will try not to repeat the points that I have made. There are points of principle that are at issue between us, and we have set out our respective positions. We believe that the test set out in Clause 31 is compliant with our international obligations. More specifically, we believe that it will provide, and lead to, better decision-making, because it sets out a clear test, with steps for decision-makers, including the courts, to follow. That will lead to greater consistency.
Turning to Amendments 103 and 104, although I listened very carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and I agree with the importance of us carefully assessing whether asylum seekers have a well-founded fear of persecution, as required under Article 1(A)(2) of the convention, we do not agree with these amendments because, taken together, they will essentially maintain the current standard of proof system. In so far as my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering said that it was, to a certain extent, a probing amendment, let me try to explain.
First, this is not about setting aside decisions of the court. The courts are there to interpret the legislation as it stands—that is what they do. Parliament is entitled to change the legislative background, in so far as it is consistent with our treaty obligations. Clause 31 sets out a clear, step-by-step process. I hear the point made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, that it should be—so far as legislation can be—in simple language and a clear test. The problem at the moment is that there is no clearly outlined test as such. There is case law, there is policy and there is guidance in this area, but the current approach leads to a number of different elements being considered as part of one overall decision. What we seek to do here is to introduce distinct stages that a decision-maker must go through, with clearly articulated standards of proof for each. We believe that this will lead to better and more consistent decision-making.
At its core, in Clause 31(2) we are asking claimants to establish that they are who they say they are and that they fear what they say they fear to a balance of probabilities standard. That is the ordinary civil standard of proof for establishing facts, and those are facts in Clause 31(2); namely, more likely than not. It is reasonable, I suggest, that claimants who are asking the UK for protection are able to answer those questions. We have looked carefully, of course, at the often difficult situations that claimants might come from and the impact that might have on the kinds of evidence that they can provide. However, we consider that our overall approach to making decisions, which includes a detailed and sensitive approach to interviewing, allows all genuine claimants an opportunity to explain their story and satisfy the test.
There is international precedent that supports our decision to raise the threshold for assessing the facts that a claimant presents to us to the balance of probabilities standard. Both Canada and Switzerland—highly respected democratic countries, dare I say it—have systems which examine at least some elements of a claimant’s claim to this higher standard. Respectfully and rhetorically, let me ask this of the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said that this was confusing and complex. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, said that she had horror at it. The higher standard is used in Switzerland. Does the horror extend to Canada and Switzerland as well? There is nothing wrong in principle with adopting the higher test for some parts—I will come to it in more detail—of the decision-making tree.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Does the Minister recall that I did not just say that it is about the higher standard? It is about having different limbs and different requirements under those different limbs, and switching from “reasonable likelihood” to “balance of probabilities” as part of the composite test, which is not holistic but is in different parts. That is what is confusing, not just a change in the standard of proof.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, with the greatest respect, it is not confusing at all, because Clause 31(2) establishes the facts, and that is all a balance of probabilities. Then, in Clause 31(4), the decision-maker turns to questions of the future. It is at that stage that the reasonable likelihood test is the appropriate test, because the decision-maker is looking to assess what might happen in the future. That is why we have a lower test at that stage. It is quite usual in law to have different stages of a test and different levels of probability at each.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Could the Minister answer the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser? What is the problem that we are trying to solve here? Who is pressing for this change? The Law Societies have advised against it. It seems to me that the only purpose it serves is to make the task of determining whether the fear exists and is well-founded more complicated and more likely to result in the answer, “No, let’s send him back.” That seems to be what is driving this. I remind him that, in late July and early August, Hazaras from Afghanistan—asylum seekers here—were still receiving letters of rejection, telling them that they were not at risk if they were sent back to Kabul.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the question. What is driving it, as I said a few moments ago, is the attempt to have a consistent and clear approach to decision-making. When you have a single test with different elements, and it is all under “a reasonable likelihood”, it is then that you are more likely to have inconsistent decision-making—I will not use the word “mishmash”. What you are doing here is really two things, and Clause 31 sets them out clearly. You are first saying, “Are you who you say you are?” and “Did you, in fact, fear such persecution?” Those are factual questions, decided on the balance of probabilities. Then the question is: “Is there a reasonable likelihood that, if you were returned, you would be persecuted?” That is a question of reasonable likelihood.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My noble friend is, in fact, rewriting the law. I am not an immigration lawyer, but if I were, I think I would be a little confused at the moment. In the case that was decided in 2021, Kaderli v Chief Public Prosecutors Office of Gebze in Turkey, it was clearly said that
“The true test involved the application of a lower standard”
than the balance of probabilities. So now no immigration lawyer could plead the application of the lower standard because my noble friend is raising the bar in this Bill.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I thought I made it absolutely clear when I said earlier that the court in that case made its decision against the legislative background at the time. Parliament is entitled to change the legislative background. We will want to make sure that we remain consistent with the refugee convention, and, as I said earlier, we believe that we are. There is nothing wrong with doing that. It is simply not the case that we are somehow bound as a Parliament by what the Court of Appeal said in the case referred to by my noble friend. Therefore, with great respect, I disagree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, where he said that a single holistic question was better and that the higher standard was objectionable. With respect, I disagree on both points.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
Does the Minister agree that, if, under this clause in future, somebody were to fail—they could prove only 45% of the relevant limb of the clause—they nevertheless could not be refouled? Certainly, under Article 3 of the ECHR the test is “reasonable likelihood” and not “balance of probabilities”.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
With respect, refoulement is a separate issue and, with greater respect, I will deal with it separately. What we are establishing here is what you need to do to establish your “well-founded fear”. If you cannot establish, on the balance of probabilities, that you are who you say you are, then yes, under this test, you will not satisfy Clause 31(2)(a).
I will now turn to Clause 32, because otherwise I will start to repeat myself. Article 1(A)(2) of the refugee convention states that a refugee is an individual who has a
“well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”,
and Clause 32 lays out precisely what is meant by each of those characteristics, which are sometimes called “convention reasons”. Again, the purpose here is to make sure that all decision-makers, including both the Home Office and the courts, understand and operate to the same definitions. That is, I suggest, a desirable law reform.
On Amendment 105, there is a mismatch between how the concept of a “particular social group” is defined in current legislation, government policy and some tribunal judgments, and also in how the definition has been interpreted by some courts. There is no authoritative or universally agreed definition of “particular social group” among state parties to the convention and, in particular, there is no universal agreement as to whether the test set out in Article 1(A)(2) of the refugee convention should be applied cumulatively. The UNHCR has issued guidance supporting the view that the cumulative approach is a misapplication of the refugee convention, but, as I said in the last group, that guidance is neither legally binding nor determinative as a matter of international law.
Article 1(A)(2) of the convention does not elaborate on what is meant by
“membership of a particular social group”;
there is no supranational body with authority to give a determinative ruling and, therefore, each state party, including the UK, has to interpret it. We believe that the definition in Clause 32 captures what is meant in the convention by a “particular social group”. We have looked at the broad wording in the convention, the travaux préparatoires—excuse my French—the approach of a number of other jurisdictions, and Article 31 of the Vienna convention, and we believe that setting it out in this way will make it clearer.
The amendment would mean that you would have to satisfy only one of the conditions to be considered a member of a “particular social group”, and that would erode the concept that people deserve and need protection based on fundamental characteristics that go to the core of who they are, such as their faith or sexuality. It would broaden the definition to cover potentially transient factors that could perhaps be changed, such as an individual’s occupation. That is the first point. The second is that our proposed definition accords with the widely used and accepted interpretation of the “particular social group” concept, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, noted. It is an EU interpretation; it comes from the approach in the EU qualification directive, which underpins the Common European Asylum System. We are very happy to look at EU interpretations; we do not have a closed mind—when they get it right, they get it right, and being independent means that we can look more broadly. However, with great respect, it is difficult to attack this as something utterly wrong if, in fact, this is the interpretation in that legislation.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am not a lawyer, so I rise with some trepidation, but it seems to me that it suits the Government’s purpose to interpret it in this way, because it means that fewer vulnerable groups—particularly women—fleeing violence will receive refugee protection as a result. It is no clearer than the interpretation that it is overruling, and it seems odd. It is quite rare for the Government to pray in aid an EU interpretation over that of their own courts. Maybe one of the lawyers opposite will be able to give a better response than I can, but I am afraid I am not convinced, because it seems as though that is why this is being done—it is nothing to do with clarity. If this legislation had clearly put in law Lord Bingham’s interpretation, that would be clear. So why the EU interpretation, which is, as numbers of authorities have said, likely to mean fewer vulnerable people—particularly women—receiving the refugee protection to which they are entitled under the convention?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I set out why we think this interpretation is correct. I am certainly not saying that we are using this interpretation because it is the EU one; I was referring to the EU to make the point that, with respect, it is very difficult to challenge this as somehow an unfair, unworkable or inapt interpretation when it is actually reflected in the EU jurisprudence. I absolutely take, with respect, the noble Baroness’s comments about the importance of the equality impact assessment for the policies being taken forward through the Bill. The public sector equality duty is not a one-off duty; it is ongoing, and I want to provide reassurance now that we will be monitoring equality impacts as we put the Bill into operation and as we evaluate its measures and, indeed, those in the wider new plan for immigration.
I assure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester that we are well aware of the particular issues facing women and survivors of gender-based persecution and, indeed, the asylum system is sensitive to them. The interview guidance contains clear instructions to interviewers in this area. We seek to offer a safe and supportive environment for individuals to establish their claims. Despite references to the decision of this House in its judicial capacity, in Fornah, those comments were obiter. I underline that there is no authoritative definition in case law of what is a “particular social group”, and that is why it is absolutely right for this Parliament to define it in this clause.
Clause 37 amends the definition of a “particularly serious crime” from one which is punished by imprisonment of two years or more to one which is punished by imprisonment of 12 months or more. To be clear, imprisonment means an immediate custodial sentence—I am not sure that any noble Lord made that point, but it is important. Indeed, it is why I brought the handbook: if you receive a suspended sentence, you are not caught by its provisions—going back to the underlying legislation. Furthermore, not only does it have to be an immediate custodial sentence of 12 months or more but the second limb has to apply—namely, whether the individual is a danger to the community—and that is rebuttable.
We cannot accept Amendment 111 because it would potentially allow dangerous foreign national offenders to remain here, putting the public at risk. If somebody has been sentenced to a year or more in prison, we should not enable them to second guess the verdict of the jury or the decision of the court by allowing them to bring into play again whether they were such an offender. We seek to allow only the second bit of it to be rebuttable; namely, whether they pose the relevant danger.
I think I have answered all the questions that have been asked. On the last point put by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, at the heart of this lies not some dinner party conversation but a lack of clarity in the current case law and standards, which make it harder for decision-makers to make accurate and efficient decisions; that is it.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
That may be the case, but all I asked of the Minister was to tell the Committee who has been making representations for these changes.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I have not been here as long as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, but, with respect, I do not think it fair to ask me that question as I stand here. The Government receive representations on this issue all the time. One might say that we receive representations from millions and millions of people who voted for this Government at the last election when immigration reform was full square in our manifesto. I say with great respect to noble Lord, Lord Rosser, that we are having a very interesting debate on some important legal points. If he wants to make political points, I am happy to respond in a political context.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Since when has it been making a political point to ask where the pressure has come from to make these changes? Since when has that been a political point?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The pressure has come from the people of the United Kingdom, who elected this Government with an overwhelming majority.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
In that case, will the Minister accept that, in a way, and given what we have heard from other noble Lords, particularly my noble and learned friend Lord Brown, it is part of the Government’s strategy to toughen up on migration and immigration? That is really what this is about.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
Absolutely, we want to toughen up on illegal migration. We want to make sure that people who have a right to come in are able to do so, and to make sure that people who do not have that right cannot come in. We want consistent and better decision-making. It is really as simple as that.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. In a previous group, the noble Baroness the Minister—I was very grateful to her—sought to make distinctions between immigration and asylum protection; I think that was quite important. To be now almost resiling from that and suggesting, in answer to a previous intervention, that we are going to reinterpret the refugee convention—to respond to the millions of people who voted for Mr Johnson’s Government on the basis of controlling immigration—is a little troubling. I do not think I am alone in the Committee in being so troubled.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am surprised that anyone in a democracy is troubled by a Government listening to the people and putting forward legislation which, first, delivers on a manifesto commitment, and, secondly—as I have said and I repeat —is entirely consistent with our international law obligations. There is nothing wrong and everything right with each signatory to the refugee convention interpreting its obligations under it; we have now been around that point on several occasions.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I am sorry to keep bobbing up, and I appreciate what the Minister said about monitoring the equality impact of this legislation, but does he accept that Clause 32 means that a woman fleeing gender-based violence with good grounds for being accepted as a refugee is less likely to be so accepted? I do not believe that that is what the British people voted for.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am not trying to be difficult here. What it means is that a woman, like anybody else, who has a proper claim under the refugee convention will find refuge in the UK. That is what we are seeking to do. By having a clearer set of definitions, we are trying to make sure that it will not depend on the happenstance of who the decision-maker is and the way the test is applied.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I do not wish to prolong the Minister’s agony but can he clarify something for me? I think he said that, in the face of court judgments, the Government were entitled to change the legislative background. Does changing the legislative background mean that the Government are raising the standard of proof, thereby making it more difficult for claims for asylum to be accepted—this is in Clause 31—and in so doing, overturning the judgments of the UK’s highest courts? That is the first question.
The second question relates to Clause 37. The Minister says that “particularly serious crime” is not defined in the refugee convention and that it is up to each country to define what it means. My understanding is that the definition is being changed from two years’ imprisonment to 12 months. So, particularly serious crime was defined by this country as entailing two years’ imprisonment and now the Government are changing it to 12 months. That is not about seeking to define or a lack of clarity but a deliberate change. Why is that?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
On the first point, the position at the moment is that you have a reasonable likelihood test; what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, called the holistic test. What is going on here—and what should be going on—is that we have sought to identify a number of discrete questions and we have applied the appropriate standard of proof to each of them. On the second point, the noble Lord is absolutely right in that a serious crime was defined as one that meant 24 months’ imprisonment and we are now defining it as 12 months. We believe that that is appropriate and remains consistent with our refugee convention obligations.
I am not sure whether I should formally have said that I invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
I thought we were going to have more Q&A. I am grateful to the Minister for his fairly clear explanation of why the Government are doing what they are doing. I am not totally satisfied that we have heard the full reason. Over the years, we have not had any arguments put to us that the 1951 convention was not working; the arguments have been elsewhere. Suddenly, we are given these different considerations for why we should pass this. However, we will be back on Report, having listened to what the Minister has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Ludford
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would give effect to the Joint Committee on Human Rights’ recommendation that clause 36 be amended to ensure that it does not contradict the protection Article 31 provides to asylum seekers who have passed through other countries on their way to the UK.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 106 in the name of, and at the invitation of, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I will speak also to Amendments 109 and 110.
If Clause 36 is not amended or deleted, it will contradict Article 31 of the refugee convention. It seeks to punish or penalise a refugee for arriving in the UK to make an asylum claim by a route that took them through other countries. The requirement in the refugee convention to come directly was intended only to prevent a person who had acquired refugee status and protection in one country deciding to switch to another. Excluding a person from asylum in the UK simply because they stopped in France, Germany or Belgium, perhaps for a night’s rest, is completely unreasonable. The UK courts have confirmed that any merely short-term stopover en route to an intended sanctuary cannot forfeit the protection of Article 31 of the convention.
Any other interpretation, as the Government seek to impose in Clause 36, means, as in so much of this Bill, a shirking of the sharing of international responsibilities, such that looking after refugees falls overwhelmingly on countries neighbouring the countries of conflict from which the person is seeking to escape. Therefore, Amendment 106 would at least amend the clause, which, however, we might find later, needs to be deleted. I beg to move.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 107 in my name, which relates to Clause 36 and provides that a refugee will have come directly to the United Kingdom for the purposes of Clause 11, notwithstanding that
“they have passed through the intermediate country on the refugee’s way to the United Kingdom by way of short-term stopover”.
Those words in the amendment reflect the reasoning and decision of the Administrative Court in Adimi, where my noble and learned friend Lord Brown presided. They also reflect the approval of Adimi by the Appellate Committee of this House in a case called Asfaw.
In this respect, Clause 36 is an important part of the Government’s policy. The reason for that is that it provides a definition of “directly” for the purposes of Clause 11 that makes a distinction between group 1 and group 2 refugees. Under the provisions of Clause 11, if the refugee does not come directly from the place of persecution, they inevitably cannot be in group 1.
Secondly, it is important because, as I pointed out in a previous debate on this Bill, the provisions for describing coming to the United Kingdom directly, as defined in Clause 36, also reflect the provision in the admissibility provision in Clause 15. Your Lordships will recall that, in Clause 15, if there is a connection with another state, the refugee’s claim is inadmissible; in fact, it is not recognised as a claim at all and there is no right of appeal. Clause 15 provides that, if you fall within one of the five conditions inserted in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 by the clause, you have a connection. One of those conditions, condition 4, is that
“the claimant was previously present in, and eligible to make a relevant claim to, the safe third State … it would have been reasonable to expect them to make such a claim, and … they failed to do so.”
So there are two essential elements of the policy behind the Government’s provisions for asylum, where the question of the meaning of coming “directly” is extremely important. I pointed out to the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that there was a muddle here. If condition 4 in Clause 15, as I have described it, is satisfied, you never get to a distinction between group 1 and group 2 because your claim is inadmissible. The noble Baroness was going to look at that and let me know the position from the Government’s perspective, but I have not yet heard from her.
Before I address what coming “directly” means—as I said, my amendment reflects the reasoning and conclusion in Adimi, and the adoption of the decision in Adimi by the Appellate Committee of this House in Asfaw—I want to say a couple of things about what appears to be the approach of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, to interpretation. I do not think you need to be a lawyer to appreciate that if, under the aegis of the United Nations, you agree with other states in the world that you will conduct yourself in a particular way and that an agency of the United Nations has a responsibility for overseeing both the implementation of that agreement and that disputes between member states in relation to the meaning and the application of the agreement—here, the refugee convention—will be referred to an international court, there must be a point in time when one has to identify core values. If there are no core values, there is nothing to adjudicate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, referred to Article 35, which requires member states to co-operate with the United Nations body responsible for oversight in relation to the implementation of the refugee convention. So what one has to do here is decide whether what the Government are doing in putting forward these proposals goes beyond the core principles in the refugee convention, which must be applicable generally to member states—otherwise, all the clauses I have referred to, Article 35, co-operation and adjudication by a court are totally meaningless and impracticable.
So I take issue with the broad statement of principle, as I understand it, put forward by the Minister. He said that it was perfectly acceptable for every member state signed up to the refugee convention to decide, from its perspective, what the convention meant. If that were correct and he was saying that it was for Parliament to decide what it meant for the United Kingdom, it would mean that changes could be made by each successive new Government as to what they felt would be appropriate to support their policy. Well, that is obviously nonsense, if I may respectfully say so.
What the courts have done—and this would be the approach of the all the courts of the countries signed up to the convention—is try to understand what the refugee convention was intended, by those who made it, to mean. The starting point is always the travaux préparatoires leading up to the convention—what was said and what was done—and then trying to understand whether there has been a deviation and, if so, why. That has been exactly the approach put forward and implemented in both Adimi and Asfaw.
The starting point, inevitably, for the interpretation of this particular convention is, as I think the Minister said, the Vienna convention on the interpretation of treaties. I do not think it has yet been said that we are entitled to change, and that we have changed, that treaty according to what we think it ought to say. It provides in Article 31.1:
“A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose.”
That phrase, as has been noted by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I think, was applied by the UK’s highest court, the Supreme Court, in a case called ST (Eritrea) in 2012 as meaning that there is a duty to give the refugee convention
“a generous and purposive interpretation, bearing in mind its humanitarian objects and the broad aims reflected in its preamble”.
I have to say as a starting point that I have seen nothing so far in this part of the Bill which is a “generous and purposive interpretation”, having regard to humanitarian objects and the broad aims reflected in the preamble of the 1951 convention. Every provision that people have addressed appears to be, as it has been put, a mean-spirited approach to refugee applications.
It is against that background that I now turn to the meaning of “directly”. I have already referred to the clear decision in Adimi on this point about stopping at intermediate countries by way of short-term stopover. Just to give this a bit of flesh, what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, said then was:
“I am persuaded by the applicants’ contrary submission, drawing as it does on the travaux préparatoires, various Conclusions adopted by UNHCR’s executive committee … and the writings of well respected academics and commentators … that some element of choice is indeed open to refugees as to where they may properly claim asylum. I conclude that any merely short term stopover en route to such intended sanctuary cannot forfeit the protection of the Article, and that the main touchstones by which exclusion from protection should be judged are the length of stay in the intermediate country, the reasons for delaying there (even a substantial delay in an unsafe third country would be reasonable were the time spent trying to acquire the means of travelling on), and whether or not the refugee sought or found there protection de jure or de facto from the persecution they were fleeing.”
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, can I remind the noble Lord of the Chief Whip’s reminder of brevity please? We are running extremely late at the moment.
Lord Etherton (CB)
In Anwar, as I have said, the Supreme Court approved of that and in doing so again referred to the travaux préparatoires and the way in which those words came into the convention. They were put in at the last minute to appease the French representative because they were concerned about refugees claiming asylum in France who could have applied elsewhere. In 2001, an expert round-table conference was held in Geneva by different countries and disciplines which again upheld the interpretation of a short-term stopover not affecting coming directly from territories where there was persecution.
In a previous debate on this subject on Clause 11, the Minister relied on a provision in Section 31(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 which had very similar wording to what we find in Section 36. What she did not say, and which comes out of the very detailed speeches of Lord Bingham and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, is that when those provisions in Section 31 of the 1999 Act were being debated, the Attorney-General specifically said, in light of the view of the UNHCR, that there was flexibility in the concept of arriving directly. So, far from that Act being a precedent for a strict interpretation of those words, his elaboration meant that there was, in fact, a correspondence with the meaning arrived at in the courts of this country in Adimi. For those reasons, I say that the definition of arriving directly in Clause 36 is incorrect. It does not meet the international standards of the UNHCR and is contrary to the convention.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I shall be very brief. I am trying to work out exactly what I am being asked to agree to here. Perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford—maybe not the noble Lord, Lord Dubs—and certainly my noble friend on the Front Bench: am I being asked to end or at least change the first safe country principle by accepting these amendments? If that is the case, I have grave concern about an increase in what is known as forum shopping. Perhaps I can say to the Hansard writers that forum is spelled “forum” and not “foreign”, which is how it was reported last time. Foreign shopping is what you go to Paris to do; forum shopping is a rather more serious matter.
It is important because this country is an exceptionally attractive place for people seeking to find the best future for themselves. I explained last time that the very fact that debates are going on your Lordships’ House shows how much concern we have to make sure that the rights of people are looked after. It is also an extremely flexible job market once you are here. Getting and maintaining a job is much easier than in some of the areas such as France, where there is a much more rigid job market. There is a non-contributory health and social security system. There is a diaspora from nearly every country in the world. Your mates are here, so you want to come here to join them. We would all want to join our mates. As a last point, you have learned the English language, which is the lingua franca of the world and, in particular, the lingua franca of technology.
I hope that, when my noble friend comes to answer the debate, he will bear in mind that, if we were to accept this, it will open up the borders for people who are seeking—I do not say that they should not seek—the best future for themselves and, as such, are not abiding by the first safe country principle. We are not in a position to provide the answer to a lot of these people.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I know the noble Lord has listened to a lot of the previous debate. He will know there is no such thing as a first safe country principle under the refugee convention. I tried to explain what the obligation was—namely, not to move on if you have refugee status or protection in a country. The UNHCR has made it clear that there would never have been a refugee convention if there had been a safe first country principle, because countries abutting the problematic countries—for example, Jordan, Iran and Pakistan—have had to accept everyone. No other countries like the UK would ever have had any refugees because we do not abut conflict zones. I am sorry, but this must be rebutted every time it is trotted out.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
I will address Clause 36 very briefly, which I discussed last week in the context of Clause 11. I confine myself today to asking two questions.
First, do the Government accept, as I suggest they must, that Clause 36 would overrule the judgments of Lord Bingham and, among others, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, in Asfaw, fully affirming what had been said on the relevant issues in the judgment I gave in the Divisional Court in Adimi? This has all been elaborated on today by my noble and learned friend, Lord Etherton.
Secondly, if so, are the Government overturning Asfaw and Adimi because, disinterestedly, they genuinely think those decisions are clearly wrong—or because they think an alternative and more anti-asylum seeker interpretation may arguably be available to them?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
The idea of people being able to arrive here without going through a third country has been debated before in the course of this Bill—I cannot remember whether it was last week or another time. When we queried how people could get here, the Minister explained that they could come by aeroplane. That might be possible for some, but it is not possible for everyone who might need to be here in Britain rather than somewhere in Germany or France. Perhaps the Minister could give us a better explanation about how people get here, if there are not enough safe routes or aeroplanes.
To me, this is a naked attempt to stop refugees. I do not understand why the Government cannot see this as well. We are taking advantage of our geography and saying, “We’re too far away, you can’t come”. This is ridiculous. As I have pointed out before, we have a moral duty to many of these people. We have disrupted their politics, their climate and their lives—therefore, we owe them. It is not as simple as saying that they want to join their mates.
This Bill should be setting out safe routes and establishing ways to get people to the UK safely and legally. At the moment, we do not have that because the Government are pulling up the drawbridge.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, in a word, I see these issues from a policy point of view, not just a legal one. The fact is that our asylum system is in chaos, and very visibly so. Large numbers of claimants are turning up on our beaches. The Government are seeking to tighten the asylum system. That does not seem to be unreasonable, and I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I will very briefly address something that the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, said about people arriving here directly by aeroplane. As we will see when we get on to the group substituting “arrives in” for “enters”, even if someone came directly by aeroplane, they would not be legally arriving in the United Kingdom. This clause is central to many of the provisions contained in the rest of the Bill. I am extremely grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for his important, detailed and necessary exposition of his reasoning. Despite how long it took, it was absolutely essential.
Clause 36 seeks to redefine and undermine Article 31 of the refugee convention in UK law as a basis for penalties and prosecutions. As we discussed in previous groups, there is an accepted and settled interpretation of Article 31. As Amendments 106 and 107 seek to establish, passing through another country in order to get to the UK is not failing to enter the UK directly or without delay. This should, therefore, not allow the UK to impose penalties or treat asylum seekers less favourably as a result.
Amendment 108 highlights the particular difficulties some asylum seekers could face on account of their protected characteristics. Again, however, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti: there should be no reinterpretation of Article 31, no group 1 and group 2 refugees, and no four-year imprisonment because people had no choice but to travel through other countries to get to the UK, whether the UK considers those third countries safe or not.
Clause 36 is the sand upon which this Bill is built, and it needs to be washed away.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Article 31 of the convention exempts refugees “coming directly from” a country of persecution from being punished on account of their illegal presence in a state. Clause 36 of this Bill is the Government’s attempt to reinterpret what Article 31 means by “coming directly from”, and they are doing it to tighten up the rules to suit their policy that all asylum seekers should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. The clause provides:
“A refugee is not to be taken to have come to the United Kingdom directly from a country where their life or freedom was threatened if, in coming from that country, they stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom, unless they can show that they could not reasonably be expected to have sought protection under the Refugee Convention in that country.”
This is a very broad interpretation which would cover anyone who travels through, or briefly stops in, any safe country on the way to the UK. Frankly, this is in opposition to the established understanding of the convention and, indeed, UK case law. This goes against established interpretations of Article 31 made, as has been said, in the case of Adimi and others. This case sets out that stopping somewhere must be understood as referring to something more than a transitory stop en route to the country of intended sanctuary.
We support the amendments in this group and the opposition to Clause 36 standing part of the Bill. Clause 36 is a supportive measure for Clause 11, being about differential treatment of refugees, which we have discussed at some length. This clause underpins the Government’s plans to base our treatment of refugees on their means of travel, rather than on their need and the realities of the violence or horror they have fled. It is on that basis that we oppose this clause.
If we interpret the convention, which is what we are now being asked to do, in such a way that it is unrecognisable to our international partners and our own courts, at what point can we still be considered to be complying with the convention? We are not opposed to arrangements for the safe return of refugees to another state where they have legitimately spent time and started an asylum application. There are established routes for doing this, as provided for under the Dublin III regulations, of which we ceased to be a part when we left the EU. That is not what this clause provides for, as a number of other noble Lords have made clear in their contributions.
On the basis that this clause unilaterally attempts to redraw what the convention means by stopping in a safe country, I ask the Government to think again, without any great hope of getting a favourable response.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I begin with Amendment 107, tabled by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, whose analysis I listened to very carefully. It seeks to reflect the position in the Adimi case by defining the requirement to “come direct” to include having passed through intermediate countries on the refugee’s way to the UK. I assure the noble and learned Lord that this is something we have carefully considered. Where, for example, a person has taken a connecting flight to the UK, due regard will be paid to the individual’s circumstances in determining whether they came direct. The powers in the Bill enable us to exercise that flexibility, which will be reflected in guidance provided to the caseworkers and decision-makers.
It follows that if a refugee cites a particular protected characteristic as a reason for being unable to comply with the standards set out in the Bill, including to come direct, that will be carefully considered by caseworkers in determining the entitlements attached to their leave. As I said on earlier groups, we will be sensitive to those cases. Flexible powers in the Bill allow it, and that will be set out in guidance in any event.
I will come back to Amendment 106 in a moment, but Amendment 108 links closely with Amendment 107 and seeks to ensure that determination of both “reasonably expected” and “reasonably practicable”, which are relevant standards in determining “come direct” and “without delay” respectively, are interpreted with due regard to protected characteristics. Essentially, this point is answered by the point that I have just made: the Bill has flexibility built into it to take individual circumstances into account. A person may be deemed to have come direct if they could not have been reasonably expected to claim asylum in a first safe country. Similarly, they will be deemed to have claimed asylum without delay if it occurred as soon as was “reasonably practicable”. Therefore, if a refugee cites a particular protected characteristic as a reason for being unable to comply with the standards in the Bill, that will be considered by the caseworker. The Bill is perfectly flexible enough to enable us to do so.
Turning to Amendments 106, 109 and 110, we again tread over the ground of interpreting obligations under the convention. I recognise the importance of taking a sensitive approach to how “come direct” is interpreted and I have already talked about the example of a connecting flight. However, I cannot accept that the definition should be amended as proposed, to enable a refugee to have been in another country “for a substantial period” and still be determined to have come directly. Those in need of protection must claim in the first safe country that they reach, because that is the fastest route to safety. That is an internationally recognised concept. It underpins, for example, the Common European Asylum System, and there are safeguards in the current provision in Clause 36(1). Even if a person stopped in another country outside the UK, they could still say that they came direct to the UK if they can show that they could not reasonably have been expected to seek protection under the refugee convention—for example, because they were under the control of traffickers—although every case would have to be considered on its own merits. Therefore, with respect, and without opening up the wider issue, there are some good underlying points in what we heard from my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.
Amendment 109 requires a little unpacking. I should be clear that differentiation does not constitute a penalty for the purposes of Article 31. However, I disagree with the analysis that protection under Article 31 of the convention should extend to those who have tried to exit the UK without first seeking asylum, because we must interpret the “first safe country” principle consistently. Therefore, the defence under Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 should no longer be available to those who transit out of the UK.
Finally, turning to Clause 36, the refugee convention is clear that refugees should be protected from penalties for their illegal entry or illegal presence when they have come directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened, they presented themselves without delay to the authorities, and they showed good cause for their illegal entry or presence. This will now be familiar ground. However, the refugee convention does not define what is meant by the terms
“coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened”
or
“present themselves without delay to the authorities”.
This clause sets out how these phrases should be interpreted in the UK. This is the same point that I made in the previous two groups.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, asked me whether we were overturning the judgments in Adimi and Asfaw and, if so, why? I hope I have that question down fairly. With the greatest respect, the courts in Adimi and Asfaw interpreted “come directly” in Article 31(1) more generously than the original intention of Parliament. The Explanatory Note to Section 31 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 says:
“This defence, which is modelled on Article 31(1) of the Refugee Convention, does not apply if the refugee stopped in a third country outside the United Kingdom unless he can show that he could not reasonably have been expected to be given protection under the Convention in that country.”
What we are doing here is consistent with the refugee convention. There is sufficient flexibility in the proposed powers and the overall policy to enable an individual to demonstrate that during the stopover they could not reasonably have been expected to seek protection under the refugee convention or, where appropriate, to show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
Turning finally to the point put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, who said that someone arriving by aeroplane would be arriving illegally, some joys await us in group 8, when we will come to this point. As a taster before the short dinner break, I point out that there is a statutory defence recourse under Section 31 of the 1999 Act if they are genuine refugees and used fraud or deception to get a forged or false entry clearance. We will no doubt come back to this in more detail in group 8.
Lord Paddick (LD)
If every country interpreted Article 31 as the Government want it interpreted by means of the Bill, what would be the consequences for dealing with the refugee crisis that the world faces?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I really do not mean to be flippant. The consequence would be that every country would be interpreting the refugee convention in accordance with its terms. As a country, we are interpreting our legal obligations in the way that we ought to and are allowed to. We are going back—
Lord Sentamu (CB)
The Joint Committee on Human Rights recommended that this be amended. There must be good reasons for explaining why the Government do not want it amended and I have not heard them.
This is a true story; I can meet the Minister in camera and show him the evidence. A young man aged 17, whom we found in Kenya—
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, this should just be a short question.
Lord Sentamu (CB)
I am giving an example of why Article 31, without the amendment, does not work.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am almost as new, I think, as the noble and right reverend Lord, but my understanding of procedure is that that is meant to be for questions. If the noble and right reverend Lord will write to me or meet me to discuss that particular case, I will certainly discuss it with him. If the case raises a point of principle, I will deal with it. If it raises a point of principle that I think will be helpful for the Committee to hear, I will write to him and provide a copy of the letter. I hope that is helpful for this evening.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, may I just say that this is Committee? This is not Report. Any noble Lord is entitled to speak after the Minister in Committee.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I really do not want to get into a procedural battle. I was trying to be both helpful to the Committee, given the time and pressure, and respectful, I hope, to the noble and right reverend Lord. I reiterate the offer, which I think is appropriate.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Could the Minister answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick? It was rather a flippant answer that he gave—that everybody would be interpreting the convention according to their rights. I think the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, meant: what would be the practical effect? What would happen to the 26 million refugees in the world, three-quarters of whom are in countries contiguous to the one in which they had their citizenship? Would all countries agree, if they introduced this “first safe country” rule, that all refugees had to stay in these contiguous countries—in these encampments in Jordan, Syria, Turkey and so on—and that nobody could move on, under the refugee convention, to another country?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am certainly not trying to be flippant. What I am saying is that we have a refugee convention that sets out our international obligations. We are abiding by those international obligations. It may—I underline “may”—be that a convention entered into in 1951 is not absolutely suitable for the world of 2022. That might be the answer. At the moment, however, my focus as a Justice Minister is on making sure that this country abides by its international obligations, and that is what we are doing. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My answer to that last point is that if that is what the UK Government feel, they should convene a conference to renegotiate the refugee convention, but they are not doing that. A large number of noble Lords in this Committee believe that the Government are riding roughshod over the refugee convention in a way that demeans this country and sets an extremely poor example, not least to those countries on the front line, which are taking the overwhelming majority of people seeking protection. We have bandied around the statistics in the last few days in Committee, but we are not in the top category of countries in terms of the numbers, which are manageable. They would be particularly manageable if the Home Office got its act together in the way it decides asylum cases initially—if it invested in the initial consideration of the claims and did not make the law ever more complex, with ever more delays and ever more prospects of litigation. It seems we are banging our heads against a brick wall somewhat, but I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I have just come into the Chamber but may I suggest, before the noble Lord moves to adjourn, that we have a usual channels discussion in the next 30 minutes? Regarding the point made by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Sentamu, Committee is a conversation; it is not Report. I think we need to clarify that. I want to make progress on the Bill, but we need to have a discussion on it. I think the intervention was right and, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, also said, this conversation in Committee is not bound by the rules of Report. I think we should use these 30 minutes to get this ironed out.
Baroness Ludford
“Refugee family reunion
(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the date of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for refugee family reunion, in accordance with this section, to come into effect after 21 days.(2) Before a statement of changes is laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with persons he or she deems appropriate.(3) The statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection.(4) In this section, “refugee status” and “humanitarian protection” have the same meaning as in the immigration rules.(5) In this section, “family members” include—(a) a person’s parent, including adoptive parent;(b) a person’s spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner;(c) a person’s child, including adopted child, who is either—(i) under the age of 18, or(ii) under the age of 25 but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum;(d) a person’s sibling, including adoptive sibling, who is either—(i) under the age of 18, or(ii) under the age of 25, but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; and(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—(i) the importance of maintaining family unity,(ii) the best interests of a child,(iii) the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person,(iv) any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person who was granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(6) For the purpose of subsection (5)—(a) “adopted” and “adoptive” refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules;(b) “best interests” of a child must be read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
On behalf of my noble friend Lord Paddick, I will move Amendment 112 and speak to Amendments 113 and 117, which I have co-signed. The reason I have been given the honour of moving Amendment 112 is that it reproduces my Private Member’s Bill, which in fact has its origins with my noble friend Lady Hamwee and will have its Committee stage just after recess.
The Conservative Party likes to call itself the party of the family; I believe it needs to demonstrate this. Amendment 112 would build on existing safe routes for family reunion to enable a wider range of family members to reach the UK without undertaking unsafe journeys. This is the real way to stop most of the dangerous channel crossings and put the smugglers out of business.
In the letter and attached chart that the Minister sent to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and kindly made available to us all, the Government set out the current safe routes. Even under part 11 of the Immigration Rules, while adult refugees do not have to pay a fee for the visa they do have to pay for travel to the UK, and the integration loan cannot be used for that. Legal aid is also not available, at least not in England and Wales—I do not know about Scotland or Northern Ireland—and they can bring in only their spouse and their under-18 children.
As in my Private Member’s Bill, Amendment 112 would permit dependent children up to the age of 25, as well as adopted children. Crucially, it would permit children recognised as refugees to sponsor their parents and siblings to join them. Although sibling reunion is in theory possible under paragraph 319X of the Immigration Rules, in practice the barriers are often insurmountable. Not only does the visa cost almost £400 but the young sponsor has to show that they can financially support and accommodate their sibling without recourse to public funds, and that the justification for reunion is “serious and compelling”. All these are tough tests to fulfil. Paragraph 297, which governs whether children can join parents or non-parent relatives who have settlement status imposes a fee of £1,500, and then the same serious and compelling test.
Despite promising in a response to the consultation on the New Plan for Immigration to give creator clarity, no guidance has been forthcoming. Can the Minister tell us in her response when that guidance will be forthcoming, and how many visas have been issued under paragraphs 319X or 297 over the last five years?
I reaffirm my support for Amendment 113 from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and Amendment 117 from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. These both aim to boost family reunion opportunities for unaccompanied minors and for entry to seek asylum, in part substituting for the loss of the Dublin regulation. I also support other amendments in this group. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to three amendments in this group. I note that they are all new clauses. New clauses are necessary to improve this Bill, and they are essential to humanising our present systems, let alone what may emerge from the Bill once it becomes an Act.
Reuniting families split by wars and persecution brings huge benefits; I think we can all agree on that. Amendment 112 enfranchises both children and their parents. It also empowers the Secretary of State to add new kinds of relationships. Amendment 113 should, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has just mentioned, reduce dangerous crossings of the channel.
On Amendment 114, we all know that the neighbours of Syria and Iraq have been subjected to and have accepted huge influxes of people. The same is also true of southern European states. For these reasons, there is an urgent need for equitable burden sharing. This, in turn, will require much greater international co-operation. We can do our part in this country by using family reunion. Our neighbours and allies are entitled to know what our intentions and proposals are in this respect.
The wording of all three amendments can, I expect, be improved. Will the Government accept at least their principles, take them away and bring them back in pristine condition?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Going through the amendments this morning in preparation for this evening, I got quite tearful when I read these amendments because my family is incredibly important to me—every single one of them. I love them and I do not want to lose them or break up in any way from them. The thought that we in Britain could be the cause of families separating made me very upset.
I have signed two of these amendments, but they are all good amendments. The Government really ought to look into their own hearts and think about how they would feel if their families were broken up, through no fault of their own, because of despotic powers or other reasons. It is time to be a little bit kinder in this Bill, so please will the Government accept these amendments?
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I specifically support Amendment 117, to which I have added my name, but I support all these amendments around family reunion. I declare my interests in the register around RAMP and Reset as before.
Acknowledging that when people are forcibly displaced they end up in different places, often having lost family members, UNHCR research has shown that families often set out together but become separated along the way. Reconnecting those families, or, where some family members are lost, reconnecting people with other relatives, really matters. In seeking protection, those seeking asylum want to do so alongside the family that they have. This is better for individuals—their well-being and their future prospects—and for the community as a whole. It is therefore also better for social integration.
In my conversations with refugees and people seeking asylum, the whereabouts and safety of family is generally the number one preoccupation that they raise. This concern overrides everything. When we speak about family, it is not purely spouses and children but aunts, uncles, cousins, nephews and nieces. Organisations working with refugees, such as Safe Passage, know from their work that, when people have no safe route to reach their families, they are more likely to risk their lives on dangerous journeys to reach loved ones. Many of these individuals are children and young people seeking to reunite, often with their closest surviving relatives.
No doubt the Minister will give us the numbers again of how many families have been reunited under it, but existing refugee family reunion is narrow in scope. The threshold to be met under paragraphs 297 and 319X of the Immigration Rules for an adult non-parent to reunite with a child is “serious and compelling circumstances”, which is extremely difficult to meet in practice.
I appreciate that we cannot offer protection to all extended family members, but we can do this for some out of kindness, and it would divert them from using criminal gangs. Once they arrived in the UK, they would enter the asylum system to have their claim for protection decided.
Of course, we would prefer people not to have to make the dangerous journeys as far as Europe, and I expect that the Minister will cite pull factors to Europe as a rebuttal. With an ambitious resettlement scheme—which we will come back to—a broader definition for family reunion, as well as an increasing commitment to aid and constructive engagement with our near neighbours, I believe that any such pull factor to one safe route will be mitigated. The alternative is that people come anyway but in an unplanned way, risking their lives and causing further trauma.
I urge the Minister to at last give way on one item: consider this proposal as a pragmatic response to the need to find durable solutions for desperate people dying on our borders in order to reach their family.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I support all these amendments. I have signed three of them, and the only reason I did not sign the fourth was because my name did not get there in time; there were already four names on it.
Let me talk most particularly for the moment in favour of Amendment 117. In one sense, we are going back to the Dublin treaty, Dublin III and the discussions we have had in the past. At the risk of taking up an extra minute, I will go in for a little moment of history. We had an amendment—which passed in this House and the Commons—to the 2017 Act which said that the Government should negotiate to continue the Dublin III arrangements even after we left the EU. That passed in the 2017 Act.
We thought we were there—but along came the 2019 Act, and it was taken out again. We could not understand why. It was fairly innocuous in one sense, but it was pretty important in another. I was summoned to a room, I think here, and there were three Ministers: the noble Baroness; Brandon Lewis, who was the Immigration Minister; and one of the Ministers from the Commons. There were seven other officials there, one from the Cabinet Office, and just me arguing with them—I thought the odds were pretty fair. Anyway, I was assured that we would lose nothing by abolishing that provision in the 2019 Act. It was never explained to me why the Government wanted to abolish it. If it was going to make no difference, why abolish it? If it was going to make a difference, why take a step backwards?
By all standards, the Dublin III provisions for family reunion were working—not brilliantly, not fast enough and not for enough children, but they were working. I was assured that everything would be all right, but I am afraid that the evidence is not there. We cannot say often enough that where there are safe routes, the traffickers do not get any business. If we close the safe routes, the traffickers get business. It is logical, even for the Tory party. It is market economics, is it not? I do not understand how that can be contradicted.
I am worried about quite a number of the Government’s provisions. The Minister wrote a letter, which I have here; it is slightly depressing, but very helpful. However, I am worried that, on the whole, children in particular who got to Europe fleeing for safety are going to be ignored. I have not been there recently because of the pandemic, but the last time I visited what remains of Calais, people were sleeping under tarpaulins in terrible conditions. It was very depressing, and there were very depressing scenes on the Greek islands. I went to Lesbos, to Moria camp, just before the big fire there. Again, I am out of date now, but I understand that it has not got better. There are young people there who are desperate to join family members in this country. There are not many of them altogether, but there are enough for it to be an important point of principle. Surely, our test of humanity must be whether we support family reunion and whether refugee children can join their families here.
Safe Passage—a small but brilliant NGO with which I am happy to work and be closely associated—suggests that the majority of the children who qualified under Dublin III in the past would not qualify now. For all the optimistic noises coming from the Home Office, the fact is that the situation has got much more difficult in terms of getting children here.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I think that it is perhaps time for a different view from this side of the Committee. I will briefly deal with Amendments 112 and 113.
Amendment 112 refers to “Refugee family reunion”. It is a wide-ranging amendment, and I suggest that it is unnecessary and not very wise. We already have provisions for the family members of refugees to come here. As others have mentioned, these allow partners and children under 18 of those granted refugee status or humanitarian protection to join them here, provided that they formed part of the family unit before they left their own country. That seems a reasonable basis for this provision. Of course, the family members do not receive refugee status themselves, so their leave will expire at the same time as that of the sponsor. But individuals on such visas are allowed to work, study and have recourse to public funds, which also seems entirely reasonable.
Indeed—I will save the Minister a task—we have granted visas to more than 60,000 family members of refugees since 2010. Since 2015, over half of those were to children. This is already a very substantial move in that direction. But widening the criteria still further would, of itself, massively increase those numbers and add still further to the pull factors drawing people to the English Channel, a route that has very little support among the public.
There is a very strong case for not widening these refugee routes. In the real world, we simply do not have the necessary infrastructure, service capacity, housing or school places. Many refugees are being put into the poorest parts of the UK. In this context, the Home Secretary said to a House of Lords committee on 27 October last year:
“We simply do not have the infrastructure or the accommodation.”
A Member of the other House said of his area:
“The impact on housing pressure at local level could cause further tensions if there is resentment about refugees receiving housing assistance at a time of acute … housing shortage.”—[Official Report, Commons, 27/4/21; col. 40WH.]
In setting our arrangements for refuges and their families, we must surely give due consideration to their impact on our own vulnerable communities.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I just put this to him: if children are coming to join family members here, the norm would be that the family member has accommodation to provide for them, so the argument about housing does not apply to that group of people.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
I shall go on to Amendment 113, which deals with unaccompanied minors. The main effect of this amendment would be to put a considerable number of children in serious danger. As drafted, it applies only to children already in the EEA, but it would obviously be a major incentive for families now outside the EEA to pack their children off to Europe in the expectation that they could go on to the UK. The amendment is also widely drawn to include nieces, nephews, grandchildren, siblings, spouses—all from families that are very large in any case.
We have seen how opening this route would encourage minors to make dangerous journeys. In 2016, when there was talk of the UK taking significant numbers of children, the numbers of unaccompanied children literally doubled overnight. That is according to evidence given to the relevant parliamentary committee by the Home Office director responsible in December 2021. We have to consider the wider consequences of this, to which may be added the difficulties already facing the authorities in correctly assessing the age of those claiming to be children. We have discussed this before in Committee and we know that, in the last available year, 1,100 persons claiming to be children were found to be adults. This amendment is dangerous and unwise, and should not be accepted.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have been encouraged to say a word—it was only going to be a word, but it will be a few more now—in support of my noble friend Lady Ludford. I am pleased that she has taken on this cause. I am not seeking to analyse every one of these amendments, but they are about protection in every sense of the word, which is what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham was saying. I applaud the Government for enabling the reuniting of some families, but I am thinking about those who have not been reunited, where there are problems.
I had a similar experience to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in a meeting with Brandon Lewis and a battalion of officials, when I remember being told that the rules are quite adequate—but they are discretionary.
We have been asked by the noble Lord, Lord Green, to think about the real world. The real world is not just in the UK. One of the aspects of children being alone in the UK is the cost to local authorities, which can be very substantial when children are here by themselves. One needs to include a number of factors when balancing the question of costs.
I would like to echo whoever it was who pointed to the importance of siblings being able be together. A child or young person—frankly, anybody coping with the experience of being a refugee—needs the support of family. A sibling can be such a support to a child; I have heard siblings speak of this. These amendments have my support.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his tireless work on family reunion, born out of his own personal experience. I also pay tribute to my noble friends: my noble friend Lady Hamwee, who ran the first leg with her Private Member’s Bill, before handing over to my noble friend Lady Ludford.
It is better for families to be together, not just for their own welfare but so that they can look after each other, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee had just said, rather than being looked after by the state. We strongly support Amendment 112. Amendment 113 would provide a mechanism for those unaccompanied refugee children who had reached an EEA country and who have a family member in the UK to be reunited with that family member. Amendment 114
“would require the Government to produce a negotiating mandate to seek reciprocal arrangements, with other states, on safe returns and safe legal routes.”
I am guessing that would be something akin to Dublin III. Amendment 117 from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would change the Immigration Rules to allow people currently in Europe to come to the UK to seek asylum—effectively be given a visa—if they have a family member in the UK. This is a subset of my noble friend Lady Hamwee’s Amendment 118 in the next group. We support all these amendments.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to contribute again to the deliberations in Committee on this important Bill. We agree with all the amendments in this particular group, but I shall speak specifically to Amendment 114 and then Amendment 113.
On Amendment 114, I join the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I am sure all other Members of the Committee, in paying tribute to my noble friend Lord Dubs for the work he has done over so many years. He is an example and inspiration to us all, with respect to family reunion. The reason I want to highlight Amendment 114 is to lay out the importance of international action on this. That is why the refugee convention is so important to us. We saw the collapse of the world order, if you like, after the Second World War. As was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, earlier, the world back then, of all political persuasions and ideologies, did not all split asunder and pull the drawbridge up on their own countries; they said that this was a common problem of such massive importance that they had to work together to achieve anything.
The 1951 refugee convention is not an old document but still speaks to us and is relevant today. It may have been written in 1951, 70-odd years ago, but it speaks as resoundingly to the people of the world today as it did then. Why do I say that? Like many Members of this Committee, I think Amendment 114 is important because it talks about the United Nations and it talks about international actions. It is a probing amendment —we are not asking the Government to accept it—but it is using the Committee to put pressure on the Government to say, as a senior global power, a member of the United Nations Security Council, a senior member of NATO, a power that has resonance across the world—notwithstanding some of the reputational damage that I think this Bill is causing—that we make a difference. What we say makes a difference.
In Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan—all of those countries—their refugee problems dwarf ours, let alone if we consider those in Africa. As I think I mentioned before, I went to Angola, where they had a refugee camp of a million people—some of the poorest people in the world dealing with some of the most difficult circumstances. On the border of Syria and Jordan, as I think I mentioned before, there is a huge refugee camp with people pouring across the border to escape war. Those countries—Jordan and Turkey—did not turn their back on those people; they worked to try to deal with it.
What I am saying about that international response, that international action, such is the difficulty that we are facing across the world—for all sorts of reasons, and we can debate why that is and why that is not—is that if we do not join together, we have got real problems in actually sorting this out. It is beyond the capacity and capability of one country to do that, notwithstanding the attempts. I say this: there will be a nationality and borders Bill 3 and a nationality and borders Bill 4 in trying to deal with this if the UK Government try to deal with it on their own.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
I entirely agree about the appalling conditions in these refugee camps and the huge number of refugees that are being dealt with. The question that I and others ask is: how can we best use the resources that we can give to the people who really need it? How much more effective would it be to get aid, food and medical attention into these terrible camps, rather than spending huge sums of money on children here who cost the same as a term at Eton?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Of course that is right. That is why there was such a row about the cut in the aid programme. It is why we all believe that of course we have to try to prevent war, famine and all those things. Not to do that would be ridiculous. The sources of many of our problems are war, famine and disease, and all of those things, so of course we have to prevent them.
However, it is also important in the debate we have in this country about asylum and refugees—not immigration—to stand up to the view that “We take the lot”. The idea that it is this country that has to deal with the situation, no other decent country in the world does it, we are the country that has to take them all and we are the weak link in it all is just not true, however unpopular it is to say so. Sometimes the way that you change public opinion is by arguing with it.
People will say, as no doubt the Minister will, “We won the election and therefore this is what the public think”, but on asylum and refugees there is an argument for saying, “Of course we don’t want open borders but there is a need for us to act in a way that is compassionate and consistent with the values that we have always had”. Sometimes that costs you, as I know, but that does not mean you should not do it. Public opinion can therefore be changed, and the subject is debated. Indeed, policy and opinion can change in this Chamber, which is the point of it. In the interests of time, I will stop there.
Amendment 114 is exceptionally important because of the need for international action. To apply it to our own situation here, we will not deal with the migrant crossing problem in the channel without co-operation from France and the rest of Europe.
I want to talk about the importance of Amendment 113, and I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Green, on this. It is not an open invite to everybody to pile their children—I paraphrase, but if I get it wrong then no doubt the noble Lord will correct me—into the EEA because that means they can all then come to the UK. The amendment clearly lays out that it is about people who already have a family member present in the United Kingdom. It is about family reunion and trying to ensure that unaccompanied children in the EEA who have a family member in the UK get the opportunity to be reunited with them.
I will finish with this point, which I know the Minister will agree with. The problem we have is that sometimes Ministers have to speak to Governments, to the computer and to the Civil Service and say, “This bit of the Bill is wrong. It does not work.” Both Ministers have done it before on other Bills in other places where the Bills were wrong. On this issue of family reunion, the Government have got it wrong; they are not right. Nobody thinks that children who are unaccompanied in other parts of the EEA, for example, should not be able to reunite with their families in a way that is consistent with the values of this country, and it beggars belief that the Government would stand against that. It is not about an open door; it says quite specifically who should deal with it. I think if that were explained to the people of this country, and debated and argued with them, they would support it, because they are compassionate and decent, and in the end the compassionate and decent side will win. I think the Ministers are compassionate and decent, so let us have a Bill—in this aspect of it—that reflects that.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments. I hope in what I am about to say that there will be at least some acknowledgment of the compassion and decency that we have shown as a country in the last few years—actually, the last few decades. It is such a hallmark of us as a nation. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Believe it or not, we like each other very much—we just disagree on quite a lot. But we have worked together in a civilised and friendly manner over the last few years, and long may that continue.
On the point about decency and compassion, Amendment 112 aims to expand the scope of the refugee family reunion policy. Under that policy, we have granted visas to over 39,000 people since 2015, over half of them being children, as the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, pointed out. So, to answer the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, we have looked into our hearts. We already have several routes for refugees to bring family members to join them in the UK, and it is important to carefully consider the impact of further amending our policy.
Family unity is a key priority, but noble Lords will know that we have a range of aims further to this, including ensuring that we have reasonable control over immigration and that public services such as schools and hospitals—and I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, who talked about the infrastructure of this country—are not placed under unreasonable pressure. However, I recognise that in some cases there will be exceptional and compassionate circumstances which warrant a grant of leave. To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, the guidance on exceptional circumstances will be published in due course. That is why our policy ensures that there is always discretion to grant visas outside the Immigration Rules, which may cater for the sorts of cases that do not immediately fall within our legal framework.
In terms of allowing child refugees to sponsor family members under this proposed clause, noble Lords will at least grant that I have been consistent in opposing that sort of policy, because of its negative consequences. It is highly likely that this would create further incentives for more children to be encouraged—or even, sadly, forced—to leave their family and risk extremely dangerous journeys to the UK in order to sponsor relatives. Such an approach would open children up to a huge exploitation risk, which completely contradicts the hard work and commitment of the Home Office in protecting children from modern slavery and exploitation. We refuse to play into the hands of criminal gangs, and we cannot extend this policy to allow child refugees to sponsor family members into the UK.
Beyond this, many of the conditions set out in this new clause are already included in our current family reunion policy and are taken into consideration when decisions are made inside or outside the rules. All noble Lords in Committee should have a copy of the various routes. Our prime consideration in all cases is the best interest of the child in question—and so it should be. As the number of visas we have granted under this policy reflects, we are committed to maintaining family unity for refugees. Caseworkers are encouraged to use discretion in considering whether entry may be granted in family reunion cases. By setting out conditions in primary legislation, we would lose the individuality of consideration, and the discretion of caseworkers would be void. I can assure the Committee that all relevant elements of each case are thoroughly considered on their merits under this policy, and there is no need to set it out in statute.
I turn to Amendment 113, on family reunion for unaccompanied asylum-seeking minors. I cannot support this proposed new clause. It tries to recreate the EU’s Dublin regulation in UK law with respect to unaccompanied children who have claimed asylum in an EEA state but have family members in the UK. When the UK sought to raise these matters with the EU, our proposals had very clear safeguards for children. This proposed new clause has none. It creates entitlements to come to the UK to claim asylum if the minor has specified relatives but it fails to consider the individual needs of the child. It does not consider whether the UK relative can actually take care of the child or whether the child would be better placed with a relative, potentially an even closer relative, in another safe EEA state.
The other point about this proposal is that it does not work unilaterally. I am sure the noble Lord will concur with that. It requires co-operation from EEA states. It is not possible to legislate through this Bill to take children out of other countries’ care and support mechanisms or their asylum systems. That requires agreement between states, which might not be possible and is certainly unlikely in the timescale of six months set out in the clause.
I see that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, is about to stand up. Might I finish this point about the EU before he does? As he knows, we sought to negotiate with the EU on UASC family reunion and continue to talk to it on this important issue. However, at this point I cannot comment further.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I hate to go over the past, but the whole point of having the Dublin III treaty in the 2017 Act—which was taken out in the 2019 Act, as I said—is that it has to be based on reciprocity. That was a sensible way forward; it is why we wanted to go down that path. That was the path blocked by the Government in the 2019 Act.
Lord Hylton (CB)
The noble Baroness has twice in my hearing given the figure of 39,000 humanitarian visas for family reunion. Between Second Reading and Committee, I asked a Written Question on how many of those had been taken up, because I foresaw that force majeure, poverty or some other reason would prevent many of them actually being used. I got one of those answers saying, “We really cannot find or give you any figures.” Can the noble Baroness be a little more helpful on the real results of those visas?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Going back to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, first, I did not disagree with his point about reciprocity but I made it clear at the time that we were of course leaving the European Union. I have consistently said, and repeat now, that we will try to negotiate with the EU on UASC family reunion, whether that is across the EU or bilaterally with states. I cannot go any further on the negotiations, but we continue to try to do that. I hope that answers his question.
On family reunion visas, we can grant them, but the noble Lord asked about tracking whether people use them or not. I assume people apply for the visas because they need them and want to reunite with family in the UK, and whether they use them or not—I have just received an answer: all 39,000 have been taken up, so I hope that satisfies the noble Lord. I was just wondering how we could track whether someone had used a visa or not, which might be quite difficult.
I move to Amendment 114, on returns. Once again, we have a number of safe and legal routes to the UK that did not require a negotiating mandate. Our resettlement schemes have provided safe and legal routes for tens of thousands of people to start new lives in the UK. In particular, the mandate resettlement scheme recognises refugees who have a close family member in the UK who is willing to accommodate them. This is a global scheme and there is no annual quota. These routes work alongside the UK Government’s commitment to increasing co-operation internationally, and we continue to seek to negotiate on returns with EU member states, as I have just said to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, who has given us detailed responses. Some of her points do not really take account of what inspired this set of amendments, which is that people do better if they have the support of their family. It may not be quantifiable, but my noble friend Lady Hamwee mentioned the case of a sibling. I can imagine having that my brother or sister with me in a strange place would be an enormous support. The way the Minister replied—which is obviously in her brief—was all about the numbers: never mind the quality, feel the width. We are talking about quality of life, integration and the chances that the person who gets status would have to thrive in the UK. The Home Office is a bit blinkered on this matter.
The Minister told me that the promised guidance on paragraphs 319X and 297 would be coming “in due course”. That is a phrase that always chills the spine; I hope it is not too far away. It would be interesting to know what constitutes “serious and compelling” circumstances, as people are finding that it is very difficult to get through that test. I also note that she said that there is no data in published statistics on how many applications are granted under either of those two routes, and I look forward to her successful efforts to find that. It is a bit surprising that there are no published statistics on that, but I hope she has success in locating some.
The Minister said that there is no need for statute. I obviously disagree, because I am promoting a Private Member’s Bill that would put it into statute. A lot of the problem here is that there is too much discretion and moving of the goalposts, so people do not know what they can rely on. It is all just too difficult, and there are numerous hurdles.
I listened to the Minister. I am fairly disappointed with what she said, but, as of now, I cannot do other than beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Unaccompanied refugee children: relocation and support
(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, make arrangements to relocate to the United Kingdom and support a specified number of unaccompanied refugee children from countries in Europe.(2) The number of children to be resettled under subsection (1) must be determined by the Government in consultation with local authorities.(3) The relocation of children under subsection (1) is in addition to the resettlement of children under any other resettlement scheme.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause introduces a safe route for unaccompanied children from countries in Europe to come to the UK.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, this amendment is also about children, but it is about children who are in Europe and do not have family anywhere. It is similar to an amendment that was passed by this House and became Section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016. There is a long story to that; I will not waste noble Lords’ time on it now except to say that there was quite a lot of resistance then on the part of the Government but, eventually, the amendment was passed and Theresa May, the then Home Secretary, accepted it.
However, as I understand it, Mrs May did so under the pressure of public opinion because, at the time, people were horrified when they saw dinghies and people drowning in the Mediterranean. They saw a little Syrian boy, Alan Kurdi, drowned on a Mediterranean beach. I think that woke up public opinion. The public then came onside and decided that we as a country can do this for unaccompanied child refugees. That is a summary of the history there. Theresa May then summoned me again to see her and said that the Government were prepared to accept the amendment.
The Government then decided that they would cap the number; it was capped at 480, I think. The Government’s argument was that they could not find more local authorities to provide foster families and foster parents to take in more children—a point that was disproved by Safe Passage, which contacted a number of local authorities and found around 1,500 places. Whether they are there today, I do not know, but they were certainly there at the time. There is a problem, of course: there is increasing financial pressure on local authorities, so local authorities are willing to do it but probably cannot afford to do it. There are difficulties; I can see that. Nevertheless, Amendment 115 says:
“The number of children to be resettled … must be determined by the Government in consultation with local authorities.”
That is close to the wording of the earlier amendment some years ago.
The argument here is that, in principle, the Government should accept that we will take a few—only a few—unaccompanied child refugees in Europe, and they should settle on how many and the speed in conjunction with local authorities and with regard to local authorities’ ability to provide foster places. It is a simple proposition. I believe that public opinion is still supportive of it. We have sought support across the political spectrum on this because that is, I am sure, the best way to be successful. Faith groups have been very supportive; altogether, we have a good coalition of people supporting the principle in this amendment and the earlier amendment on Dublin III that I spoke about.
This amendment makes a simple proposition. It would not be difficult for the Government to say that, where there are unaccompanied children who have nowhere else to go and are stuck, we could take at least some of them—not all of them, but some of them—in this country and repeat the small successes of a few years ago. I beg to move.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 116 is in my name. I thank my noble friends Lord Shinkwin, Lady Stroud and Lady Helic for their support. We propose a workable, sensible and impactful solution for the Government to meet their stated objective, as set out in Explanatory Notes,
“to enhance resettlement routes to continue to provide pathways for refugees to be granted protection in the UK.”
Introducing a carefully designed, long-term global resettlement scheme with a numerical target will have the effect of meaningfully expanding safe routes for the world’s most vulnerable refugees.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to my Amendment 119B and in support of Amendment 119A, in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Kennedy of the Shaws and Lady Chakrabarti. I should mention that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, is overseas in Estonia at this moment and unable to be here. In speaking to these amendments, I draw attention to my entries in the register of interests. I am patron of the Coalition for Genocide Response and vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Groups on the Yazidis and on the Uyghurs. In introducing my amendment, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Kirkhope. I strongly support what has just been said.
I begin by referencing the play “Leopoldstadt” by Sir Tom Stoppard. It is a heart-breaking story of one Jewish family in the years before the Second World War and in the aftermath of the war. Among other issues, it highlights the challenges faced by people subjected to persecution and what we now know was genocide and the Holocaust—people who could not find a safe haven anywhere else. Strict quotas meant that only a few of them would find a safe haven. Long waiting lists meant that some people would never move to a safe country. That same challenge continues to this very day.
Amendment 119B, concerning those who are subject to genocide, returns to an issue that was also the subject of an amendment tabled by myself, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, my noble friend Lady Cox, and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, which I moved in 2016. We drew the attention of the House to the plight of the Yazidi, Christian and other minorities who were said to be facing genocide. We argued that our asylum procedures should create a specific category to help those judged to be at immediate risk of genocide. That was five years ago on 3 February 2016, as recorded in Hansard col. 1888; we moved Amendment 234A, which sought to offer help to those whose lives were so clearly at risk of genocide. Although at the conclusion of the debate, the then Home Office Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Bates, agreed to give the proposal further consideration, it was ultimately vetoed.
That amendment, like this one, followed the presumption that a person would be granted asylum when a senior judge determined that a group to which that person belongs is, in the place from which that person originates, subject to genocide. The presumption would operate in the United Kingdom but, in addition, applicants would be able to apply at British consular posts overseas—a point that I raised during earlier proceedings in Committee.
I remind the House that genocide is defined in Article 2 of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide as follows:
“In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: … Killing members of the group; … Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; … Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; …Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; … Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”
Although, in 2016, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe had adopted a resolution stating that ISIS
“has perpetrated acts of genocide and other serious crimes punishable under international law”
—a view incidentally supported in a letter by 75 Members of your Lordships’ House, including the former chief of staff of our Armed Forces and the former head of MI5—the Home Office refused to accept that a genocide was under way. There was clear evidence that the Yazidi genocide extended to religious minorities, with assassinations of church leaders, mass murders, torture, kidnapping of women, forcible conversion, the destruction of churches, monasteries, cemeteries and religious artefacts, and thefts of land and wealth from clergy and laity alike. ISIS made public statements taking credit for the mass murder of the Christians and Yazidis and expressing its intent to eliminate these minority communities and other groups such as homosexuals from its territory.
The government response was the usual one designed to avoid the duties set out in the 1948 convention:
“It is a long-standing government policy that any judgements on whether genocide has occurred are a matter for the international judicial system rather than Governments or other non-judicial bodies.”
This continues to be a frustrating and circular argument. In 2016, a Foreign Office Minister told the House:
“We are not submitting any evidence of possible genocide against Yezidis and Christians to international courts, nor have we been asked to.”
As for referring the matter to the International Criminal Court, we were told:
“I understand that, as the matter stands, Fatou Bensouda, the chief prosecutor, has determined not to take these matters forward.”—[Official Report, 16/12/15; col. 2146.]
No one was willing to name this genocide for what it is or take forward the necessary responses.
As recently as this morning, in a debate in Westminster Hall in another place, Brendan O’Hara and members of the All-Party Group on the Yazidis raised these very issues and the continuing the atrocities that occur against the Yazidis. It has taken up until November of last year for a court—in this case, a German one, in Frankfurt—to convict one of those responsible for the crime of genocide. The UK still refuses to do the same. That member of ISIS was jailed for life, in November, for buying a five year-old Yazidi girl as a slave and then chaining her up in the hot sun, where she burnt to death.
Since our debate in 2016, I have pursued this circular argument in amendments to the Trade Act, the telecommunications Act, the Health and Care Bill and this Home Office Bill. I admit to having been deeply affected by visiting northern Iraq and taking first-hand accounts from Yazidi, Assyrian and Chaldean Christian survivors in 2019.
A United Nations report stated that ISIS held 3,500 slaves hostage, mainly women and children, and had committed acts that
“amount to war crimes, crimes against humanity and possibly genocide.”
Murder has been accompanied by other horrors. An estimated 5,000 young Yazidi women and girls were abducted by ISIS, suffering horrific and prolonged sexual abuse. They were imprisoned for months on end, beaten, burnt and exposed to daily rape and torture. Horrifyingly, some of those victims were as young as nine. Sadly, some girls took their own lives in desperate attempts to escape the horrors of captivity.
Despite all this, we have failed to create a safe or legal route to enable safe passage for those who were so grievously at risk. At the time, the Weidenfeld fund, Mercury One and Operation Safe Havens said they were able to process asylum applications and do the necessary security clearances to a higher standard than the UNHCR and in a matter of weeks. Lord Weidenfeld’s decision to create a special fund to assist endangered minorities at risk of genocide should have inspired us all to do more, but it did not.
My noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead advised us on the formulation of Amendment 119B, and we have followed his advice. It would ask a judge of the High Court of England and Wales to examine the evidence and make a determination. It would provide a process and duty to act. It would then ensure that victims of genocide were given priority in asylum applications. This is not about numbers, nor about those who threaten the security and ideals for which this country stands. Many suffer, but this is about those who have been singled out and our duty under the genocide convention to protect them.
It is worth recalling that in 2016 the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said to the then Minister,
“I say to my noble friend the Minister: throw away the brief from the Home Office and go back to the department and tell it what has been said this evening. I am certain that, despite the media coverage and the information that is available, people in this country have no idea of the extent of the horrors that are being perpetrated”.—[Official Report, 3/2/16; col. 1894.]
That rather echoes what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said a few moments ago about the true attitudes of people in this country. That amendment was supported by people such as the noble Lords, Lord Marlesford, Lord Dubs and Lord Wigley, the late Lord Judd, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and others. But despite the promise in 2016 of further thought, and a subsequent vote in the House of Commons declaring events against those minorities in northern Iraq to be a genocide, here we are five years later still failing to define when a genocide is under way and conveniently avoiding our responsibility to act under the terms of the convention. That convention was so brilliantly crafted by Raphael Lemkin, the Polish-Jewish lawyer who coined the word genocide and saw more than 40 of his own family killed during the Holocaust.
We now need a different approach to give a chance to the communities facing annihilation. Closing the door to them should not be an option. The Bill offers us an opportunity to create a safe and legal route for victims of genocide. By way of example, in January this year I asked the Government
“what plans they have to create a bespoke humanitarian visa scheme for Uyghurs”,
another ethno-religious community facing annihilation, this time in Xinjiang in China—but they also live in other places. The response to this Question can be described only as negligent. I was told:
“While we sympathise with the many people facing difficult situations around the world, we have no plans to introduce a bespoke humanitarian visa scheme for Uyghurs.”
However, there is a small glimmer of hope in that Uighurs from Afghanistan may be considered for resettlement under the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme as religious minorities at particular risk. The amendment could logically build on that.
On the downside, that resettlement route is unlikely to be even considered before 2023. If a person is facing an existential threat—a phrase used earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope—whether in Afghanistan or at risk of being repatriated to China, where they would face existential threats with the rest of the Uighur community, is it reasonable to expect them to wait more than a year for their case to be considered?
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I am sure this was not at the top of his list, but the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has reminded us of the role of the arts in this area. Artists, playwrights and others could express better than the rest of us what they feel, and audiences could perhaps get a wider and deeper understanding of the issues involved. The area of arts and culture is hugely important in this.
Earlier this evening the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, said that we will continue to grant humanitarian protection, and Amendment 118 seeks to extend that to a humanitarian visa. I will explain it as quickly as I can, because what is most important is that we hear what the Minister has to say. If it is a “Sorry, no”, we need to understand why. I express my gratitude to Garden Court Chambers for drafting this amendment, which spells out the requirements and the process.
The amendment seeks to provide an exceptional route by which a person abroad—not in this country—can obtain a visa to come to the UK to seek asylum. At the moment, it is generally not possible to claim asylum in the UK unless one is already here. This visa could be applied for from anywhere in the world. The person would have to show that, if made in the UK, the claim
“would have a realistic prospect of success”,
and also that
“there are serious and compelling reasons why”
it should be considered in the UK. In assessing that, the entry clearance officer would take into account the extent of the risk of persecution or serious harm—persecution having the meaning that it has in the UN refugee convention, and serious harm meaning treatment that, if it occurred in the UK, would be contrary to Article 2, the right to life, or Article 3, the prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, of the European Convention on Human Rights.
If a humanitarian visa is granted, the person will be granted a visa—I stress that—of at least six months’ duration. The Home Secretary could set conditions such as restricting access to work. On coming to the UK, the person will be deemed to have made an asylum claim and will go through the normal asylum process like any other asylum seeker, so the normal processes would not be sidestepped. There would be a full right of appeal, which is Amendment 119.
I have written down the words “Controlled and organised process”. Those working in the sector have long advocated humanitarian visas, which would be one of a suite of safe and legal routes. The humanitarian visa route would not be something that many could take advantage of, but it is significant and structured.
I will leave that there; as I say, the Minister’s response is more important tonight. However, on Amendment 119A, I will say that I was not surprised to see it. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, never misses an opportunity to buttonhole someone who might assist the women judges, other lawyers and others in Afghanistan. What she is seeking is only temporary, in the same way as a humanitarian visa would be. It is one thing to get people out of the country when they are at risk—she has had the most extraordinary success—but it is another to find somewhere for them to go.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I will not repeat myself—well, I am going to repeat myself just briefly. If the Government saw refugees as human beings, they would already have written these amendments into the Bill. We are pushing at a closed door at the moment. We should be taking more refugees and creating more safe routes.
I have a word of warning, which is that there will be many climate—ecological—emergencies over the next decade or so and, given that we have contributed a large part of the world’s accumulated CO2 emissions, we have to understand that we have a moral duty to take our share of climate refugees. It is already happening. There are parts of Africa that are now almost uninhabitable because of climate change, and other places will shortly follow. We have to understand that refugees are not a temporary problem but a permanent problem, and there will be a lot more. If we prepare well and put the programmes and the funding in place, we can cope and do it well. However, while the Government treat refugees as criminals and unwanted people, I am afraid that I see this simply as another reason why the Government have to go.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I think the noble Baroness’s warning is very well taken.
I support Amendments 118, 119A and 119B, but I want particularly to speak in favour of Amendment 116 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. The noble Lord and I have done business together for a long time—the past is another country, and it was in fact in another country—and it is a pleasure to be supporting his amendment. I should also say that I am very grateful to the Minister for the letter that she wrote to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, with a number of useful factual points in it. I am very grateful for my copy today.
It seems to me that the amendment raises two questions: why should one set a number, and why 10,000? Why should one set a number? I am a trustee of the Refugee Council and I have spent some time trying to work out why so many of the Afghan refugees who came here last summer are still in temporary bridging accommodation. I have not quite got to the bottom of it, but it seems to me that the problem is not ill will or lack of intention. I do not criticise the Government. It is a problem with local authorities that arises from the squeeze on their budgets and lack of certainty over financing. The attraction of setting a minimum number is the certainty of having a number in the public expenditure survey—a number negotiated with the Treasury. The Treasury would need to ensure that local authorities were equipped with the money to pay for at least that level.
There seems to be no shortage of willingness in local authorities; it is a shortage of funding in local authorities. When you look at the huge number of local authorities—nearly 300—which came in under the Syrian refugee scheme, it seems to me that what is needed is the certainty that enables one to plan ahead for financing and finding accommodation. So I think setting a number is a good idea and I support the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, for that reason.
Is 10,000 the right number? There are 28 million refugees in the world; it does not seem a very high number. Canada is taking 35,000 Afghans in this calendar year. The population of Canada is just over half the population of the United Kingdom. Comparing us with Europeans, we are number 21 out of 42—bang in the middle of the pack. With our tradition of a presence around the world, that seems to be quite low.
On the other hand, it is probably more than the hotchpotch of present schemes will bring in. It probably would be an increase, but I cannot say for sure because, as the Minister says in the enclosure to her letter today, rather surprisingly, 11 months in, it is still too soon to produce any statistics on how many people are coming in under the resettlement scheme that started in March last year. We do not know how many we are taking now, so we do not know whether this would be an increase. I suspect it would be, but I suspect that overall refugee numbers coming to this country would drop over time. I think this is the answer to the channel problem; 26,000 people came across the channel last year. If there were safe routes—and here is a safe, reliable route—fewer people would try to come unofficially. Fewer people would get killed trying to come into the country.
So I think that, although the number of official refugees would probably go up if we set a 10,000 minimum, the total number of refugees coming here would probably go down. I cannot prove it but that is my instinct. It seems to me that so strong is the incentive to find safe routes that this is a very good way of going about it, so I support the amendment.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I will speak extremely briefly in support of Amendment 116, which for more than 300 refugee organisations is apparently one of their two top priorities in terms of amendments to the Bill. I think it is really important, actually. We have heard powerful arguments for a whole lot of important amendments, but I think the Minister and the Government need to take seriously the views of more than 300 refugee organisations.
The Government have argued that people in need of protection should come to the UK via safe routes, but these organisations tell me that only 1,000 people came through these schemes last year. Does the Minister agree that that figure is unacceptably low and needs to grow substantially, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has just said, if we are to reduce the number of desperate people risking their lives to cross the channel in small boats? I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is absolutely right: this is the way to achieve that objective.
One of the strongest arguments for a resettlement target, as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, is that only five families per local authority would achieve that target. With a little funding from the centre, at least, that seems incredibly straightforward. Does the Minister agree that this is a realistic target and that the certainty that this would provide for local authorities is absolutely crucial?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 115, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, which I have co-signed. Of course, it aims to provide a safe route for unaccompanied children from countries in Europe and broadly reproduces what we all know as the Dubs amendment to the Immigration Act 2016. There have been warm words, deservedly, about the role and record of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs; what better way to put that into something concrete than for the Government to accept Amendment 115?
I support all the amendments in this group, but I will just speak in support of Amendment 116, in the name of a noble quartet of Conservative Peers, which would provide for “at least 10,000” refugees to be resettled annually. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, has discussed the ins and outs of that figure, but it is better than 1,000 a year, which we hear was the low achievement last year. This figure happens to be Liberal Democrat policy, so I very much agree that it is a moderate and sensible amendment. As I say, I support all of the other amendments in the group.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I am not sure that I should support a Liberal Democrat policy this evening; none the less, I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said about the importance of targets. I am sure that one of the reasons that local authorities are reluctant to accept more people is the uncertainty that they have at the moment. They genuinely have a shortage but, inevitably, they hold back when they do not know exactly how many are expected.
I have long argued for targets in this area; I think they are an important part of it precisely because you need sensible planning, frankly, and this could be a way forward. Whatever the numbers may be, we ought to have a proper debate each year on refugees, asylum seekers and immigration as a whole, in which the Government’s plans are set out and we can all make a contribution, in the Commons as well as here, and decide what should be the targets for the following year. This would give everyone, including local authorities, some confidence and certainty about what they are expected to do.
I am afraid I do not think that that will actually reduce the numbers of people coming across the channel—I am sorry to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, on this point—for the reasons that I spelled out previously. Demand is so great that people would still try to cross the channel, even if we expanded the number, for certainty, of people coming across under safe schemes. None the less, the idea of having transparency and target setting is very valuable.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I will try to edit my speech as I go. I support Amendment 118, to which I was pleased to add my name. We all agree that we do not want unsafe journeys, and there is no silver bullet: the situation is complex. If a deterrent was really the answer, securitising the Eurotunnel and the ferry ports has not worked; it has just created even more dangerous routes. So we must have more safe and legal routes.
The major reason I support the idea of a humanitarian visa is that it is a further safe and legal route. It also addresses the issue of people coming from the countries where there are smaller numbers who face persecution and so on, for whom bespoke schemes are never going to be created. Last year, only 93 people arrived from Iraq, five from Yemen, none from Iran and 36 from Sudan. That is all those who were resettled last year. The focus became so heavy last year on Afghanistan and Hong Kong, through the BNO scheme, that all other refugees appeared to be forgotten, so we need this kind of visa. I hope the Minister will not pick holes in the way the amendment is worded because the point is that this kind of visa needs to be looked at.
I also speak in favour of Amendment 116—it is very nice to speak with the noble Lord, Lord Horam, on one occasion. During the Syrian crisis of 2015, a target was set of 20,000 and it helped galvanise everybody with a vision of what could be done. It helped local authorities to understand what kind of numbers they might expect and so on. We also saw through that process the creation of the community sponsorship scheme, so we came up with a new thing through a targeted number. Ten thousand is a number widely supported, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, noted, by huge numbers of refugee organisations because the UNHCR has identified that it is, roughly speaking, our fair share across the world. It is not a number plucked out of thin air but from looking at our fair share across the globe. I hope that we will hear positively the idea that it can happily include the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme. I shall stop there because we need to keep moving.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, this is the safe-route group and I associate myself with so much of what I have heard already, although I signed the amendments in the names of my noble friend Lord Dubs and the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, who is absent. We have heard already about the many ways in which the Government try to have it both ways in the Bill. On a previous group, we heard from the Minister how, for example, European precedent is to be hugged if it is deleterious to the refugee but shunned if it means co-operation and burden-sharing. We have understood that the Government, essentially, want to make it harder with the Bill to get here but if you manage to get here, it will be harder to qualify for protection because we are rewriting the convention.
The Government tell us that they do not want people coming via unsafe routes, in little boats and so on, yet they do not provide adequate safe routes—or maybe they do, but if so they do not want it to be in statute because while it is important to fetter judicial discretion in statute, Home Office largesse should not be similarly constrained, structured or put in law. This group deals with the final two contradictions in particular: providing the safe routes and putting them in statute. For those two reasons I really hope that the Minister, who I know to be a compassionate and logical person, will see the need for something in statute to go with sentiment about safe routes.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 116 in the name of my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, to which it was a pleasure to add my name. Listening to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I was persuaded by his arguments as well on Amendment 119B. I too shall edit along the way, given the speeches already made.
As we debated last week, I have grave concerns about the creation of a two-tiered refugee system but was encouraged to hear my noble friend the Minister agree that creating a two-tiered system can make sense only if there are adequate and consistent safe and legal routes. As my noble friend set out in the debate last Tuesday and circulated in her note, the Government have taken steps in recent years to create some safe and legal routes, as we have heard, through the refugee family reunion scheme, the Afghan resettlement scheme and the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme.
I am encouraged that the New Plan for Immigration charts a road map for resettlement, albeit without setting an annual target. It states:
“The UK’s commitment to resettling refugees will continue to be a multi-year commitment with numbers subject to ongoing review guided by circumstances and capacity at any given time.”
It also confirms the Government’s objectives that
“programmes are responsive to emerging international crises”.
This amendment is not intended to say that there are currently no safe and legal routes; we have heard that there are some. Instead, it pushes for greater consistency in our approach to ensure that there are pathways for the most volatile situations in the world. If we want to be responsive to emerging international crises, we need the infrastructure in place to do so, as the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, pointed out.
One of our greatest challenges for Afghan arrivals has been that we do not have the capacity or infrastructure to take such a big influx so quickly. This is largely because we do not have that infrastructure for welcome and integration in place. The success of the Canadian approach to refugee resettlement lies in its consistency. There is strong integration infrastructure, well-resourced civil society groups and genuine expertise in local authorities. This is why the Government setting a baseline target of the number of refugees who will be resettled by safe and legal routes could help to build and maintain the infrastructure that is required.
If the response to Afghanistan proves one thing, it is that we need to guarantee consistency to both the local authorities and civil society groups which do so much to ensure smooth transitions for asylum seekers. A predictable but flexible global resettlement model in which the Government retain control over how many places are allocated enables the Home Office to react swiftly to international refugee crises in a co-ordinated fashion with local authorities to scale provision in line with demand if required.
My noble friend the Minister will observe that the four named supporters of this amendment sit on the Conservative Benches. This is not because other Members of this House were not supportive, but because the strength of support on the Conservative Benches meant that we got there first. A basic target of 10,000 would ensure that every year we are joining the international community in what needs to be a global response and ensures the Government can say with integrity that it is not only firm, but fair.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, this is another group of positive measures that are intended to provide an antidote to the other measures in this Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, explained, Amendment 115 would be akin to a replacement for the Dubs scheme that provided a safe route for unaccompanied children from countries in Europe to come to the UK.
Amendment 116, as we have heard, sets a minimum target for the number of refugees resettled in the UK of 10,000. There appears to be some logic and reasoning behind that. A number of organisations have suggested that number. We discussed before in Committee how an agreed number of refugees accepted by the UK each year could be arrived at, taking into account such matters as the number of claims per 10,000 population compared with other European countries. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, we are in the middle of the pack as far as Europe is concerned, at the moment.
We agree and, as my noble friend Lady Ludford said, the 10,000 number happens to be Lib Dem policy as well. Of course, that could be flexible on the basis of the capacity of the country to take refugees and the number of refugees being taken by our allies. It is a global problem that requires the UK to play its part, along with other countries both inside and outside Europe, one also addressed by Amendment 119E in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, which seeks to provide a statutory general UK resettlement scheme.
I have spoken before about the Government’s ambition to
“break the business model of the people smugglers”
and how the unintended consequences of the measures in this Bill are reinforcing that business model, making it more and more difficult for genuine asylum seekers to get to the UK without people smugglers’ help. Amendment 118 is a way to seriously damage the people smugglers’ business model. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, the amendment seeks to pre-screen would-be UK asylum claimants and allow those with a realistic prospect of success, and who have serious and compelling reasons for coming to the United Kingdom, to come to make a claim for asylum and remain temporarily while their claim is considered.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, our Amendment 119E, seeks to put a global resettlement scheme on a statutory footing. In that sense, it is very similar to the new Dubs scheme, if I can call it that, for unaccompanied children. I also speak to Amendment 116, which was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate.
The Government’s stated intention through this Bill is to prevent people risking their lives taking dangerous journeys to the UK, but instead of talking about differential treatment, inadmissible claims, pushbacks, offshoring, reinterpreting the convention and other measures, we should be talking about safe and legal routes. If a person fleeing conflict, torture and persecution has a safe route by which to get here, they will take it. If they do not, they will take other, dangerous routes. Suggesting that other measures have or may have any deterrent effect is frankly not an answer when there is no international evidence, and the Home Office has recognised that asylum seekers often have no choice in how they travel and face exploitation by organised crime groups. If the Government want people to travel here by safe, alternative routes and break the business model of the people smugglers, their efforts need to be focused on providing those routes, which the three amendments I refer to do.
I will concentrate the rest of my remarks, which will be brief, on resettlement schemes. The argument for the Dubs scheme has been made before and was made very powerfully again tonight by my noble friend Lord Dubs. Initially, the Dubs scheme, passed into law by a Conservative Government, was envisaged to take 3,000 unaccompanied children who had fled unimaginable horrors and were travelling or in refugee camps on their own. It has been said tonight that, in reality, the scheme was capped at 480 children, and fewer children were actually resettled before the scheme was closed down. Where is the Government’s commitment to taking unaccompanied children who are in desperate need of safety? Does the Minister accept that, without this route, some children will have turned, and will continue to turn, to people smugglers instead?
Our earlier Amendment 114, Amendment 116 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, and my Amendment 119E all deal with a global resettlement scheme. Amendment 119E seeks to put the UK resettlement scheme on a statutory footing and would require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on the operation of the scheme and the number of people resettled under it. For now, it does not include a target, unlike Amendment 116. As the Opposition, we have raised concerns that the 5,000 people due to be resettled under the Afghan resettlement scheme may not be enough of a commitment in response to that crisis.
So there are questions about how a target would be designed, but the aim is the same as Amendment 116. It is, first, to create an active global resettlement scheme that can respond flexibly and at speed to needs, as they emerge; and, secondly, to ensure some kind of mechanism to hold the Government to account. This is to ensure the scheme is actually resettling people at the rates and numbers expected and is not simply announced in a press release then left to lie dormant or underperform.
Announcing the UK resettlement scheme, which was launched after the closure of the Syrian scheme, the then Home Secretary confirmed that
“the UK plans to resettle in the region of 5,000 of the world’s most vulnerable refugees in the first year of the new scheme”.
Since that announcement, as I understand it, the scheme has settled less than a fifth of that number each year, with an annual average of 770 people. How do the Government expect the other 4,230 of the world’s most vulnerable refugees each year to travel here? Do they expect them to go elsewhere or not go at all?
If we share the aim of ensuring people who are fleeing the worst can do so safely—and I am sure everyone in this House does—we need to work together to provide a reliable, active, responsive route to do so. Currently, the Bill is silent on this and, in answer to questions from the Commons, the Government gave no details about their plans. I hope the Minister is able to give more detail tonight.
The Government should, in this Bill or alongside it, commit to an expanded proactive resettlement route. The mechanism for doing that is provided in both Amendments 116 and 119E.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has taken part in what has been quite a full debate. Amendment 115 seeks to introduce a safe route for unaccompanied children from countries in Europe to come to the UK. We all want to stop dangerous journeys in small boats and avoid a repeat of the distressing events of 24 November last year in the channel, where 27 people tragically lost their lives. We all know that children were impacted by that event, and I am sure that every noble Lord in this Committee is concerned about vulnerable children.
I think we can also agree that European countries are safe countries. Together, EU countries operate the Common European Asylum System, which is a framework of rules and procedures based on the full and inclusive application of the refugee convention. Its aim is to ensure the fair and humane treatment of applicants for international protection. There is no need for an unaccompanied child in a European state who needs protection to make a perilous onward journey to the UK, because that protection is already available to them.
I therefore argue that these proposed clauses would put vulnerable children in more danger by encouraging them to make dangerous journeys from outside Europe into Europe to seek to benefit from the scheme. They would create a new pull factor, motivating people to again entrust themselves to smugglers. While they might avoid the danger of a small boat, we know that journeys over land—for example, in the back of lorries—can be equally perilous. We cannot and must not do anything that supports the trafficker’s model. I am resolute on that. I know that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, intends, but it is the reality of this proposed new clause.
The UK does its fair share for unaccompanied children. According to the latest published statistics, there were 4,070 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children being cared for in England. In 2019, the UK had the most asylum applications from unaccompanied children of all EU+ countries and had the second highest in 2020. The Government met their one-off commitment to transfer 480 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children —we did meet that commitment—from Europe to the UK under Section 67 of the Immigration Act 2016, which is referred to as the Dubs scheme. This is essentially that scheme again in all but name.
The clause also fails to take into account the reality for unaccompanied children entering the UK domestic system right now. I am very grateful to the many local authorities who have been able to provide support on a voluntary basis to the national transfer scheme, introduced to enable the transfer of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children from one local authority to another, which aims to deliver a fairer distribution of unaccompanied children across the UK. Due to the extremely high intake of unaccompanied children over recent months, particularly as a result of small boat crossings on the south coast, and pressures of entry on local authorities, the national transfer scheme has been unable to keep up with demand. The unprecedented demand resulted in the exceptional decision to accommodate new arrivals of unaccompanied children in hotels to ensure that their immediate safeguarding and welfare needs could be met, pending their transfer to longer-term care placements. It is not ideal and it is not in the interests of those children who are currently waiting in hotels for local authority placements to agree to this clause. We need to prioritise finding long-term placements for those children already in the UK and ensure that we have a sustainable transfer scheme to deliver long-term solutions.
I must pick up the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on one point. He talked about 1,500 places being pledged. He will know that, over the years, I have constantly challenged local authorities to come forward to the Home Office if they have places, and those numbers have not been forthcoming. Unfortunately, places pledged to a charity do not necessarily translate into places. His comments do not reflect our experience on the ground, given that we are using hotels for some newly arrived UASCs while urgently seeking care placements. The Government have mandated the national transfer scheme to ensure that we prioritise care placements for those unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who are in the UK.
Turning to Amendment 116, I understand the desire that Members of this Committee have to establish a minimum number of resettled refugees each year. Our current schemes are non-legislative, operating outside of the Immigration Rules and on a discretionary basis. Operating in this way has seen us resettle over 26,000 vulnerable people since 2015.
It is important that we take into account our capacity in the UK to support people, so that we can continue to resettle people safely and provide appropriate access to healthcare, education, housing, et cetera, without adding to the significant pressure that those services are already under. This amendment seeks to bring in a statutory minimum of 10,000 refugees each year within one month of Royal Assent. We already have over 12,000 refugees and people at risk who we are in the process of resettling permanently and integrating into society.
I turn now to Amendments 118 to 119B. I assure the Committee of my support for the humanitarian intentions behind these proposals and sympathise with the many people across the world who currently face danger and persecution. For resettlement, the UK works according to the humanitarian principles of impartiality and neutrality, which means that we do not take into consideration the ethno-religious origin of people requiring citizenship, as we resettle solely on the basis of need. That is not to in any way decry what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said, but we settle on the basis of need, as identified by the UNHCR.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am very grateful to the Minister for responding to some of the points that I made earlier, but would she accept two things—first, that this is not about people who are vulnerable but about people who are subjected to genocide, and we have legal commitments in international law under the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide? I would be most appreciative if she could take that back to her officials so that we can look at it further. Secondly, I asked her specifically whether she could identify, under the existing arrangements, whether we had taken a single Yazidi or Assyrian from northern Iraq as a consequence of them not being able to enter through the existing routes. I would appreciate it if she could write to me on that.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I will probably refer to my colleagues in the FCDO for further information on that, but I shall certainly take those points back.
It is important at this stage to take into account our capacity in the UK to support people, as I have said, so that we can continue to resettle people safely and provide that appropriate access to healthcare, et cetera. Sorry, I have just gone back on my speech; I was talking to the noble Lord about the VPRS and the whole issue of genocide. I shall provide further information on all that—but I would add that we cannot support these amendments, which would create an uncapped route, whereby anyone anywhere could make an application to enter the UK for the purposes of making an asylum claim. The UN estimates there to be around 82.4 million displaced persons worldwide. Under these proposals, UK caseworkers, who already have a stretched workload, would be bound to undertake an in-depth examination of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of individuals’ circumstances to assess the likelihood of their protection claim being granted, as well as seeking to understand factors, including the individual’s mental and physical health, their ties to the UK, and the dangers that they face. This suggestion is totally unworkable.
I remind my noble friend that the number of people we are able to support through safe and legal routes depends on a big variety of factors, including local authorities’ capacity for supporting refugees. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, acknowledged that, and acknowledged the extreme stress that they are under. An unlimited, uncontrolled scheme such as that which my noble friend proposes would overwhelm our already very strained asylum system, as well as our justice system, and put significant pressures on to our local authorities.
Finally, Amendment 119E seeks to bring the UK resettlement scheme into statute and produce a report on refugees resettled through the scheme annually. In a non-legislative way, we have already done resettlement schemes operating outside of the Immigration Rules and on a discretionary basis, providing the flexibility to respond to changing international events. As demonstrated through the VPRS, we have stuck to and exceeded our commitment, and we will continue to build on the success of previous schemes; the numbers resettled annually will depend on a variety of factors. I hope, with that, that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, will feel happy to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
At Second Reading, we were encouraged to come forward with proposals for new routes and so on. We have done so. It is not good enough for the Government to say that we need more safe and legal routes, and then knock down every idea that we present and not present alternatives themselves. Will the Minister undertake to give us some examples on Report of safe and legal routes that the Government will support? She knows what we will do otherwise.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
What I encouraged noble Lords to come up with at Second Reading were solutions, not new routes. I have consistently said, and written to noble Lords on this, that we have a number of very good safe and legal routes.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down—to use the convention, although I am glad she is resting for a moment—she talked about this group being about uncapped routes and visas, but many, if not most, of these amendments are probing, as she will appreciate. She will also appreciate, because of her experience in the department, that visas do not have to be uncapped. For example, my noble friend Lady Kennedy’s amendment about emergency visas for human rights defenders is probing that the Secretary of State must do something in the rules about human rights defenders; it is not saying that every human rights defender in trouble around the world must be allowed in as if it is a new human rights defenders convention—my noble friend is just probing and asking the Government whether we can do something in the rules or in some kind of statutory form. The Minister has this massive brief, and I sympathise with her. On the police Bill, she has taken special measures for front-line emergency workers to get extra protection—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Evans of Bowes Park) (Con)
Will the noble Baroness ask a question? It is getting very late at night; can we please try to focus points? We absolutely accept that we need everyone—
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
It is genuinely not the noble Baroness, but we also need to work together —please—to get this Bill through. It is an important Bill. All noble Lords absolutely have the right to say what they want, but we also need to get this through. I am sorry, but can we please focus on that? We will let everyone speak, but please be aware of the time and what everyone else needs to be doing tonight.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
Why do we need to get the Bill through? Why can we not leave it until after the recess? I do not understand. This is the Government’s problem—they have created this problem for us.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I am sorry; I did not mean it to be about the noble Baroness.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I am sorry, but this is not the first time this has happened. I have been here all through Committee with the Minister. This is the second time the Leader of the House has done this when she has not been here—she has come in and it is beginning to feel a bit personal. I want that on the record. The Minister knows what I am getting at and I do not think she thinks I have been taking up too much time in this Committee this evening.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
I am very sorry to the noble Baroness; that was not my intention at all and I am very sorry she feels that way. It is absolutely not the case. All I can say is that we have now reached the time we are at. We must try to make progress; we must all work together to do that. I say on the record that I am very sorry to the noble Baroness—it is nothing to do with her and I am very sorry she feels that way.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
There are only five days scheduled in Committee on this Bill. This is by no means the longest Committee stage for a piece of legislation. Perhaps there ought to be a reflection on the Government’s side as to whether they did not seriously underestimate the number of days that were needed for Committee stage.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I will say from these Benches that, if the Government insist on bringing forward such controversial legislation, they cannot expect anything other than a number of noble Lords wanting to speak on these issues. If it were uncontroversial, noble Lords would not be queuing up to speak on the Bill. This is why we are in this situation, and we need more time so that we can adequately scrutinise this very controversial Bill.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all Members who have contributed to the debate and to the Minister for her stamina in continuing and continuing. I am sure she will go on until the early hours with great strength.
I will comment very briefly, as is my right. First, we had a very unusual thing happen tonight—
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am sorry to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, but I should respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, because I think he is about to wind up. We have generally done specific schemes for specific purposes and in responding to specific crises. We have the VPRS, the VCRS, the UK resettlement scheme and the ARAP scheme, and we will be doing the ACRS. They have all been non-statutory and I was trying to explain that we will be continuing in that vein for specific purposes, so that we can accommodate the most vulnerable. I hope that partly answers her question.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
I had already begun saying my thanks and praising the Minister for her stamina. I will comment very briefly that something amazing has happened this evening. Amendment 116, in the name of four Conversative Members of the Committee, is much more radical than anything produced by the Cross-Benchers, the Lib Dems, the Greens, the Labour Party or the Bishops’ Bench. It is amazing and I wonder what is happening to the Conservative Party here. I welcome Amendment 116.
I will comment very briefly on my Amendment 115. It very clearly says, “in consultation with local authorities”. There is no number set and no obligation, other than to consult with local authorities and set the number accordingly. Of course, I welcome the national transfer scheme. It should not be instead of the principles in Amendment 115, but it is very important that not all the pressure is on Kent and Croydon.
Lastly, the Minister mentioned the large number coming in lorries across the channel, but the figures will show—I am sorry that I do not have the full figures here—that, in recent years, the number coming in the back of lorries has been higher, but they have been replaced by the ones coming on boats. The total numbers are actually fewer, even though the ones in boats are more obvious.
I again thank Members of the Committee for the part they played in this debate, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hollins
“Codes of practice
(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and issue one or more codes of practice for the guidance of immigration officers, medical inspectors and other persons assessing the mental and physical health needs of any asylum seeker in accordance with the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966.(2) The Secretary of State may from time to time revise a code.(3) Before the end of each review period the Secretary of State must—(a) review each code for the guidance of persons exercising functions under this section, and(b) lay a report of the review before Parliament.But this does not affect the Secretary of State’s function under subsection (2).(4) A review period is—(a) in relation to the first review, the period of 3 years beginning with the day on which this subsection comes into force, and(b) in relation to subsequent reviews, each period of 5 years beginning with the day on which the report of the previous review was laid before Parliament.(5) The Secretary of State may delegate the preparation of the review or revision of the whole or any part of a code so far as he or she considers expedient.(6) It is the duty of a person to have regard to any relevant code if acting in relation to a person seeking asylum in one or more of the following ways—(a) in a professional capacity;(b) for remuneration;(c) for a charity or other not-for-profit body.(7) If it appears to a court or tribunal conducting any criminal or civil proceedings that—(a) a provision of a code, or(b) a failure to comply with a code,is relevant to a question arising in the proceedings, the provision or failure must be taken into account in deciding the question.(8) In this section, “code” means a code prepared or revised under this section.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to lay codes of practice before Parliament providing for guidance to assess the mental and physical health needs of any asylum seeker.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, Amendments 119C and 119D propose a code of practice for professionals involved in the assessment and care of people seeking asylum. Refugees and asylum seekers often have complex health needs influenced by experiences prior to leaving their home country, during transit or after arrival in the UK. Common examples include untreated communicable diseases, accidental injuries, hypothermia, malnutrition, poor maternity care and inadequately treated mental illness. These are made worse by the barriers to assessment and treatment that they face right from their arrival in the UK to the conclusion of the process and beyond. One common risk factor for poor health and well-being among this community is trauma. This may be the very trauma that they are fleeing from, the trauma of the journey or the psychological distress of overcrowding, the lack of privacy and the absence of culturally appropriate community support upon their arrival.
The World Health Organization reports double the rate of depression and anxiety in a humanitarian crisis; that is worth noting. Mental illness can influence the ability of asylum seekers to present their claims in a coherent way. The assessment of credibility is a fundamental aspect of the asylum decision-making process, and the decision-making immigration officer needs information to make their decision but they may be faced with a person with symptoms associated with a mental disorder and the psychological effects of trauma, such as memory loss, an inability to express or even feel emotions or profound guilt and shame at what they have experienced. Such trauma, which disproportionately affects women, may also lead to a reluctance or delay in disclosure that can negatively affect the application, as already highlighted in Amendment 40, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett.
The current government policy, as set out in the guidance on adults at risk in immigration detention, centres on indicators of vulnerability, including persons suffering from a mental health condition or impairment; victims of torture; those who have been a victim of sexual or gender-based violence; those who have been a victim of human trafficking or modern slavery; and those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.
Once a person has been identified as having an indicator of risk, the “adults at risk” policy identifies levels of evidence for that risk. The level of evidence is used as a measure of the degree of risk, which is then weighed against a range of immigration factors when making decisions regarding the immigration process, particularly the detention of the person. However, the Royal College of Psychiatrists has raised concerns that people with significant mental illness may have difficulty in being effective self-advocates or may lack a full appreciation of the extent of their own vulnerability. They may lack the mental capacity to make decisions relating to their immigration situation. Many do not have access to a robust assessment process or, if identified as lacking relevant capacity, to a system designed to safeguard them or advocate for them in their best interest.
The Helen Bamber Foundation says that in its experience persons with significant mental illness, as well as those with evidence of past torture, sexual gender-based violence and those with PTSD, are being detained despite their mental-health-related vulnerability. The assessment and identification of mental health problems requires appropriately trained staff in a facilitative environment as well as close multidisciplinary working.
For some, the treatment of mental illness will require specialist trauma-focused therapeutic support. I am told that this is not happening in existing facilities, such as Napier Barracks. It is intended that through these amendments the mental health, mental capacity and physical health of asylum seekers would be assessed and considered properly on arrival and throughout the asylum claim processes, and that the treatment and care of asylum seekers would be sufficient to ensure their health and well-being by standardising and regulating a process that would apply to numerous agencies, public, independent and third sector.
The Secretary of State said in the other place that the Bill will increase the fairness of our system so we can better protect those who are in genuine need of asylum and continue to strengthen our proud record of supporting those in need. The amendments seek to support the Government in achieving just that. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my name is on this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, knows whereof she speaks, so I shall not attempt to do more than support her. To me, this is a matter of professional judgment, which she has brought, but also of common sense. What I hope is my common sense has been informed by what I have heard over quite some years, including, very significantly, in the debate that we had last week. It is clear that in the UK—it may in this context be England and Wales—the systems, if they can be called systems, for assessing the health needs of asylum seekers are patchy and often inadequate.
It is also common sense that assessment should start from a solid, informed base, incorporating the best, up-to-date understanding and experience, so a review is important. So is consultation with those who are expert in the field. I support the amendments.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support these amendments, to which I was pleased to add my name. I thank the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Helen Bamber Foundation for their help.
Many of us have already highlighted how provisions in this Bill will seriously harm the mental and physical health of people seeking asylum, through, for example, leaving group 2 refugees living in limbo with uncertain status or by placing people in vulnerable circumstances in accommodation centres that function as quasi-detention and have been shown to have a terrible impact on health.
The amendments are a positive step that aims to ensure that the physical and mental health needs of people seeking asylum are prioritised and that there is a comprehensive, co-ordinated approach to addressing those needs in line with our obligations under Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966 to
“recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health”.
Numerous reports and work by organisations such as the Helen Bamber Foundation, Freedom from Torture, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Equality and Human Rights Commission show that people seeking asylum face barriers in accessing services, including health services, throughout the asylum process, from their arrival in the UK to the conclusion of the process and beyond. They are also more likely to have specific healthcare needs caused by distressing experiences in their country of origin and traumatic experience during their journey seeking refuge.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, explained, there are numerous points in the asylum system where the physical and mental health of people seeking protection affects their ability to engage in the process or is worsened by the system we have in place. One particularly troubling example is the detention system, which the noble Baroness has talked about and is the subject of a later group of amendments—I shall scrub what I was going to say about that, given the lateness of the hour.
I am aware that the Home Office is currently engaging with the NHS, NGOs and other stakeholders through groups like its asylum seeker health steering group and associated subgroups. This is welcome, but much more is needed. The current guidance is inadequate and its implementation patchy. Codes of practice focused on the health and care of people seeking asylum and the responsibilities of all those engaging with them in the asylum system would not only increase the fairness and efficiency of the system but provide better protection and support to those in need of asylum.
I hope that the Minister will look kindly on these amendments, which I think are part of the solution.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise with great pleasure in following the three noble Baronesses who have proposed this amendment.
Outside Yarl’s Wood detention centre, at the “Set Her Free” protest, I listened to some incredibly powerful and moving speeches from women who had been detained in that centre and had then come back to protest. They spoke about what the experience was like and what they had been through. They showed huge bravery. We talk a lot about trauma in your Lordships’ House; you could hear the trauma in those women’s voices.
I see that the noble Baroness the Minister will not be answering this question, and I do not necessarily expect her to remember this, but in June 2020 when I was still a new Member of your Lordships’ House, she was kind enough to have a one-on-one call with me after I went with the South Yorkshire Migration and Asylum Action Group to Urban House in Wakefield, where the conditions were absolutely dreadful. We saw SYMAAG trying to pick up the pieces after the failure of government services to meet the most basic provisions.
That is why I want to make this particular point: much of the provision covered by the noble Baroness’s amendment is currently being filled, patchily and inadequately but desperately bravely and with huge effort, by voluntary groups such as SYMAAG, as well as many others like them around the country. They cannot possibly do an adequate job, but they do an amazing job. The point I want to make to the Minister is that, with adequate government provision, those groups could do so many other positive things to build communities and be an active growth force instead of just trying to plug the Government’s gaps.
There is a real long-term cost. If we look at the financial cost of the lack of provision that this amendment provides for, the long-term cost is far greater than the cost of providing care for desperate people who are in our society and are our responsibility.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, explained, these amendments seek to ensure that the mental and medical needs of asylum seekers are addressed. They would require the Secretary of State to issue codes of practice to ensure that
“the United Kingdom’s obligations under Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights 1966”
are fulfilled in relation to asylum seekers.
Whether their claims are deemed to have merit or not, asylum seekers are entitled to be looked after while they are in the United Kingdom. For the reasons that the noble Baroness explained, they are likely to be more vulnerable and in need of greater care than the general population. God forbid we engage in offshoring —either exporting refugees to a third country while they application for asylum in the UK is considered or, even worse, doing so for them to pursue their asylum claim in that country. That should not absolve the United Kingdom of its obligations under the 1966 covenant. We support these amendments.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
The two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, would require the Secretary of State, first, to lay before Parliament codes of practice providing for guidance to assess the mental and physical health needs of any asylum seeker; and, secondly, to consult before preparing those codes.
Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, to which reference has been made, provides that states recognise
“the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.”
I am sure that the Committee is grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for the opportunity to have this debate because the trauma experienced by people who have suffered violence, persecution, forced displacement and separation from loved ones has been a focal point of our debates on many clauses in this Bill. Recent experience has shown, to put it bluntly, a distinct failure by the Home Office to screen or properly care for the physical and mental health of people who arrive to seek asylum.
The figures showed, I think, that one in five people placed in Napier barracks had to be transferred out owing to vulnerabilities that the department should have screened for and responded to; these included people who had been trafficked and tortured. The Independent Chief Inspector of Borders and Immigration said:
“There was inadequate support for people who had self-harmed.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this brief debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for her amendments, which would insert two new clauses concerning the introduction of codes of practice to underpin the Secretary of State’s approach to identifying physical and mental health needs in the asylum system. It may assist if I clarify why the Government believe that these amendments are unnecessary.
Asylum seekers are already entitled to access medical services, including those related to mental health, that are provided by the NHS, in the same way as British citizens and other permanent residents. The Home Office provides accommodation and subsistence support to all asylum seekers who would otherwise be destitute, but medical services—including those related to mental health and trauma—medical assessment and treatment are provided by the NHS. At every stage in the process, from initial arrival to screening, and to the substantive asylum interview, our approach is to ensure that the healthcare needs and vulnerabilities of asylum seekers are identified and taken into consideration where it is appropriate to do so. We ask a broad range of questions —in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—in the screening interview to establish a claimant’s needs, including any vulnerabilities or well-being needs. Claimants have signposted to them additional sources of support and advice as appropriate. Where any safeguarding concerns are identified, the Asylum Safeguarding Hub will look to make referrals to relevant bodies and signpost relevant organisations to the claimant.
As I say, where needs are identified we ensure that there is access to professional care, and assessments are conducted by professionally trained healthcare providers. While the Home Office clearly considers it vital to safeguard all aspects of asylum seekers’ health, the responsibility for assessing health issues rests with the statutory agencies of the NHS and social services. Therefore, we do not believe there is any need for further regulation in this area. Asylum seekers have every opportunity for their needs to be identified. The standard of care they would receive as a result of those needs is identical to that received by a British citizen—we should all, at this point, pay tribute to the work of the NHS. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
Before the noble Baroness responds, it may be that this amendment could be worded to put more emphasis on the guidance of those who come into contact with asylum seekers, rather than just assessment. Does the Minister accept that this is a very specialised area? Without for a moment being critical of the NHS, I suggest that that specialism needs to be recognised and learning from it made available to those who come into contact with the cohort we are discussing.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I cut my speech rather, because of the time, and I feel that maybe I did not manage to explain adequately. These are people with complex health needs. They are not just like any other patient in the NHS. They have had very difficult experiences and have difficult mental health needs. It is difficult for them to try to explain about their trauma to the first interpreter or the first person assessing them that they meet. This is something where it often takes years for people to trust sufficiently to be able to explain the impact on their situation, their circumstances, and their life chances. This is not just having an assessment and a conversation. It is about building a relationship of trust when people have experienced the most terrible circumstances. That is the difficulty.
I will give one quick example. One still very troubled lady, whose asylum claim was successful, described her claim and subsequent requests for ongoing support as “seriously retraumatising”. The paperwork that she received was confusing and negative in tone, with any success hidden somewhere in the small print. She asked, “Why do they do that to me? Why can’t they communicate with me? Why should I struggle so much? I feel like I’ve been through another fight”. This lady feels like giving up, despite the fact that her claim was eventually successful.
These amendments seek to see people treated fairly, compassionately and with more skill and understanding, so that they have the best hope of healing and settling in the UK. I thank noble Lords who have supported these amendments. I hope that the Minister will think again and accept the spirit of what I have proposed; otherwise, I and others will bring these amendments back on Report.
I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord McNicol of West Kilbride) (Lab)
My Lords, if Amendment 120 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 121 because of pre-emption.
Amendment 120
Baroness Ludford
Member’s explanatory statement
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to prevent “arrival” in the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance, rather than “entry” into the United Kingdom without a valid entry clearance, becoming an offence.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the effect of Clause 39 is to criminalise the act of seeking asylum in the UK, even if the person has no option but to flee. Clause 39 makes arriving in the UK without leave, without ever actually entering the UK, a criminal offence. I am therefore moving Amendment 120, with the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, which would remove the relevant part of Clause 39.
I note that whereas a person violating Clause 39 could get a sentence of four years in prison, I recently saw in the media a case of modern slavery which attracted a suspended sentence. So having the temerity to arrive to claim asylum is considered multiple times more serious than enslaving and exploiting someone.
Clause 39 criminalising arrival would cover people intercepted in UK territorial waters and brought into the UK, and presenting themselves to an immigration official to claim asylum. They would arrive, even if they do not enter. Note that this is not targeted at traffickers and smugglers but at the sorry individuals being smuggled and seeking asylum. Why should they be criminalised? Remember that no visa exists for the purpose of claiming asylum—the noble Lord’s amendment wants to rectify that—and it is impossible to claim asylum without coming to the UK. It is a classic Catch-22 situation.
The clause is inconsistent with Article 31 of the refugee convention, which obliges signatories to
“not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees … present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.”
This non-penalisation is at the core of the refugee convention—even Australia has never considered criminalising irregular entry.
Of course, if an asylum seeker becomes a criminal as soon as they arrive, this can have implications for their future as a refugee. They will have a criminal record and be deemed to be not of good character, and this will impact on their ability to integrate, to settle and, down the line, to acquire British citizenship.
As we discussed on an earlier group, the definition of “particularly serious crime” is being lowered to a 12-month sentence. Since they could get a four-year sentence under Clause 39, or 12 months on a summary conviction, the person could lose their protection against expulsion and refoulement simply as a result of arriving in the UK to claim asylum. It is pernicious to criminalise someone who simply arrives in, not enters, a country— there has always been a distinction between the two. I am afraid that it is somewhat Kafkaesque—I maybe overuse that phrase—as well as pernicious and unnecessary. I beg to move.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 121 and 122. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for lending her support in signing Amendment 122. As the noble Baroness set out, and as we heard from the Deputy Chairman, if Amendment 120 carries favour with the Committee, Amendments 121 and 122 could obviously not be moved.
I intend these amendments to probe my noble friend the Minister. The thinking behind this is that it represents the concerns expressed to me by Law Society of Scotland, to which I am grateful for drafting the amendments and the wording that it has used. Rather than just deleting the offending wording in new subsections (D1) and (E1), I am proposing to delete “arrives in” from the relevant sections of Clause 39 and insert “enters” instead.
Clause 39 of the Bill adds a new component to the existing offence of illegal entry, and subsection (2) thereof adds new subsections to Section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. New subsection (D1) makes it an offence for someone who “requires entry clearance” to arrive in the UK without “a valid entry clearance”. An entry clearance is a visa issued before travel, because it becomes leave to enter when the person enters the UK. The burden of proving that a person holds valid entry clearance lies on that person. This is of concern, given that EU citizens are not routinely given any physical evidence of their entry clearance if they apply using the UK Immigration: ID Check app—no visa vignette is placed in their passport. So the key addition to the offence provision is to make arrival an offence.
The Explanatory Notes clearly state:
“The concept of ‘entering the UK without leave’ has caused difficulties about precisely what ‘entering’ means in the context of the current section 24(1)(a) of the 1971 Act.”
Entering is defined in Section 11(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, which I recall studying at the University of Edinburgh some time ago, as disembarking and subsequently leaving the immigration control area. Arrival is not given any technical legal definition, so it will simply mean reaching a place at the end of a journey or a stage in a journey. So it is unclear whether a person needs to reach the mainland in order to arrive in the United Kingdom.
My first question to my noble friend is: can she clarify at what point a person arrives in the United Kingdom? The Explanatory Notes and the separate definitions of the United Kingdom and United Kingdom waters seem to suggest that arrival on the mainland is necessary. The new provisions will allow prosecutions of individuals intercepted in UK territorial waters and brought into the UK, who arrive in but do not technically enter the UK, as set out in paragraph 388 of the Explanatory Notes.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in what she had to say, but I would like some clarification. She said clearly that the effect of this clause is to criminalise the act of seeking asylum in the UK, which was the conclusion reached by the JCHR, of which she is a member. Does the Minister agree with the conclusion that this is what Clause 39 means? If she does not agree, what does it mean? If she does agree, I have a conundrum that is a variation of what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has twice rehearsed now. He made the point that if an asylum seeker is deemed inadmissible, how do they even get to Clause 11 to be affected by the differential?
I have the same conundrum around criminalisation. If the very act of seeking asylum makes someone a criminal, how do they even get to Clause 11? I do not understand how Clause 11, inadmissibility and criminalisation interact with each other. It is rather late to go into this but, if the Minister cannot do it now, a letter to all the members of the Committee would be very helpful to clarify this interaction.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the fact that I am going to say that I could not agree more with my noble friend Lady Ludford and will not add to that should not be taken to reduce the strength of that view.
I added my name to Amendment 122 from the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for the reasons she explained. After I did, I realised that there is a question to be asked about new subsection (E1), which makes it an offence for someone knowingly to arrive in the UK without an ETA, an electronic travel authorisation; I would say that it would be the same to enter, but I am not sure it would be possible to enter the UK without an ETA.
I feel very uncomfortable about new subsection (E1) which makes it an offence to do something under the ETA rules when we do not have those rules. The ETA is not in effect yet. Your Lordships may think it right, when we see what the scheme is, that an offence be created—but not at this stage.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, like others, I entirely agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. I have to put it on the record that it is now 11.04 pm and we are debating major legal innovations with massive consequences.
I want to ask the Minister just one question. Let us imagine a person caught in these circumstances, who has gone on a small boat, been intercepted by the Royal Navy and brought to shore, arrived in the UK and put in jail for four years. That person is very likely from a country in a state of turmoil to which it is utterly impossible to return them for any conceivable time in the future after their four-year jail term. How does the Minister imagine the fate—the life—of that person proceeding from the point they walk out of the jail doors?
Nationality and Borders Bill
Thursday 10th February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-V(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Fifth Marshalled List) - (9 Feb 2022)
Lord Coaker
“(1A) The Secretary of State may not serve a slavery or trafficking information notice on any person who— (a) is aged 17 or younger, or(b) was aged 17 or younger at the time they were a potential victim of slavery or human trafficking on the basis of which they have made a protection claim or human rights claim.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would exclude children from the provisions of Clause 57.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register as a research fellow at University of Nottingham, in the Rights Lab, and as a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation. I hope that can be noted as we go through this part of the Bill, rather than me saying it at the beginning of every group of amendments, if that is in order.
Part 5 of the Bill deals with modern slavery. There are a couple of things to say before I turn to my amendment and some of the other amendments in this large group. It is sad to see modern slavery in what is essentially an immigration, refugee and asylum Bill. That is to be regretted. Notwithstanding that, it is in this Bill, and we have a large number of amendments and important issues to discuss.
I regret much of what is in Part 5, given that one of the iconic achievements of any Government over the last few decades was that of the Conservative Government under David Cameron, with Theresa May as Home Secretary and then as Prime Minister: the Modern Slavery Act. As a Labour politician, I was pleased and proud to support it. It was a fantastic achievement, and a model for the rest of the world, and indeed the rest of the world has followed it. That should be set down as a marker in this place. I hope that the right honourable Member for Maidenhead, the former Prime Minister, hears loud and clear what I think the vast majority, if not all, of this House believe with respect to the Modern Slavery Act.
I find it therefore somewhat difficult to understand why the Government have come forward with a number of proposals which undermine some of the basic principles upon which that Modern Slavery Act was established. Clauses 57 and 58 put victims on a deadline to give information or evidence and penalise them for late disclosure. They take no account of the realities faced by victims of slavery and trafficking, and will make it harder for victims to access support.
Like much in this Bill, the starting point for the Minister must be why the Government are doing this. What evidence is there of a real problem here that needs urgently to be tackled? There is none—I cannot find it. I can see no explanation from the Government for why they are doing this, other than a belief that part of the modern slavery legislation—the national referral mechanism, or whatever you want to call it—is being abused and misused by those who seek asylum or get into this country using the devious route of claiming to be victims of slavery when they are not. Where is the evidence for that? Where are the statistical points that the Government can use to show us the scale of the problem, to say that this is what is happening, and that this is why we must deal with it?
This goes to the heart of the problem. I do not know what the politically correct term is, but the Government have set up this target to justify legislation and legislative change on the basis of attacking some mythical statistical problem—“We have to do this to deal with that”. The first thing to know is what has caused the Government to believe there is such a problem that they need this to deal with it. From memory, about one-third of referrals to the national referral mechanism are from British citizens, so you start to wonder.
Those are the parameters of the debate. I will return to many of those themes as we go through Part 5.
It is very unclear what problem the Government are trying to fix with these changes and what is gained by the clauses, because the cost of them is stark. We look forward to the Minister justifying that at the beginning of his remarks. What assessment have the Government done on the impact that these provisions, if passed unamended, will have on the national referral mechanism?
Clause 57(3) suggests that a slavery and trafficking notice will be used even before a reasonable grounds decision can be made, putting up barriers before a victim has taken even their first step into the national referral mechanism. Can the Minister explain if that is the case? Is that the purpose of Clause 57(3)?
At Second Reading, the former Prime Minister Theresa May said:
“It takes time for many victims of modern slavery to identify as a victim, let alone be able to put forward the evidence to establish that.”—[Official Report, Commons, 19/7/21; col. 728.]
This is not from some wild, middle-class liberal or a person who is blinded by the belief that refugees, asylum seekers and those fleeing modern slavery can do no wrong; the former Prime Minister of this country outlined one of the deficiencies that many in this Chamber believe is a real problem. Does the Minister agree or disagree with the former Prime Minister? If he agrees, why does he not do something about it? If he disagrees, I think we will come to our own conclusions. How is that reflected in measures that create artificial deadlines, which have not been needed until now, and that penalise victims for not meeting them?
Also on Clauses 57 and 58, it is not clear, and I ask the Minister to explain, whether slavery or trafficking information notices will be served on all asylum applicants or on only some. It would be discriminatory if they were served on some asylum seekers or certain categories of asylum seeker—for example, the people the Government expect to be captured by these clauses. That point was made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Clause 58 provides that decision-makers must take account of a missed deadline and that it must damage a victim’s credibility, unless they have “good reasons” for providing information late. Why is the national referral mechanism all of a sudden not trusted to make decisions and give weight to these matters?
Amendment 154, which I have tabled with the noble Baronesses, Lady Prashar and Lady Hollins, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, seeks to find out what the Government mean by “good reasons” in Clause 58(2)—
“unless there are good reasons”.
No doubt the Minister will say that this will be clarified in guidance, that we can look forward to regulations and that, when the clause talks about “good reasons”, we can trust them, and that of course “good reasons” means good reasons”, et cetera. We will get into the nightmare situation in which nobody has a real clue what it means. That is why I am grateful to other noble Lords in the Committee for supporting that amendment.
I particularly highlight paragraph (g) in Amendment 154, which deals with the
“fear of repercussions from people who exercise control over the person”.
Time and again, you meet victims who are terrified of the system, and therefore will not co-operate, or victims who are coerced into activity that all of us sat in here—in the glory of the wonderful House of Lords Chamber—would think wrong, but which completely misunderstands the coercion that victims or survivors in those circumstances face. It is not the real world to believe that they cannot be coerced into doing activity that we might sometimes think is not right. It is not the real world; it is not their life; it is not the reality of their situation. I say to every noble Lord here, if you were told that unless you co-operated fully with individuals you were entrapped by, your parents, grandparents or family in the country from which you originated would be attacked or worse, I wonder how many of us would say, “Don’t worry, I won’t do it”. It is just not the real world.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests in the register. I was much involved with the Modern Slavery Act and the review led by the noble Lord, Lord Field, so I feel I have some knowledge of this. I do not know whether the Minister, who is not at the Home Office, realises the extent to which all the non-governmental organisations of this country—including the Salvation Army, which works for the Government on modern slavery, together with the anti- slavery commissioner—deplore this part of the Bill without exception. This Minister may not know that but, goodness me, the Home Office does.
I am very concerned about children, but I heard what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, so I propose to refer specifically to Clause 58. Again, because he is not at the Home Office, the Minister may not have read the statutory guidance on the Modern Slavery Act. I have it with me—it was published this month. I wonder whether the Home Office’s right hand does not know what the left hand is doing, because the requirement to be timely in providing the information needed is totally contrary to the entire work set out by the statutory guidance.
I do not want to bore the Committee, but I must refer very briefly to one or two points so the Minister can know. Under “Introduction to modern slavery”, the guidance says:
“It is important for professionals to understand the specific vulnerability of victims of modern slavery and utilise practical, trauma-informed methods of working which are based upon fundamental principles of dignity, compassion and respect.”
For goodness’ sake, does Clause 58 have anything to do with that? The guidance sets out how you should deal with identifying potential victims of modern slavery. In particular, paragraph 3.6 on page 35 states:
“In practice it is not easy to identify a potential victim—there are many different physical and psychological elements to be considered as detailed below. For a variety of reasons, potential victims of modern slavery may also … be reluctant to come forward with information … not recognise themselves as having been trafficked or enslaved”
and, most importantly, may
“tell their stories with obvious errors and/or omissions”.
One important aspect—which the Home Office on the one hand states in the statutory guidance and yet is clearly totally unaware of in relation to the Bill—is that a lot of victims who come to this country are given a story by the traffickers. That is the story they tell first, and it will not be the truth. Just think what will happen to them consequently under Clause 58. They will be treated as liars who have not given accurate information. Through the NRM—imperfect though it is—they will probably have got to reasonable grounds, but then they will get this appalling notice and find themselves not treated as victims. This is totally contrary to the Modern Slavery Act. It is totally contrary to the best of all that has happened in this country, in the House of Commons and this House, which will be ruined by this part of the Bill.
Having worked in this sector since about 2006, I am absolutely appalled that the Government think they are doing a good thing in putting this part of the Bill forward. For goodness’ sake, will they for once listen and get rid of it?
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 153 and 155 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Before I do so, I fully associate myself with the powerful words of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. The only correction I will make to the noble Lord is that the Modern Slavery Act originated in the coalition Government, and we had a Liberal Democrat Minister in the Home Office in the person of my noble friend Lady Featherstone, who was here earlier.
Group 1 covers amendments and proposed deletions to very objectionable clauses, as we have heard. Clause 57 shifts the onus from the state to the potential victim to identify themselves and possess the relevant expertise to know what information is relevant to a slavery and human-trafficking determination. There is no provision for the specified date for supplying the information to be reasonable, or for whether and how an extension could be granted. Can the Minister say whether there will be guidance on these matters? As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked, will notices be served on all asylum applicants or only on some? There would be potential for these notices to be discriminatory, in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, if they were served only on certain categories of people. What criteria will be used if only certain people will get these notices?
There is no clarity or guidance as to what might be considered good reasons for why information has arrived late. Vulnerable or traumatised victims might take time opening up; they might well be unfamiliar with the legal process, or they might not realise that a particular detail was relevant until later. There at least needs to be guidance on what constitutes good reasons to improve legal clarity and certainty, otherwise Amendment 154 from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, needs to be accepted.
On Clause 58, the Court of Appeal in a 2008 case said that the word “potentially” should be included if the decision-making authority were required to assess late supply of information as damaging to credibility. Hence, Amendment 153, inspired by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, changes “must take account” to “may take account” as potentially damaging to credibility. Amendment 155 would amend Clause 58 so that it does not apply to child victims or victims of sexual exploitation, similar to Amendments 151D and 152 from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.
The bottom line is that Clauses 57 and 58 should not be in this Bill and, as has been said, Part 5 as a whole should not be in this Bill. They are arguably in breach of both the European Convention on Human Rights and the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings.
I think that my noble friend Lord Paddick will refer to the worries of the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner—we are all very conscious of this matter. Indeed, Dame Sara Thornton has a comment article in the Times today, to which I shall refer in a later group. She has been very active, not least in briefing the JCHR and outlining her extreme worries, and we have heard from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss. The whole of the sector believes that this tightening up, to the disadvantage of vulnerable and traumatised victims of human trafficking and slavery, is wholly inappropriate.
Lord Henley (Con)
My Lords, I have not yet spoken on this Bill—I missed the Second Reading for reasons beyond my control—but, like the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, I am a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which issued a number of reports on the Bill. I want to refer to the 11th report, covering Part 5, where we unanimously, as a committee, came forward with a number of recommendations. I hope that the Committee will bear with me—bearing in mind the strictures of the Chief Whip a day or two ago—if I make a brief intervention on this to support those amendments in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. The noble Baroness was speaking to Amendments 153 and 155, but all of us are also, to some extent, in support of all the other amendments, and take note of everything that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said.
I offer my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his very kind words about all the work my right honourable friend Theresa May has done on modern slavery over the years. I served briefly in the Home Office, as I have served briefly in a great many departments, before I was moved on—as happens so often. I know from when I served with my right honourable friend just how seriously she took this issue—she treated it as important even before she became Home Secretary. She was a member of the shadow Cabinet in the run-up to the 2001 election and then continued with this work beyond. She will be grateful for everything the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has said. If I do not pass it on to her, I am sure she will read Hansard.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, I have added my name to those noble Lords who oppose Clause 57 standing part. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and others, who have already so eloquently made the case about concerns for this part of the Bill. As the Church of England’s lead bishop for modern slavery, I have had the privilege to sit with and listen to many charities, agencies and survivors of modern slavery, so it seemed appropriate to bring those conversations from the grass roots to your Lordships’ attention.
This is a clause which resonates deeply with the Church. Through the Clewer initiative, the Church of England is working across England with many partners to raise awareness of all aspects of modern slavery and to help support victims and vulnerable groups. This includes running training courses on county lines, producing apps which allow for reporting of suspected modern slavery cases in car washes and the farming sector, and working with many churches to raise up and equip volunteers in this area.
Only yesterday, around the corner from here, the General Synod of the Church of England discussed a motion on modern slavery and trafficking brought forward by members of the diocese of Durham and supported by members of the diocese of Southwark. This was prompted by the practical experience and difficulty in supporting a victim who had come to their attention. The synod voted to acknowledge the leading role which Her Majesty’s Government have played internationally in challenging slavery. Voting unanimously, the synod asked Her Majesty’s Government to introduce legislation to ensure proper provision for the ongoing support and protection of trafficked minors, and for this to be enshrined in law.
As a Church, and like many faith groups—I pay tribute, as others have, to the Salvation Army and the Medaille Trust—we wholeheartedly welcomed the Modern Slavery Act 2015. It has been such a crucial piece of legislation, and one we have long harboured hopes of seeing expanded and enhanced to do more to protect victims, to prevent future cases and to work with businesses and civil society in a collective effort against this appalling evil. Accordingly, it is so disheartening to see Clause 57—and others to which we will come to in due course—in this Bill. From so many charities and faith-based initiatives, and from survivors themselves, I have heard a torrent of the same message: “This is not going to work. It is going to exclude legitimate victims. It will result in fewer people being identified. It will result in fewer people being supported.”
The numbers who remain trapped and incapable of receiving the support that they need outstrip by an enormous margin the relatively small numbers seeking to abuse the system. Clause 57 seeks to eliminate abuse. I humbly suggest that we have a system in place that is already able to identify and refuse support to those who are not truly eligible. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, alluded to this. What Clause 57 will do, in order to cut down on a relatively small level of abuse, is add to the barriers that are put before victims.
I want to end by emphasising that point. Those who work on the ground are desperate to do more to work with the Government to identify victims and eliminate modern slavery. This is the time to be accelerating and increasing our engagement to break the business models that exploit and enslave human beings. It is not the time to be making it harder for victims to come forward. I hope that we can rethink and remove this clause.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for introducing these amendments with such clarity and conviction and to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for her passionate plea for the Government to have another look at these clauses. What I am going to say will repeat the points that they have made, but I think that they are worth repeating because they are serious concerns.
One of the main concerns of all those working with victims of modern slavery—NGOs, police, prosecutors—is Clause 58. It is humbling when you talk to those working on the front line to hear of the compassionate way in which they work with victims of trafficking. I have listened carefully to their concerns and I think that the Government should pay heed. I urge the Minister to talk properly to those working on the front line with these people.
Clause 58 will have the devastating effect of damaging the credibility of victims of modern slavery if they fail to disclose their trafficking experience within a set framework. The UK, as we have heard, is seen as a world leader in tackling modern slavery. We need to build on that experience and the achievements gained over the last few years, not undermine victims by starting from a position of disbelieving them and then requiring them to prove otherwise. That would be regressive. It would breach the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking by putting the onus on victims to identify themselves and removing the state’s obligation to identify victims and investigate trafficking offences.
Clause 58 will deter victims from coming forward, reduce the number of successful prosecutions and police investigations and leave the most dangerous criminals free. It is for this reason that the police and prosecutors have voiced their concerns. The Government’s own NRM supporter, the Salvation Army, which has held the victim care contract for over 10 years, has expressed grave concerns. Most worryingly, children are not exempt. That will be a significant setback for the achievements of the Modern Slavery Act and children protection legislation. As we have heard, the conflation of immigration with victims of trafficking, particularly children, is beyond comprehension. This clause goes against experience, undermines a legal principle and displays a complete lack of understanding. As we have heard, both Sara Thornton, the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, and Theresa May—rightly, compliments have been paid to her—have expressed concerns. This clause should not stand part of the Bill.
To tackle the problems that Clause 58 is designed to resolve requires operational, not legislative, change. The clause goes against the Government’s own aims. It will push victims away from support, hamper efforts to track down trafficking gangs and likely reduce numbers of prosecutions. What is needed is the improvement of the NRM, reductions of delays in decision-making and better funding. I am not clear how a set framework will help with abuse and I am not aware of any data published by the Government to illustrate misuse of the NRM. Perhaps the Minister can explain how a set framework will help and what evidence, if any, the Government have about the level of abuse.
The Government argue that this measure will help to ensure that victims are identified as early as possible to receive support. Speeding up the process is in everyone's interest, but I am not sure how the clause will help. The probing amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which I support, would add a list of good reasons for late disclosure to Clause 58. There needs to be clarity in the legislation that the notice period can be extended. It needs to be stated clearly that there are circumstances when a late disclosure should not be penalised.
With regard to children, will the Government publish a children’s rights assessment and draft guidance before Report? As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, we need that in the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I have added my name to the opposition to both Clauses 57 and 58. The Minister will understand by now the view that has been expressed, with no exceptions, that the Bill does not advance our world-leading work to support victims of modern slavery and is a retrograde step. No one would say that all the work that is needed has been done. There is a lot of learning going on and it has to go on, but the Bill does not advance that work at all.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked why the Government are doing this. This had not occurred to me before but maybe it is the pervasive culture of disbelief raising its head again. I am glad that the debate on Part 5 was opened by the noble Lord and the noble and learned Baroness, both of whom I feel I should refer to as my noble friends; I have been hanging on to their coattails in this area.
I am going to say very much less than I could today. Part 5 merits—if that is not too positive a term—a whole day’s debate at least, but I, too, am aware of the pressures on time. Being constrained in the scrutiny of a Bill to which so many of us are opposed, pretty much across the board, is particularly concerning. I must investigate the procedures for moving to leave out a whole part of a Bill on Report. This is so shaming because this part of the Bill affects people whom we are so keen to support and protect.
Reference has been made to late information. I am going to give a couple of examples, both of which cases I have some particular knowledge of, not because I think that they will come as news to most people in the Chamber but because there are many of our colleagues who are not aware of all this. I refer to two victims. The first is a learning-disabled man who worked on a farm for decades in the most appalling conditions, conditions that are difficult to read about. He was not able to leave but did not even think he ought to try to do so because he did not know where else he might go. He even referred to his falling-down insanitary shed as home. The second is a young woman, who, in speaking to the police, could not get beyond the fact that in her head the perpetrator was her boyfriend. Sadly, those are both common situations. I will leave the matter there.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I refer to a non-financial interest: I am a trustee of the Arise Foundation, which works for victims of human trafficking and modern-day slavery. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I too wish Part 5 was not in this Bill at all. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, told the Committee, it is odd to put issues concerning immigration and human trafficking together in this way, as though they are part and parcel of the same problem. They are not.
That is why my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss was right to be as passionate as she was and, reinforced by the remarks of my noble friend Lady Prashar, to say that the Government really need to recast and rethink this all over again. My noble and learned friend referred to the Salvation Army which is, as she said, the advisers to the Government on this issue. It says:
“The Salvation Army has held the Government’s Modern Slavery Victim Care and Co-ordination contract for over 10 years. In that time, we have supported 15,000 survivors of modern slavery. We, along with our colleagues across the anti-trafficking sector”—
all of us have seen reams of representations from pretty much every representative group that there is—
“would urge you to … ensure that vulnerable survivors of trafficking and slavery are not prevented from accessing the support they deserve.”
It is hard to see how many of the measures that we are debating very briefly in the context of such an important set of provisions will enable that to happen. I do not want to pre-empt what I am going to say on my Amendment 156A on the national referral mechanism, but simply to reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said in his curtain-raising remarks for the whole of this section.
My noble friend Lord Hylton, and I, along with my noble and learned friend Lady Butler-Sloss and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, worked with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who was in another place at that time and doing incredibly energetic hard-working things to get the 2015 legislation on to the statute book. We all paid tribute then, as that came through on a bipartisan, bicameral basis, through both Houses, to the right honourable Theresa May, for what Lady May did in working for this legislation to happen. However the history books judge her period as Prime Minister or Home Secretary, I believe this is her most lasting legacy and something she should be enormously proud of. That is why I too quoted her remarks at Second Reading, and I was glad to hear the noble Lord refer to them again today. I urge the Minister to go back to what she had to see had to say about this.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol and I go back a long way. She was once a curate in what was then the Liverpool Mossley Hill constituency, so, we also have something in common with the Minister. Bristol and Liverpool have something in common: their knowledge of the transatlantic slave trade. In 2015, we saw this as a way of cleansing some of the past: not breaking down monuments or trying to cancel history but doing something positive. My worry is that what we are doing now is undoing so much of that good work. What are these imaginary windmills that, like Don Quixote, we are being encouraged to tilt at today? There is no data. Where is the justification? Knowing that the Minister has a forensic brain, I hope he will take us through what the justifications are for what we have here. Why, as the noble Lord, Lord Henley, said, are we disregarding what our own Joint Committee on Human Rights has said to us?
I have one more thing to say, and that is on Amendment 154, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker: Proposed new subsection (2A)(g) refers to
“fear of repercussions from people who exercise control over the person”.
Certainly, through the work that I have been privileged to be involved in with the Arise Foundation, we have seen many examples of that. That children are being treated no differently in this legislation beggars belief.
Amendment 154 also refers to victims of trauma. If someone has been traumatised, then of course the statements they will make, even possibly the untruths they feel they have to tell to prevent being sent back where they came, should not be held against them. This section also deals with people with diminished capacity, and I was struck by what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said in one of her examples about people with diminished responsibility. We have all seen cases like that. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, who we will hear from later on, has done more than anyone in your Lordships’ House to draw to our attention the need to do more to help vulnerable people in that situation.
These amendments are good, but you cannot make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. I wish this was not in this Bill at all. There is still time for the Government to recast. Given the concerns that have been echoed, not just here, but right across the sector, I hope that the Minister will take this back to the Home Office, take it back to the Government, and say let us think again.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I am also a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, and I am grateful to my colleagues on that committee who have spoken. The committee looked very hard at this issue, and we came up with very clear recommendations. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for having set the scene for this debate.
I want to be brief but will repeat the question put by my noble friend Lord Coaker. Why are the Government doing this? On some aspects of the Bill with which I am in profound disagreement, at least I understand why the Government, in their own way, want to do what they are doing—it might be quite wrong, but I understand it. In this case, I do not even know what the case is for the Government to do this. Are they trying it on so that they can withdraw the provision and seem to be meeting the wishes of the House? There is no justification at all.
Most Members of this House will be aware that people who have been in slavery, trafficked or traumatised by sexual exploitation, often find it very difficult to talk about their ordeal. They often want to keep quiet, because the experience has been so horrifying for them that they cannot put their own case to officialdom here. I have seen this over the years when I have met people. In fairness, some of them want to talk a great deal to get their experience out of their system, but many others do not. It is a natural human reaction; one does not want to talk about one’s awful experiences; one wants almost to shut them out. Then one finds there is a need to reveal information.
I was talking to some NGOs which were working with people who had crossed the Sahara. They said that the majority of women who fled for safety across the Sahara had been raped on the journey. Many of them do not want to talk about that. It is not within their tradition and culture to talk about it, yet here we are demanding that they should.
I find it very depressing that we have to debate this at all. I urge the Minister to say that the Government will think again. That is the only way out, otherwise, when we get to Report, it will not be a nice day for the Government, because we are bound by the comments we are making today, and by having a sense of integrity in putting forward the case for people who have been in slavery or traumatised to have a reasonable chance of being dealt with. The Government should not be trying to find ways to keep them out. I ask them to think again.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I support this group of amendments; I have signed only one, simply because I am not terribly well organised. I agree with the comments about Theresa May, whom I admired for many things, including the fact that she gave me a colleague in this House; it was six long, lonely years without my noble friend Lady Bennett.
An Urgent Question was left off the Order Paper today. It was put in the other place by the honourable Member for Brighton Pavilion, Caroline Lucas, who is the Green Party MP. Either me or my noble friend Lady Bennett would have liked to have contributed to that debate. I should like an explanation from the Government as to why it was left off the Order Paper. I am a great believer in cock-up rather than conspiracy, but I would like an explanation at some point and have chosen to put it into Hansard for that reason.
I return to this “shaming” part of the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, described it. Every time I think we have got to the worst part, I turn a page and it is even worse. The combined resources of this House will make this a difficult section for the Government to push through.
Noble Lords have spoken from a depth of understanding and experience that I probably do not have. Evidence is evidence wherever it is uncovered, and delays in producing evidence might be considered when weighing up the quality and value of such evidence. Essentially, the Government are making this an absolute requirement, which is unfair and unjust.
We are talking about the incredibly distressing circumstances of many of these people. We have already had examples. They are victims of slavery. They have possibly been groomed, tricked or kidnapped and brought to the UK. Instead of helping them or demonstrating even an ounce of compassion, this Government are treating them all as if they have done something wrong. I urge the Government to rethink this. I would hate to see another 14 votes go against the Government in one evening but, on the other hand, that was great fun and we could probably do it again.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly, because I was not intending to speak. I want first to congratulate my noble friend Lord Coaker on the way he introduced these amendments. I support the amendments and particularly what has been said in relation to victims of modern slavery.
I think I can rely on history to reinforce this, and I ask the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, to listen carefully. History shows us that when each of us experiences appalling discrimination and persecution, that pain and that shame are buried for decades. To revisit that sometimes takes us to an area that we never want to be in again. Therefore, with that thought, I urge the Government to think again.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in his intention to oppose Clauses 57 and 58 standing part of the Bill. I have a speech but I am not going to deliver it, because the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, in particular, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and many others have been so powerfully put that they are simply irrefutable. I have been in the House now for 15 years or so and have heard thousands of good arguments as to why a Government should not do this, that or the other, but I have never heard such powerful arguments for a part of a Bill to be removed.
I am going to ask something that I have never asked before. Will the Minister invite the Home Secretary to come to a meeting with representatives from all sides of this House to hear the arguments first-hand from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and others? It is not good enough for our poor Minister, if I may refer to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, in that way, to hear all these arguments, to go back and say whatever he is going to say—I do not know what it will be—and then to have to come back here and say, “Sorry, guys, it’s all going to stay there”. That is not good enough. The case is so incredibly powerful. The wickedness of Part 5 should not be allowed to go by without the Home Secretary facing noble Lords directly.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I notice that my noble friend Lady Hollins cannot be in her place today, but I urge the Minister to consider her wealth of medical, psychological and therapeutic experience, as she has her name to Amendment 154. That will strengthen the case for him taking back this group.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, Dame Sara Thornton, wrote to the Home Secretary about this Bill on 7 September last year. I should declare an interest: I know Sara Thornton very well. We were police officers together and spent six months together on a residential course. She is extremely able and fiercely independent, and, in my opinion, the best commissioner the Metropolitan Police never had.
In relation to trafficking information notices, Sara said in her letter that trauma suffered by victims of modern slavery can result in delayed disclosure, difficulty recalling facts or symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder. She went on to say that evidence from the Salvation Army pointed to the fact that many victims initially recall their experiences with contradictions and inconsistencies, and it can often take a considerable time before they feel comfortable to disclose fully what has happened to them, as many other noble Lords have said. Her conclusion was that to place a deadline on when they can submit evidence and to interpret late compliance as damaging to credibility fails to take account of the severe trauma suffered by victims. For those reasons alone, Clauses 57 and 58 should not stand part of the Bill.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. I have listened to all of them with care. With respect to everyone else, I say that I always listen with care to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, in particular, as I think he will appreciate from our exchanges on other matters. I got the impression that voices in support of the Government were a little thin on the ground on this matter, but I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford is not doing these amendments not out of any personal reluctance; it was decided some weeks ago that my assistance on the Bill would include this group, and that is why I am doing it. It is fair to say that she has gone above and beyond on the Bill and others.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, just on that point, I was clearly not suggesting that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, did not deserve a break from her duties; she has been committed to this throughout. I said that I hoped that these parts of the Bill might be the reason, but I was obviously implying that they clearly were not.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I think it might be best if we just moved on from that because, respectfully, I am not sure that it was a particularly good comment in the first place.
The measures in the Bill build on the landmark—it really was landmark—legislation brought in by the future Prime Minister, Theresa May, in 2015. On this occasion, I am very happy to acknowledge that it was brought in by the coalition Government; it was a joint effort. Notwithstanding that I am not a Home Office Minister, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, reminded me on a number of occasions, I can say that the Home Secretary is committed to bringing forward further legislation in the area of modern slavery as a priority, to ensure an efficient and resilient system in tackling modern slavery. That department, which is obviously not mine, will look to introduce those measures when parliamentary time allows.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
In that case, why do we not wait for that legislation and do it comprehensively, rather than put into law things to which there is so much opposition? Does the Minister also accept that, in 2015, a number of really positive changes were made to that Act in your Lordships’ House because the Government chose to listen?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
There were two questions there. Why now? I was going to come to that, because that is a point that the noble Lord made earlier. As to listening to your Lordships’ House, the Government always listen to what goes on in this House. They always listen but they may not always agree.
The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, I think with some sympathy, referred to me as the “poor Minister” responsible for responding. I am poor in the sense that you do not take this job for the money, I can say that. I also cannot promise the meeting with the Home Secretary. What I can promise is that I will pass on what the noble Baroness said to the relevant people in the home department.
We have heard a number of arguments for removing Clauses 57 and 58 from the Bill. I will deal with those first, because I think that is really the head-on charge that has been put to me. I suggest that these clauses are important provisions to encourage disclosure of information at the earliest stage so we can identify victims and provide them with direct support as early as possible. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, moving the amendment, asked why the provisions were necessary and quoted the former Prime Minister asking why artificial deadlines were required. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol suggested that the clauses would stop people coming forward. Far from deterring victims, these clauses are intended to encourage genuine victims to come forward and get protection and support on the earliest possible occasion.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but how does he see what he is saying as compatible with the statutory guidance issued only this month?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
Of course we have considered the statutory guidance, not least because it comes from the Home Department and was issued this month. With great respect, we do think they are compatible. We do not see any contradiction between the aims of the statutory guidance under the 2015 Act and what we are proposing here. As to who will be served with a notice, individuals who will be served with a slavery and trafficking information notice are those who have previously made a human rights or protection claim in respect of removal or refusal of entry. They are therefore potentially subject to removal action.
The noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Alton, asked: why are we doing this? I think that was then refined to: why are we doing this now? That is pretty simple to state. As I have said, we want to identify genuine victims of modern slavery or trafficking within this group as quickly as possible so that they receive both protection from removal and access to the support given during the recovery period.
This may not be the best form of providing statistics, but the number of those detained in the UK following immigration offences in 2020 was obviously affected by the pandemic. However, even prior to this there was a clear rise in the number of referrals to the national referral mechanism, from 3%—501—in 2017 to 16%—1,767—in 2019. In 2019, only a small proportion, about 1%, of individuals detained in the UK following an immigration offence who made a national referral mechanism referral were returned. We published a report last year providing data on some of the concerns we are seeking to address through the Bill and outlining pressures in the system and where referrals of modern slavery are coming from. The reports are available on the government website but, to make it simpler, I will write to the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Alton, with a copy available, with the URL so they can find the relevant material.
I suggest it is right that we reduce the opportunities to misuse the system for immigration purposes and improve the efficiency of the processes, targeting resources where they are most needed to help victims recover from exploitation and rebuild their lives. We want to address concerns that some referrals are being made intentionally late in the process, to frustrate immigration action and divert resources away from legitimate claimants. It is not right that foreign criminals subject to deportation and those who have absolutely no right to remain in the UK can seek to delay their removal by waiting until the very last minute before raising new claims or putting in endless evidence or information relating to their status in the UK. So what Clauses 57 and 58 seek to do is on the one hand ensure that vulnerable victims receive appropriate and timely support, and on the other hand enable investigative and enforcement activities to take place with reasonable dispatch.
I should point out—this did not feature too much in the debate—that Clauses 57 and 58 are underpinned by access to legal advice, under Clauses 65 and 66, to help individuals understand whether they are a potential victim of modern slavery or human trafficking, and to support a referral into the national referral mechanism if that is the case. As I have said before, a constant theme, particularly in modern slavery measures within the Bill, is that decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, taking a needs-based approach. Therefore, turning to Amendments 151D, 152 and 155, it would be wrong in principle to create a carve-out for any one group of individuals, and to create a two-tiered system based either on age or the type of exploitation claimed. I am sure that this is not the intention of those moving the amendments, but, in the real world, which at some point we must think about, it could incentivise individuals to provide falsified information regarding their age or to put forward falsified referrals regarding timings or type of exploitation to delay removal action.
It was interesting, in the course of what was, with respect, a very forceful speech supporting his amendment, that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, referred to 12 or 13 year-olds and not, for example, to a 17 and a half year-old. When it comes to children, if we define children as all under-18s, the approach that we want to take is to ensure that decision-makers have the flexibility to approach the claims of all children of different ages and maturities appropriately, and therefore I suggest that a blanket approach is inappropriate.
By introducing a statutory requirement to provide information before a specified date—we are not talking about neat files here—we hope to identify those victims at the earliest opportunity. Clauses 57 and 58 have safeguards built in, and I assure in particular the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, that, when considering the “reasonable grounds” decision, the decision-makers in the SCA are already well experienced in taking into account the specific vulnerabilities of children. I also point out to the Committee something that the noble and learned Baroness will know but other noble Lords may have forgotten: namely, that at the “reasonable grounds” stage the threshold is lower for children due to there being no requirement to show means of exploitation. That position will not change.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I have been biting my tongue, but the Minister talked about the real world, and I do not think that this Government have any concept of what exists in the real world. The Minister has heard examples from the real world, given by noble Lords who understand what is going on. It is not appropriate for the Minister to talk about the real world when he is denying the stories that he has heard today.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am not denying any stories. I set out statistics earlier on which were absolutely from the real world, and that is the issue that we are dealing with.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I apologise for interrupting, but the Minister has cited the statistics that he quoted earlier in answer to the question of why the Government were doing this. He talked about the number of referrals going from 3% to 16%. There could be three explanations for that increase: a rise in modern slavery; more cases being reported, even if modern slavery is not going up; or an increase in misuse. Bearing in mind that the majority of referrals to the national referral mechanism are made by the Home Office, and bearing in mind what he said about very few of the people who are referred being returned— I did not quite get the percentage—it sounds like the majority of those cases are not misuse. What we need are not the statistics that the Minister is relying on but the statistics on how many cases of misuse there are.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I have already said that I will write. I will copy everybody in, particularly the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, with the relevant data. We can have an interesting discussion about potential explanations for it, but what it shows is that there is a significant increase. The question I was seeking to meet was: why do something now, why not wait until a future Bill? The short answer is that we have a manifesto commitment to deal with immigration and asylum issues. It is right that we address all issues at this stage, but, as I have underlined, this is not the Government’s last word on modern slavery. Now I really want to make some progress or we will be here until 3 am again.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Does the noble Lord not accept that 24% of modern slavery cases are UK nationals and have nothing to do with what the Conservative Party put in its manifesto?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am certainly willing to accept that a significant number of modern slavery victims are UK nationals. I do not know whether it is 24%, off the top of my head, but I am willing to have a look at that and come back to the noble Lord. I want to make some progress now, because I think we are going round the same points again and again.
Coming back to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, all child potential victims of modern slavery in England and Wales will be provided with an independent child trafficking guardian to support them in navigating the immigration and national referral mechanism systems. Decision-makers are obviously trained in making those decisions, and the particular needs of children are an important part of that. In fact, I hope what I have just said responds also to some of the points made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol.
Moving to Amendment 153, as the noble Lords, Lord Cashman and Lord Paddick, also recognised, we understand that there will be cases where individuals are unable to comply with a deadline. There might be objective reasons, such as being under coercive control of an exploiter, or subjective ones, such as trauma, mental health issues or mental capacity, which can affect somebody’s ability to recall events. The clauses as drafted provide for this. As I have said on previous groups, we will set out in guidance the details of this approach, giving decision-makers the tools to recognise the effects of exploitation and trauma.
Where a person has raised evidence late, I suggest that it is right that decision-makers consider whether there is any merit in the reasons for that lateness. Credibility is not necessarily determinative of the case, should other factors indicate that the individual is a victim or potential victim of modern slavery. Amendment 154 asks what will be defined as a “good reason” for late disclosure. That has deliberately not been defined in the Bill, as setting out a list reduces flexibility. Decision-makers will be able to consider all relevant factors, which may include everything set out in the list in this amendment.
Clause 58 is underpinned by the provision of legal aid, as I have said. Amendment 172A would provide non-means-tested legal advice on all immigration matters to individuals who might not be victims of modern slavery. This amendment is a wide expansion of the legal aid scheme which is entirely uncosted and ignores the Government’s responsibility to use taxpayer funding wisely, in a way that obtains value for money. Such a wholesale expansion of the legal aid scheme would allow anyone claiming that they are a victim of modern slavery, but who might not be, to receive immigration advice with no financial eligibility checks in place. Legal aid for immigration matters is already available for victims of modern slavery who have a positive decision from the national referral mechanism, and the Bill does not change this. This includes ongoing support from the mechanism if required by the victim. Of course, the exceptional case funding scheme is available on top of that.
The intention of Clauses 65 and 66 is to bring advice on the national referral mechanism into scope from the outset. This builds on what is already available by helping unidentified victims who are within the immigration system to enter the mechanism. Without Clause 66, we will miss the opportunity to identify potential victims when they are receiving legal aid on their removal case.
I have two further short points. I listened very carefully to my noble friend Lord Henley, a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Indeed, I appeared before that committee I think only last week. I have read the report carefully. It is on the Bench with me—it is a thumbed copy, not just a copy from the Royal Gallery. I hope I have set out the reasons for the Government’s approach, even if I apprehend that I may not have convinced him of their correctness.
Finally, I will ensure that the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, is passed on. My understanding—and I am newer here than she is—is that a decision on whether and when to repeat an Urgent Question taken in the Commons is for the usual channels. Even if I were a Home Office Minister, and I am not, I could not help on that further.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I am impressed by the Minister’s argument that the intention is benevolent, but how does he square that with the opening point of the powerful speech of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss: that the whole voluntary sector is convinced that this is damaging and unhelpful? As for his criticism that Amendment 154 would limit flexibility, could he reread the amendment and note that the opening line includes the phrase
“include, but are not limited to”
in respect of the list of reasons? In other words, it deliberately retains flexibility.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I hope the noble Lord will forgive me if I reply to his points in reverse order. On the second, of course I appreciate that it is a non-exhaustive list. The point I was making is that even a non-exhaustive list is more prescriptive, when it comes to court, than absolute discretion. When you are arguing a case, even if the statute says A, B, C, D, E on a non-exhaustive basis, you are in greater trouble coming along with F, than if the discretion is free-standing. That is the point I was seeking to make.
Of course, my colleagues in the Home Office engage carefully with the commissioner and other entities in the voluntary sector. Ultimately, it is for the Government to decide what legislation to bring before the House.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I want to deal with Urgent Questions again, because the Minister answered a different question from mine. I asked why it was advertised so late. He may not know this, but the Greens are excluded from the usual channels, so we would have no way of knowing.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
At this point, all I can do is pass that on, and I will.
Lord Paddick (LD)
On Amendment 172A, I think the Minister said that victims of modern slavery already have access to legal advice, once the national referral mechanism has made an initial decision. If he looks at that amendment carefully, he will see it is entitled “pre-national referral mechanism advice”.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
The noble Lord is absolutely right, which is why I was making the point about it being a fundamental extension of the legal aid system, which is uncosted.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to this incredibly important debate. It lasted just over an hour, so I will be brief to allow us to move on; otherwise, we could have a huge debate again in me responding to the Minister. I am sure many of the same points will, quite rightly, come up in the other groups. I hope noble Lords understand and accept that.
I will reiterate the point made by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. It is interesting to note that, when a Government are in trouble, they defend themselves against everybody. You know when a Government are in difficulty because they resort to exactly the sort of defence—quite rightly; I have done it myself—that the Minister resorted to: “If only you understood the statistics and appreciated the difficulties”. That officialdom then rains on everything. When everybody else thinks you are wrong, you usually are. I gently suggest to the Government that they have got this wrong.
I am pleased the Minister was honest about this and I thank him for his response. It is clear the Government think the system is being abused and that people are claiming to be victims of modern slavery, either straightaway or late in the day. The Government are determined to shut down this loophole in the system. That is what is going on and it is why the danger that all of us raised about including modern slavery in an immigration Bill or the Nationality and Borders Bill—whatever you want to call it—sets a context that is difficult for modern slavery, to put it mildly.
All that I would say to the Minister is that even if the Government are right in saying that there is a problem here, by trying to deal with the issue as an immigration offence, which is essentially what they are doing, they are driving a coach and horses through the principles of the Modern Slavery Act. That is why people are so upset about it, so disappointed about it, so angry about it and so frustrated about it. They accept that the Government have to deal with immigration and that there are difficulties but this country has been proud of the way in which we deal with victims of modern slavery. Treating them, as they will be, as potential immigration offenders will change the dynamic. There are victims who we do not know and have no idea who they are. Children, whether they are 17 and a half or 13 are going to be impacted. As a consequence of what the Government are doing, innocent victims are going to be penalised in the name of tackling the problem of immigration. That is why people are so disappointed.
In conclusion, I say to the Minister that it must come to something when large numbers of the governing party as well as all the other parties that make up this House, including organisations of all faiths, are arraigned against this measure, along with all the voluntary sector, including the Government’s own voluntary organisation, the Salvation Army. I should have thought that that would have given the Government pause for thinking that maybe they have not got this quite right. Let us hope that between now and Report that they do so, otherwise I can foresee real problems on Report with respect to the clause and the other clauses in Part 5. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment deletes Clause 59 subsection (4).
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for setting the scene and others who contributed to the previous debate on this part of the Bill. I welcome my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart to his place on the Front Bench. He is a much more distinguished member of the Faculty of Advocates. I am grateful to the Law Society of Scotland for raising its concerns with me, which has led to my tabling the amendment. I very much look forward to hearing from others on this group, particularly the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Coaker. We will hear their views on their amendments in due course.
This amendment seeks to delete Clause 59(4), which states:
“Guidance issued under subsection (1) must, in particular, provide that the determination mentioned in paragraph (d) is to be made on the balance of probabilities.”
The amendment is to raise my concerns and dismay but also to provide the opportunity for my noble and learned friend in summing up the debate to explain the Government’s thinking on raising the bar for evidence.
Clause 59 makes specific reference, as we heard earlier, to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and seeks to amend Sections 49, 50, 51 and 56 of it. The clause raises the standard of proof for determining a reasonable grounds decision for a victim of trafficking from “suspect but cannot prove” to “balance of probabilities”. Indicators that a person is a victim of trafficking can be missed by first responders, meaning that a referral to the national referral mechanism is not made. If a referral is made, reasonable grounds represents a sift to determine whether someone may be a victim of trafficking and whether further investigation is needed.
Home Office statistics reveal that 92% of reasonable-grounds decisions and 89% of conclusive-grounds decisions on the balance of probabilities are positive. The evidence basis for so-called overidentification is not made. The lower standard of proof at the reasonable-grounds decision stage helps ensure that potential victims do not miss out on being properly investigated and progressed to the conclusive-grounds stage of the national referral mechanism.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Garden of Frognal) (LD)
My Lords, if Amendment 156 is agreed I cannot call Amendment 156A by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to address Amendments 156A and 156B in this group and to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, and what she said about the Scottish Law Society. I very much associate myself with her remarks. I turn the attention of the Committee to these two amendments, the kernel of which is
“(1ZA) Guidance issued under subsection (1) must, in particular, provide that the determination mentioned in paragraph (c) is to be made on the standard of “suspect but cannot prove”.”
My explanatory statement says—I will not read it all—
“This amendment would ensure that amendments made to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 do not raise the threshold”—
the point the noble Baroness has just referred to—
“for a Reasonable Grounds decision when accessing the National Referral Mechanism in line with—”
the guidance.
One thing that came out of the last debate was that it was pretty clear that the whole Committee is agreed about one thing: that the national referral mechanism is vital to the recovery and safety of survivors of modern slavery. Since its introduction in what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, was right to refer to as “landmark legislation” in 2015, a point echoed by the noble and learned Lord in replying to that debate, it has allowed us to identify survivors and ensure they receive the right support and are able to assist law enforcement in tackling this abhorrent trade in human beings and human suffering. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lady Prashar and to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for signing Amendment 156A.
Accessing the NRM is the crucial first step on a survivor’s journey to recovery, giving them access to vital legal and financial support, safe accommodation and an exit from the kind of exploitation that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, referred to earlier. It enables them to start the process of rebuilding their lives, empowering themselves and even bravely supporting the prosecution of traffickers so that more potential victims are saved from exploitation. First established in 2009, and supported by successive Governments, the NRM was recently highlighted by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe as being a key element in the fight to end slavery. Since then, with the introduction of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, the UK has become a world leader in this fight and a beacon of hope for those who have been trafficked and enslaved.
However, as the noble Lord said earlier, and I agree with him in this sense, the national referral mechanism is not perfect. That is clear but the opportunity to do something about it is up the track. There is no need for Part 5 to be incorporated in the Bill, when it is inconsistent with much else in it anyway. The noble Lord told the House earlier that there is to be new legislation, so why on earth can we not wait for that? There is an old saying that when you legislate in haste, you repent at leisure; that is what we will do if we simply push this through in a pell-mell way. The mechanism may not be perfect, but it is better than anything else at the moment and we should be very careful about what we do to it.
There is a catalogue of confusion and delays, but I am sure the Government do not believe that the only solution is simply to reduce the number of poor people able to access support. However, that is exactly what Clause 59 will do. Effectively increasing the threshold that these traumatised individuals must meet, almost from the get-go, to receive support will not only leave many with the choice of slavery or destitution; it will fundamentally undo the years of hard work by government, police, NGOs, charities and Members of both Houses.
Even now, far too many survivors go unrecognised and are excluded from support. Despite our understanding of the nature of trauma and the horrors so many have gone through, many do not receive a “reasonable grounds” decision and are forced to reapply. In the previous debate, we were urged to get into the real world. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, had a better definition of what the real world is than the one we heard from the Government Front Bench. I will do as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, did earlier and share one example with the House, if I may.
It is the case of a poor woman who was the victim of trafficking and violent sexual exploitation. By the time she arrived in the UK, she already had severe PTSD. Her symptoms included involuntary numbing, avoidance, dissociation and shame. She failed to disclose her trafficking experience in her early interactions with the Home Office, due to the severe trauma she had experienced. These inconsistencies later contributed to her receiving a negative decision on her trafficking claim. However, they needed to be understood in the context, as I said earlier, of prolonged exposure to trauma at an early age and fear of reprisals from her abusers.
Clause 59 risks raising the threshold for a positive reasonable grounds decision at this vital first stage, meaning that survivors such as that woman will be forced to meet an even higher threshold of evidence almost immediately, before they have accessed safety and a lawyer, translator or advocate to help provide the evidence that is expected of them. The noble Lord who addressed the House earlier has promised to write to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, me and others with more data. Here is a little data that I will share with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe.
It is worth noting that 81% of all negative decisions at this first stage which where reconsidered were found to have been wrong, and the victim deserved a positive reasonable grounds decision. Currently, there are an estimated 136,000 victims of modern slavery in the UK, and a little over 10,000 were referred to the NRM in 2020. That means there is a vast number of individuals who have been trafficked and enslaved in our country and are already far from the safety offered by the national referral mechanism. Were we to raise the threshold to access safety and support, it would surely only play into the hands of the traffickers and slave masters by preventing survivors sharing their experience and supporting criminal investigations.
I note that the Government have denied that Clause 59 will increase the threshold, and that the intention behind it is to bring us in line with the European convention on action against trafficking—ECAT. However, many who are in the anti-slavery movement, to which we heard a lot of references earlier, and on the ground in the real world supporting vulnerable people every day believe that it is already harder today than it was, even a year ago, to get a positive decision. As such, if not remedied in the guidance, the change in language represented in this clause would effectively raise the NRM threshold.
Furthermore, the Government have rightly decided to include in the Bill that conclusive grounds decisions be made on the balance of probabilities. If the intention is not to raise the threshold, then I simply ask the Minister that they put in the Bill that reasonable grounds decisions be made on the tried and trusted standard of “suspect but cannot prove”, which is the essence of Amendments 156A and 156B. That would allow the Government to change the language of the Modern Slavery Act to be more in line with ECAT, in order to provide more consistency between conclusive grounds decisions and reasonable grounds decisions in the Bill. Vitally, it would not raise the threshold for survivors of trafficking to receive a positive decision, therefore ensuring that these poor people receive the support they so desperately need and the authorities have the evidence they need to end slavery.
Article 10(2) of ECAT says that
“if the competent authorities have reasonable grounds to believe that a person has been victim of trafficking in human beings, that person shall not be removed from its territory until the identification process as victim of an offence … has been completed”.
Both ECAT and the Modern Slavery Act envisage that support be given to victims through the NRM as the earliest stage possible, when someone is identified as a potential victim. Raising the threshold only to those who prove their status as a victim of trafficking would undermine the point of the three-stage referral system currently in place. That support is crucial to enable victims to make any discourses from a position of safety.
No doubt the Minister will say that the NRM may have been abused, but I ask him to provide the justification for that claim. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I said earlier, where is the data? I refer the Minister to the report by the Rights Lab at the University of Nottingham for evidence that the NRM is not being abused. Indeed, according to many reports, one of the biggest problems with our NRM is that it is underutilised; there are already a low number of referrals to the NRM. According to the Global Slavery Index, the estimated figure for the prevalence of modern slavery in the UK is 136,000, yet in 2020 only 10,613 potential victims were referred to the NRM. Raising the threshold would serve only to further restrict those who access the vital resources of the NRM.
I therefore felt it necessary to table these amendments. Those who are referred to the NRM are often among the most vulnerable, in the most traumatic moments of their lives. We should not be raising the threshold; we should be doing everything we can to facilitate their access to support. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I shall speak to amendments 156A and 156B in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, to which I have added my name. I hope I can be fairly brief because much of the ground has been set out brilliantly by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I am very grateful for that.
The reality of Clause 59 is that raising the threshold—from “reasonable grounds” to believe that someone maybe a victim of modern slavery, to “is” such a victim—could lead to the national referral mechanism failing to identify victims of modern slavery, effectively shutting them out of the support that they so desperately need. That was picked up yesterday in our General Synod debate across the road, to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol has already alluded.
The Clewer initiative, to which she has also alluded, is our response to modern slavery. It was set up in 2016 and published three strategies for 2022. Two of these included promoting victim identification and providing victim care and support. Our concern, along with the Clewer initiative, is not just to get down to the legal minimum but to try to accompany people on what is the most traumatic journey, through which many of them will need considerable help. Part of the reason for that—many Members of your Lordships’ House will grasp this but many people in wider society do not—is that much modern slavery is effectively hidden, and sometimes so subtle that even the people involved in it do not always get what is going on. That is why it affects drug traffickers, fruit pickers, beauticians, people working in nail bars and so on, as well as the obvious areas where people find themselves caught up—for example, in the sex industry.
This coercion is a subtle thing, but it plays a central role in keeping individuals in this misery. It can range from violence to substance addiction, debt bondage and, of course, withholding people’s papers. So, it is a long and complex process. The CURE initiative states that beyond these factors, one of the key elements in controlling victims of modern slavery is creating a fear of any authority so the victims simply do not know where to go. Often, victims will hide.
Baroness Prashar (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendments 156A and 156B, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and supported by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and myself. I will be extremely brief as all the points I wished to make have already been covered. Therefore, I really want to say that I strongly support the amendments and the arguments made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that the Government should put on the face of the Bill that a reasonable grounds decision should be made on the tried and trusted standard of “suspect but cannot prove”. I think his explanation and the logic of his arguments were compelling, so I would urge the Government to pay some heed.
Lord Deben (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest because, in my work on sustainability in the business that I chair, we of course help companies to deal with modern slavery. That is why I wish to rise. It does mean we know a bit about it, and I have to say to the Government that everybody who knows a bit about it does not agree with the Government. That is why we have to say this very clearly.
The problem with modern slavery is that people who are involved in it hardly know where they are and what it is all about. That is the difficulty because, whatever we do, access to whatever we do is always going to be the problem. We have to find ways of ensuring that as many people as possible can enter into the beginnings of a conversation which will, in the end, reach the position in which they will be released from modern slavery—and it is that beginning moment that is most important and delicate.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, that what is being proposed in this part of the Bill should not be here at all, simply because, in this context, it makes a comment which it should not make. In this context, it comments that this is something to do with nationality, borders and immigration. But it is nothing to do with any of those except accidentally—and I use that word in the technical sense.
We ought to be immensely proud of this legislation. I sit as the independent chairman of the Climate Change Committee, so I do not often mention the fact that I have been a Conservative for many years. I am not quite sure of the situation in certain circumstances, but that is the position in which I find myself, and I will say that I think it is one of the great statements of the Conservative Party that it was at the centre of passing this legislation. It shows that we have a real understanding of the responsibility of those who have to those who have not. That is why the intervention of the right reverend Prelate is absolutely appropriate, because this about the attitude to human beings that we should have if we are people of faith.
Anything that detracts from a triumph should be opposed, above all, by those who have been proud of it in the past. That is why I do not want this particular debate to go on without somebody from these Benches making the points. It is wrong to make it more difficult for people to get into the system. The moment you move away from “suspect but cannot prove”, you make it more difficult, and I hope that this House will not allow the Government to do this. Above all, I hope that the Government will think again about why they want to do this. They have presented no proof that there is any widespread misuse of this. Even if they did, I put it to the Minister that that is a price we have to pay. They have not proved it; there is no evidence for it; but, even if there were, one has to accept that the nature of the people we are dealing with means that we have to reach out further than we would in other circumstances.
At the moment, I fear that the Government are like the Levite rather than the Good Samaritan, and I wish them to return to their proper place, which is to cross the road to find out what is happening.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, for the reasons given by other speakers—particularly the last speaker, with whom I profoundly agree—I support these amendments. However, I want to raise a slightly different point on Clause 59. It appears to apply to children. I have had, over the years, numerous meetings with the Home Office, and I thought we had got to the position where the Home Office agreed that the NRM was not the right place for children to go, because anyone under the age of 18 becomes immediately, on arrival in this country, the responsibility of a local authority under Part 3 of the Children Act 1989. Consequently, local authorities take over these children.
As the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, pointed out, there are these independent guardians—advocates, who act as guardians—but the children are supposed to be cared for by a local authority with an independent guardian and should not be going through the NRM. What disturbs me about Clause 59, in addition to the points that have already been so ably made, is whether it is really intended that the Government want children to go through the NRM. Should not they in fact all be dealt with entirely through local authorities, with the help of the advocate?
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my name is to Amendment 157. This is a rhetorical question, but is not it interesting that the noble Lord, Lord Deben, who, if I am right, was not able to be here for the first group of amendments, has made points that were not rehearsed in his presence but are exactly the same points, as he says, from the point of view of the best traditions of Conservatism?
Clause 59 again prompts the question: why, and what is the problem? What is the evidence for what the Government perceive as a problem? Are there too many people claiming to be victims? Like other noble Lords, I thought the problem was that we do not know how many there are. We try to identify them, but we know that we do not manage to identify them all—but we know that all the indicators are that modern slavery goes wide and deep. The problem is that we do not identify everyone that we want to support. What underlines the Modern Slavery Act is getting people to the situation in which they can be supported.
Under Amendment 157, the Member’s explanatory statement actually refers to “current statutory guidance”, a point that was very well made in the previous debate.
I want to say a word about Amendment 173, on navigators. I am quite intrigued by this—guardians for adults, is that what is intended? Some police forces have a much better understanding of how to deal with victims, or possible victims, of slavery. I am not sure whether I have the name of this right, but I think that there was a transformation unit; the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, may remember. The police did a lot of work at one time. Can we hear about that from the Minister?
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I may be able to help the noble Baroness—it was at Exmouth. I went to see it.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
Indeed, it was excellent. That is why I raised it—because I wonder what has happened to it. As I say, I find the suggestion made in Amendment 173 intriguing, and I hope that it will be taken very seriously.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I rise briefly to say that we support the amendments in this group. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Deben, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, and we have said right across the Chamber, the points that he made about the contribution that Theresa May made—within the coalition Government, as I was reminded—were fantastic.
Lord Deben (Con)
I was not there for that, but it seemed to me that it was worth repeating, if I may put it clearly.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Well, it is the first time that I have heard repetition in this Chamber, so I thought that the noble Lord could not have been here. But it was a serious point, and it deserved to be made again, because we all agreed with it.
We support all the amendments in the group. I will speak specifically to Amendments 157 and 173. The other amendments have been spoken to very ably by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others, so I will not address those, in the interests of time. With respect to Amendment 157, it is intriguing that the statutory guidance says that
“a Conclusive Grounds decision will not be made until at least 45 days of the recovery period have passed”.
Why does the Bill reduce that to 30? That is my understanding, unless I have misread it. We talk about enhancing, but, as I say, 45 days is the period in the statutory guidance, while the Bill talks about 30 days.
Given that we are in Committee, it would be interesting to hear more on this. Am I wrong? Does the 30 days refer to something different? I cannot find references to 45 days in the Bill, but that is what is in the statutory guidance. Could the Minister respond to that? It would be helpful to the Committee to know what the 30-day period is vis-à-vis the 45 days set out in the statutory guidance, which is what the whole sector uses with respect to the recovery period and is, indeed, how I have understood it.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions. The amendments in large part concern provisions around the identification of modern slavery and trafficking victims.
First to speak was my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering, who sought an explanation for Clause 59. The clause places the conclusive grounds threshold of a “balance of probabilities” into legislation. This is in line with the threshold that is currently applied and accepted by the courts and aligns with our current obligations under the treaty to which a number of speakers have referred: the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings —ECAT.
We submit that to remove this provision, as Amendment 156 would, would cause an inconsistent approach towards the two thresholds: the reasonable grounds threshold would be contained within legislation, whereas the conclusive grounds threshold would remain only in guidance. By legislating for both thresholds, decision-makers are able to rely on clear precedent and the process is both certain and ascertainable. This search for clarity will run through and inform the answers I will put before the Committee in this debate.
Amendments 156A and 156B from the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, would amend the test for a reasonable grounds decision in legislation. The matter of whether there are “reasonable grounds to believe” that an individual is a victim is the appropriate threshold —again, as it mirrors our obligations under ECAT. For those reasons, I cannot accept Amendments 156, 156A and 156B.
I shall expand on matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, touching first on the ability that exists in legislation for people to challenge a decision made. Multiagency assurance panels are required to review all negative conclusive grounds decisions made by the competent authority for all cases submitted to the relevant competent authority. Multiagency assurance panels do not review negative reasonable grounds decisions. The role of multiagency assurance panels and the processes they follow are set out in the modern slavery statutory guidance for England and Wales promulgated under Section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. There is equivalent non-statutory guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland; it is not found in primary legislation. The guidance states:
“An individual, or someone acting on their behalf, may request reconsideration”
of a negative reasonable grounds decision by the competent authority
“if additional evidence becomes available that would be material to the outcome of a case, or there are specific concerns that a decision made is not in line with guidance.”
The final conclusive grounds decision remains the responsibility of the competent authority. Multiagency assurance panels do not have the ability to overturn negative conclusive grounds decisions made by the competent authority. The competent authority can be asked to review a case where there is concern that the decision has not been made in line with existing guidance; that, in the view of the multiagency assurance panel, that would add value and clarity but has not been sought; or that the evidence provided and used in the decision-making process was not weighed appropriately and considered. So an element of its ability to reconsider and discretion remains in place.
I think the whole Committee will be aware that understanding of the painful effects of trauma and suffering on individuals and their ability to recollect is developing and has developed considerably over recent years, as a better comprehension of these strains and pressures comes to be understood. That understanding filters into this field, as into others. In particular, I refer your Lordships to understanding in the criminal justice system as to why people may make declarations or give statements that are not in their best interests or that they subsequently seek to go back on.
This topic seems to inform the points raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and my noble friend Lord Deben. Victims may well not want or be able to relive their trauma to state officials. Moulded by forces that those of us who have been happy enough to lead comfortable and sheltered lives can barely comprehend, they may find state officials intimidating.
Will the policy inhibit such people and impact adversely their ability to come forward and speak up? We recognise that some victims of exploitation may be fearful of coming forward to talk to the authorities, including some of the organisations that operate as first responders. That is why a range of organisations operate as first responders, including charities—some of which the Committee has heard about—that work closely with victims and local authorities.
We are keen to ensure that potential victims of trafficking are identified as early as possible and are supporting this with an improved legal aid offer for victims of trafficking with no immigration status within the United Kingdom and subject to immigration removal. This is to ensure that individuals receive the correct support package at the earliest opportunity to address their needs, regardless of when cases are brought, to make sure that those who need protection are afforded it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Minister is dealing with these issues with great sensitivity and I welcome the tone of his remarks. He has—I think deliberately—left a number of questions hanging, saying that a lot of work is being done on this and that people are considering these sensitive and detailed questions and looking at them more thoroughly. This all begs the question: who has demanded this change in this legislation at this time, in advance of us having detailed information laid before us?
It seems that we have it the wrong way around. Given that his noble friend said earlier that there will be a Bill specifically to improve the modern-day slavery legislation, why cannot we hold this over until we see more clearly where the information is wrong, where it is right and what the evidence is? Is it not the nature of good government to look and examine the evidence before bringing measures forward? I do not see any evidence that this has happened so far.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I do not wish to appear to give a cursory answer to the noble Lord in a debate of this sensitivity, but my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar committed to write on the data—I am grateful to the noble Lord for nodding his head in recognition. I imagine that the point he seeks to raise will be discussed in any such correspondence. Does that satisfy him at this stage?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister, but it seems to be the wrong way around. Normally, there is pre-legislative scrutiny of complex and sensitive issues, and this is a classic example where there should have been pre-legislative scrutiny, as there was before the 2015 legislation, in some detail and at some length. Why was it thought that in a Bill dealing specifically, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, with nationality, borders and immigration, we should deal with an issue of this sensitivity? Would it not be better for the Government to withdraw this section of the Bill and come back with comprehensive legislation that we could all support?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I hear the points that the noble Lord makes. With respect, it seems that he moves forward into a question already put to my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar when he stood at the Dispatch Box in relation to the earlier matter. As he advised the Committee, the Government are concerned about misuse of the system. Rather than seeking to anticipate data that I confess not to having, with the noble Lord’s permission, I will move on from this point. I am again grateful to him for nodding his head.
I was expanding to the Committee on matters raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. We recognise that potential victims may not feel able at an early point to discuss information relevant to these matters bearing on their experience. That is why, in Clause 58, we have included the safeguard of “good reasons”. Each case will be considered carefully, including any reasons for not bringing information earlier, which will enable decision-makers to take trauma into account.
I am sure that I am merely rehearsing matters already within the knowledge of the Committee, but examples of what may constitute good reasons for late disclosure of information include where the victim was still under the coercive control of the trafficker, did not recognise themselves as a victim at that point, or for reasons relating to capacity—intellectual, emotional or age capacity—did not understand the requirement or the proceedings.
We will set out our approach in guidance, giving decision-makers the tools to recognise the effect that traumatic events can have on people’s ability to accurately recall or share or recognise such events. We are concerned that by too prescriptively setting out the parameters of what can constitute good reasons in guidance, we will inhibit the flexibility of decision-makers to take a case-by-case approach, as my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar sought to emphasise in his submission to the Committee earlier, depending on a person’s specific situation and vulnerabilities.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am anxious not to delay matters but to seek clarification at this stage. A number of noble Lords have raised concerns about why the burden of proof has been changed and the fact that, through this higher standard, a number of victims may not enter the system at all. I cannot believe it is the Government’s wish to prevent genuine victims of modern slavery and trafficking to be excluded from the process. My noble and learned friend gave a simple, clear clarification that it was to make the bar the same for both, but the fallout, in the view of legal opinion from practitioners who will be using this on a daily basis, seems to be that we will inadvertently exclude justified victims from the whole process. I cannot believe that this is the Government’s intention, where they are genuine victims.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for her intervention, which permits me the opportunity of not only repeating what I said from the Dispatch Box earlier about the importance of decisions being taken on a case-by-case basis, but advising the House—perhaps I should have done so in answering the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool—that in addition we are providing enhanced support and training to first responders.
The rationale underpinning the change proposed in relation to burdens of proof is certainly not to seek to exclude persons who ought to receive help and assistance from receiving it. The Government’s wish is that all who are victims should receive assistance and all who are criminal should receive their due punishment.
Lord Deben (Con)
If that is the rationale, I do not see why we need the change. I seriously do not understand what possible advantage changing this could be, whereas I perfectly clearly see what the disadvantage is. Although the Minister seeks in the most effective way to present the Government’s case, the word “rationale” is not one I would have used I these circumstances.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My noble friend sends me back to the dictionary. I shall include the use of that word in my reading later, among the other things which I expect I will be asked to reflect on. I think we are—or maybe I am—guilty of mixing up two things. The reason for the change to the test to introduce the balance of probabilities is to align ourselves with our international obligations under ECAT. It is in order to avert any baneful consequences thereof that I made reference to the enhanced support and training which first responders will receive, and to the other measures which I discussed.
Lord Deben (Con)
I am sorry; I will not interrupt again. I still do not understand the rationale of bringing ourselves into line with our international obligations. We do not break our international obligations by going further than the international obligations, so we are already in line with them; all we are doing is withdrawing to what are, in many of our minds, unsatisfactory international obligations. Without getting into the Brexit issue, I very much agree with the right reverend Prelate when he suggested that we thought this was precisely what the Government did not want to do. I happen to want to do it but that is a different thing. I feel rather hit by this in both ways.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The justification is to ensure clarity across the legislation, and I appreciate the comment made by the right reverend Prelate, and rehearsed by my noble friend, about advantages flowing or not from the Brexit process, which so many of your Lordships will have discussed. However, our ability to act differently from our partners across the channel is a valuable one, but what we seek to obtain by this measure is legislative clarity and a consistency in decision-making which will, we hope, benefit victims and develop understanding among all the agencies in this important sector. My noble friend is resuming his mask, and he did say that he would not interrupt again, although I hope that he will not bar himself from further interventions later in the debate.
I turn to Amendment 157, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I thank him for his powerful and compelling opening contribution to this debate and to earlier debates on the topic, and for his work at Nottingham University. I offer the Committee reassurance that we are committed to providing victims with at least a 45-day recovery period, or until a conclusive grounds decision is made, whichever period is the longer. Our position is—I maintain that this does not need to be placed on the face of the Bill, and I return to the earlier discussions with my noble friend Lord Deben—that it would create a misalignment with our international obligations under ECAT.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for all of that, and the commitment to 45 days. Why does it say 30 days in the Bill? Have I got that wrong?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
No, I think the noble Lord is correct. It is 30 days for the alignment with ECAT, but the 45 days appears in the guidance, and we commit to providing support over that period: a 45-day recovery period as expressed in the guidance, or until a conclusive grounds decision is made.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
So there is an absolute commitment to 45 days for the gap between reasonable grounds and conclusive grounds, even though legislation which we are going to pass says 30 days?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The noble Lord shrugged his shoulders, but I repeat that the justification for this is to align with our international obligations with our partners in ECAT.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this did not stop us passing the Modern Slavery Act, which was ahead of the rest of the world.
Lord Deben (Con)
I am sorry to remove my mask, but I am told in the Climate Change Committee, of which I am chairman, that we have to have a British ETS which is not aligned with the rest of Europe because that is what we want. Why does it apply to climate change but not to modern slavery? On both of those issues we are in advance and wish to continue to be in advance. I do not understand this alignment element.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
Can I join the maskless crew? Surely international law, and certainly EU directives, are usually a minimum requirement, so if we wanted 45 days and a European instrument said 30, that is brilliant; it is better. It at least complies, so what is the problem?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I hear from all sides of the Chamber, including from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti—
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
Sorry, I do not mean once again from the Dispatch Box to rain brickbats upon the noble Baroness’s head.
Once again, I am not in a position to answer or explain myself on the basis of views taken by the Climate Change Committee, but in this context alignment with our ECAT partners was considered desirable.
I move on to Clause 60, which sets out the minimum time for the recovery period in line with our international obligations under ECAT. It provides us with the flexibility to set the operational practice as needed in guidance, which is important to reflect the changing needs of victims and the understanding of victims’ needs in a developing area of law.
In practice, in 2020 the average time for a conclusive grounds decision was 339 days. This long period stems from pressures on the system, which we are working to reduce through our transformation project to ensure that victims get certainty more quickly, but it is notably longer than the proposed 45-day minimum.
In light of this explanation and the assurance of continuation of the current support set out in guidance, I hope that noble Lords in the Committee agree that Amendment 157 to Clause 60 is unnecessary. I urge noble Lords to take the view that promotes clarity and to consider that the objective of making sure that we are aligned with our international obligations is such to prompt the noble Lord not to press this amendment.
Amendment 173, again from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, seeks to introduce victim navigators for modern slavery and human trafficking victims in every police force in England and Wales. This matter was discussed in the Commons during the passage of the Bill. As was expressed on behalf of the Government, we are absolutely committed to ensuring that victims of modern slavery have the support they need when engaging with the police and through the criminal justice process.
As to the development that the noble Lord from the Front Bench advised the Committee of—that of victim navigators—we strongly support police forces using these NGO-led support models. Victim navigators are one model within that category. For that reason, we have commissioned independent research of three existing NGO victim support programmes, to help us better to understand what provision is in place and what effective support looks like for these victims. This will help inform advice to forces in the future about best practice and encourage national take-up of the most effective models of support. I also agree with the sentiment behind this proposed new clause that providing support to victims to help them navigate is something that can be studied and will inform advice to forces in future about best practice. We are already working to understand the most effective support measures, and we have made grant funding available to police forces and the GLAA to help identify and fill gaps in support.
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his nods of assent and for agreeing that the work already under way should be completed and will help us to develop an understanding of how best we can support victims in engaging with the criminal justice system. It is right that we conduct that evaluation before putting a specific model of support into legislation. That is why I resist this amendment at this time and invite the noble Lord not to press it.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it has been an excellent debate. I thank everyone for their contributions. I think there may be a question outstanding from the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, as regards children under the age of 18, but I take it as read that anyone aged under 18 would still be referred to the local authorities. I assume that my noble and learned friend will write to us if that is not the case.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend for that, and I beg the pardon of the noble and learned Baroness for not addressing her question directly. If she is content, I will have that expressed in writing to her.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful to my noble and learned friend. He has endeavoured to be as full as possible in his response to all noble Lords. I express my disappointment that the guidelines are being changed in the way the Government envisage. I am slightly confused, because a lot of the situations for which this Bill makes provision would not have arisen if we had kept our international and European responsibilities under the Dublin convention, whereby we could have returned many asylum seekers to the first country in which they arrived.
It is a regrettable change. I do not think my noble and learned friend disagreed that a number of victims will be omitted from the system as a result. I will consider with others what to do at the next stage, but at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Coaker
“(aa) the person was aged 18 or over at the time of the circumstances which gave rise to the first RG decision;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to preclude those exploited as children from being denied additional recovery periods if they are re-trafficked.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, before I start my remarks on this group of amendments, I want to say in answer to the question asked earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, that the problem the Minister has—and he has it all the way through this part of the Bill—is that what the Government do not like saying is that the reason they are doing this is not really to do with modern slavery. They are trying to sort out what they see as an immigration mess and the problem they have with everybody moaning about immigration, asylum and so on, and this has ended up in a Bill it should not be in. That is the problem. The noble Lord, Lord Deben, asked why we were doing this. The answer is, “because we think the modern slavery system is being abused and lots of people who shouldn’t be applying to it are applying to it, and they’re immigration offenders and not victims of modern slavery”.
What this Committee is saying is that it should not be in this Bill. Victims of modern slavery are being conflated with immigration offenders, and it will lead to the undermining of the Modern Slavery Act and the principles on which it is based, and to potential victims not receiving the support and help they need. That is the motivation for the Government in doing this. I do not think that it is the motivation for this Minister, which is why it is sometimes particularly difficult for him to answer the specific questions asked by the noble Lord, Lord Deben, as a one-nation Conservative—I think that is a compliment to him. The noble Lord has been trying to say to him that it was that brand of conservatism which drove the Modern Slavery Act. Perhaps the current Government—I can say this not as a lifelong Conservative—could learn from that. But that is a matter for internal grief and beyond the scope of this Bill.
I want to draw the Committee’s attention to the titles of these clauses. I will say something on Clause 61, “No entitlement to additional recovery period etc”, but there is a particular difficulty with Clause 62, “Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection”, which goes to the heart of the problem. Essentially, it is another way for the Government to say that potential victims of slavery are abusing the system to get round it because they are really immigration offenders. The Government are saying, “The system is being abused and we are going to stop it, and this is the way we’re going to do it”. The problem is that they are going to undermine the Modern Slavery Act and the modern slavery system that they have put in place, of which they should be proud, and indeed of which people—including all of us—are proud. It is that contradiction that goes to the heart of Part 5 in every single utterance, whether it is made from the Government Front Bench, the Opposition Front Bench or others in this Chamber.
I point out that Clause 62 does not even say “potential victims”; it talks about “identified potential victims”. No wonder there is such disquiet, upset and anger about this clause, which I will come on to in a minute. There are very real problems with Clause 61, but particularly with Clause 62, hence the amendments that I and other noble Lords have tabled, and the clause stand part notice.
Again, I come back to this question on Clause 61: what problem are the Government actually trying to fix that requires primary legislation? Again and again that has been asked by noble Lords across the Chamber without the Government really being able to answer—apart the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, intimating the explanation I gave in his remarks on an earlier group.
The Explanatory Notes state that Clause 61 is there:
“In order to prevent the recovery period being misused by those wishing to extend their stay in the UK and to remove unnecessary support and barriers to removal”.
Again, that goes to the heart of it. The Government are seeking to change an immigration offence using a modern slavery context. It is a contradiction. It is not supposed to be like that. The whole point of the Modern Slavery Act was to take this out of the immigration context of the Home Office. That perennial battle between immigration and modern slavery is unresolved and requires parts of the Government to stand up and say, “You’re wrong and we’re not going to do that”.
What evidence is there of recovery periods being abused? That is of interest, I think, as evidence for the proposed change before us. What evidence is there of us providing “unnecessary support” to a person using the NRM? Re-trafficking has increasingly become part of the traffickers’ operating model, including where people return to their enslavers for fear of repercussions for their families, which we touched on earlier. How does Clause 61 respond to or break that model? Does not the refusal of a further recovery period simply strengthen the perpetrators? I think that is a real risk.
As the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, has asked on a number of occasions, will children be subject to the restrictions under Clause 61? Every single part of this Bill makes no distinction at all between adults and children. The Minister has experience of the legislative system, which, as a basis, divides children and adults on the grounds of good justice. Why is that not the case here? This is what Amendment 158 seeks to probe. Does the Minister have any figures for the number of children who go missing and are re-trafficked? Does he agree—again, the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, also asked this—that a missing child at risk of exploitation is a safeguarding issue, not an immigration or enforcement issue?
On Clause 62, the key question is what action, if any, the Secretary of State intends to take on the comments made by the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, who has written a scathing article in the Times today—note the word “independent” in the commissioner’s title. The headline says:
“Fears about bill that would take support away from some modern slavery victims”.
She has concerns about the way Clause 62 will operate and the wide way in which certain phrases in it could be drawn. Is it the Government’s intention to ignore the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, including where she says that Clause 62 will empower and embolden people traffickers and criminal gangs? Why is something that the anti-slavery commissioner says is harmful included in the Bill? Can the Minister also give further detail on how Clause 62 will operate in relation to children who are victims of criminal exploitation?
The lead signatory of Amendment 169 is the noble Lord, Lord Randall, but he cannot be with us today and has sent his apologies. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, have also signed it. Amendment 169 suggests to the Government that, if they are going to have Clause 62, which many would say should not be part of the Bill, this is a way they could redraft it to try to address some concerns. I personally would not keep Clause 62 but, instead of just a vague reference to a “threat to public order”, whatever that means, the amendment’s proposed new subsection (2)(a) inserts the words
“is prevented from doing so as a result of an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order”,
rather than a wider definition.
Similarly, under
“Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection”,
we have put the words:
“in exceptional circumstances … following an assessment of all the circumstances of the case.”
Then there is the importance of international co-operation and the fact that we have also not included children. These specific points seek to address some of the concerns that have been raised by many groups and other noble Lords.
My Amendment 164A is to probe a specific question: where a person is covered by Clause 62, is it the Government’s intention that that person will still be entitled to and receive a conclusive grounds decision, as they do at present, or do the Government consider that the duty to investigate trafficking and exploitation no longer applies?
The criticism of Clause 61 and particularly Clause 62 is that, in the Government’s efforts to deal with what they perceive is an immigration problem, they are undermining the protection that the Modern Slavery Act gives victims. That view is held by many noble Lords in this Committee, many Members in the other place and the various NGOs that seek to inform our debates. I beg to move.
The Principal Deputy Chairman of Committees (The Earl of Kinnoull) (CB)
My Lords, I must inform the Committee that, if Amendment 160A is agreed to, I will not be able to call Amendments 161 to 163, by reason of pre-emption.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I want to speak to the JCHR amendments in this group in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. Those were very strong words from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I found them extremely persuasive, including his remarks on one-nation conservatism. I see the noble Lords, Lord Fowler and Lord Deben, in their place, and I commend the speech of Sir John Major today, which I have followed a little on Twitter.
Amendment 159 was inspired by the JCHR and seeks to remove the discretion around whether a person who has a positive reasonable grounds decision and a conclusive grounds decision pending could avoid removal. Instead of saying that the competent authority “may determine” that removal should not take place, if that is appropriate in the circumstances of the case, we suggest it “must”.
Clause 59 has already changed the Modern Slavery Act so that we are talking about people who “are” victims of slavery or human trafficking, not those who “may be”. Therefore, it is surely right that such victims, who have been given an additional positive reasonable grounds decision for new or more recent slavery or trafficking allegations, must not be removed.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I support all these amendments but I will speak to Amendment 169, to which I have put my name. I will deal with two other people apart from the anti-slavery commissioner who said that her gravest concern lies with Clause 62 above all the other clauses in this part of the Bill.
The United Nations rapporteur said:
“We are concerned that Clause 62(3) would be in violation of the State’s obligation to ensure non-punishment of victims of … forms of slavery for any unlawful acts … that are a direct consequence of trafficking.”
That, of course, is exactly what the Modern Slavery Act says in relation to people who commit offences if they are done in the course of being a trafficked person. So far as children are concerned, if they are under 18, they cannot be responsible for acts that they have done under the coercion of being a trafficking victim.
Perhaps of more significance to the Government is the issue of prosecution. Caroline Haughey QC, who advises the Government and regularly prosecutes traffickers—with great success I am glad to say—has described this Bill as catastrophic. She is a very successful QC. She is very measured and “catastrophic”, to my mind, is the most unusual word for a sensible prosecuting QC to use. She goes on to warn of the risks of losing witnesses for prosecutions because they have been guilty of offences themselves. We do not have enough prosecutions. It is an extremely serious matter that we do not have enough, and this clause is certain, if it is left in its original state, to reduce the number of prosecutions that Caroline Haughey and other QCs are trying to do in the criminal justice system.
I think again the Government ought to bear in mind why so many people who are victims have criminal records. It is perfectly obvious—they are much easier to identify and traffic, children as well as adults. They are the sort of people the traffickers go for because they know they are much less likely to come voluntarily to the public eye. They need protection against having been trafficked just as much as anybody who has a clear record. I implore the Government to think very carefully about this effect on prosecutions and the fact that criminals are very likely to be trafficked people.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am delighted to follow the noble and learned Baroness. The Committee has benefited greatly from her insightful comments on the background. This is a particularly murky world about which we are talking. People are in an extremely vulnerable and unfortunate position, and they may well be preyed on and further exploited by the very people I applaud the Government for trying to target.
I will speak briefly to Amendments 160 and 163 in my name. Amendment 160 is the key amendment; again, it is a concern raised by the Law Society of Scotland, which is keen to ensure that these provisions be brought to account only in exceptional circumstances. The reasoning for this—which follows very well from the discussion we have heard in this debate—is that Clause 62 excludes from the national referral mechanism persons who have committed criminal offences as well as other offences relating to terrorism. It excludes those who have claimed to be victims of terrorism in bad faith. However, it appears to divide victims into the worthy and the unworthy. Surely the Government must explain their reasoning behind this. In my view, and that of the Law Society of Scotland, no one should be disqualified from being a victim of one crime because they have been a perpetrator of another—precisely for the reasons that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, gave us. Victims of trafficking could be criminalised for conduct relating to their trafficking. This is in breach of Article 26 of the Council of Europe trafficking convention. I cannot believe for a minute that this is the intention of the Minister or the Government in this regard.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to a recent court case; I do not know if it is the same one to which I will refer. A violation of Article 4 of the ECHR was recently found against the United Kingdom, in this regard, by the European Court of Human Rights in VCL and AN v the United Kingdom. For those who would like to research this further, the reference is application numbers 77587/12 and 74603/12.
I conclude with a question to the Minister. Does he not share my concern that the clause, as it stands and without reference to exceptional circumstances, introduces a high risk of a double punishment for those victims who have received convictions? Moreover, disqualifying certain victims from protection increases the prospect that they will be further exploited by organised criminal groups as they will be unable to access protection from the state.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, I have added my name to those of noble Lords who oppose Clause 62 standing part of the Bill. I echo remarks made by noble colleagues.
As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, just said, Clause 62 goes to an essential point of principle in the entire operation of how modern slavery protections ought to work. The proposal is that Clause 62 makes victimhood a conditional state. In fact, it sets up a division between worthy and unworthy victims, as the noble Baroness commented. This would be such a retrograde step. If we are serious about destroying the business model of modern slavery and identifying and prosecuting as many slavers as we can, we must find ways of incentivising and supporting all victims to come forwards. By excluding from support those who have acted in bad faith—a term for which I greatly welcome more clarity from the Minister on what it would mean—or those deemed a threat to public order, we are creating two categories of victim.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my name is on Amendment 160A, which is from these Benches. I fear that we are rather in lipstick on pigs territory—a phrase used a good deal earlier in our deliberations on the Bill. Clause 62 refers a “threat to public order”, which is then explained as various terrorism offences. It says that the list is not exhaustive, and I recognise what the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, said about how non-exhaustive lists are dealt with in the courts and that the longer lists are, the more rigorously they are dealt with. Our amendment refers instead to a threat to national security.
My noble friend Lord Paddick also has his name on the Clause 62 stand part notice and mine is on Amendment 169. I do not want to take the time of the Committee by repeating what has been said, very clearly, about activity “attributable” to being a victim of slavery or trafficking.
In the previous group of amendments, the Minister referred to an ability to recollect. I think, from other things he has said, in a sympathetic manner, he would agree that very often there is also, among victims, an inability to express—it is not just the inability to recollect. It might be worth saying—I am not sure it has been said before—that there is even more difficulty than in disclosing that one has been a victim of forced labour in disclosing that one has been a victim of sexual exploitation.
I agree with others about words such as “worthy” and “unworthy”. I noted “deserving” and “undeserving” —here we are again—like “deserving” and “undeserving” refugees and asylum seekers; that distinction is replicated here.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, again, as a member of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I shall speak very briefly. I should say how much I appreciate the contributions made by my noble friend Lord Coaker, by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who is on the Joint Committee with me, and by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in her very powerful remarks.
Many years ago—if I may tell a little anecdote—I heard of a certain conversation that took place in the Home Office when an official was told by her boss to justify a certain position. The official said, “But that is indefensible”. Her boss said, “Yes, of course—defending the defensible is easy. You’re paid to defend the indefensible”. I say that as a word of comfort to the Minister, who is defending the indefensible. He knows it, we know it and the officials know it—and I suppose he has to do it, unless he does what the noble Lord, Lord Agnew, did and decides to distance himself from it.
I will say this very briefly. I find it hard to remember, and keep needing to remind myself, that we are talking about Part 5 of a Bill about modern slavery. Some of these issues are so remote from the rest of the Bill, as has already been said. The amendments to which I have put my name are concerned about a number of things. One is public safety and security. The amendments seek to get the right balance between public safety and security, which of course is important, and the rights of individuals who seek safety in this country. I contend that the Government, particularly in Clause 62, have got the balance quite wrong.
As the right reverend Prelate has already said, some of the people who are victims of traffickers or slavery are under threat; they are fearful, and the fact is that some of them at least will have been compelled to take up the position that they have taken up. We should respect that. These are frightened and anxious people, who are not secure and who do not know this country at all well. They may have been in this country for some time, or they may not have been, but they do not feel all that secure. We have to be sensitive to their situation, and I contend that what the Government are doing in this section, particularly in Clause 62, is to show insensitivity to some very vulnerable people—which is why I hope they will get rid of this provision, which does not make any sense at all.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, in opening from the Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, made a number of points in relation to the position of the Government in relation to the one-nation Conservative tradition, if I may put it like that. I will preface my remarks to the Committee by saying that, just as with our then coalition partners the Conservatives were in the forefront of dealing with the issue of modern slavery, so we were, hundreds of years ago, in dealing with the issue of slavery, as it then stood. Where slavery exists, Conservatives will always be found in the forefront of any attempts to confront it.
In relation to Clause 61, there is currently no policy on whether, or in what circumstances, individuals should or should not receive additional recovery periods under the national referral mechanism. Clause 61 addresses this gap by introducing a power to withhold additional recovery periods where an individual has already benefited from a recovery period and the further reported exploitation happened prior to the previous referral into the national referral mechanism, unless appropriate circumstances are set forth. This is not an attempt to create two tiers, however it may be read; rather, it is an attempt to put into legislation appropriate controls against misuse, where that misuse takes place.
Amendment 158 seeks to remove this power if any of the incidents of exploitation occurred when the individual was under 18 years of age. I seek first to reassure the Committee that the provision may be applied only when the further positive reasonable grounds decision arises from things done wholly before the previous reasonable grounds decision was made. Therefore, this power does not apply in cases of re-trafficking.
From the Front Bench, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, like other noble Lords at an earlier stage, raised the question of why these provisions appear on the face of an immigration Bill. It is because there are overlaps between immigration and modern slavery, which the Bill recognises and seeks to address, but it also goes further in providing clarification on people’s entitlement.
As I said in relation to the previous grouping, and as I am sure we will all have occasion to say again, the complex nature of exploitation, as the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, identified in his opening speech and at other times in this debate, and the potential resulting safeguarding needs, particularly for children, are recognised by the Government. This clause is designed to allow for discretion in how decision-makers apply the disqualification, ensuring that the welfare of children will be taken into account. This discretion is an important part of our needs-based approach to the provision of support, and in the circumstances there is no need for the carve-out that the amendment proposes.
Moving on to Amendment 159, while we understand the intention behind this amendment, the existing discretionary element strikes the right balance between allowing decision-makers flexibility to grant additional recovery periods and preventing the misuse of the NRM protections to which I referred. Decision-makers will be able to consider the vulnerabilities and circumstances of the individual.
Turning to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in relation to Clause 62, as noble Lords have outlined, ECAT envisages that recovery periods should be withheld on grounds of public order and improper claims. However, ECAT does not include a definition of “public order” and, to date, that omission has hindered our ability to disqualify suitable individuals in practice. The question was posed of whether the provision as it stands might impede operational decisions in relation to prosecution, but I submit that these decisions would be taken at all times in relation to that developing understanding of the pressures and difficulties. I fully appreciate that I am understating those things by using those expressions. Those pressures and difficulties are upon persons who are victims of modern slavery or human trafficking.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
I am grateful to the Minister. In Clause 62, the phrase “bad faith” seems extraordinarily ambiguous. Can he clarify that? What jurisprudence does this phrase come from and on what basis will it be interpreted in the courts?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for that intervention. I was proposing to deal later with the expression “bad faith” and its source, but, to help him at this stage, it is not drawn from any comparable legislation, nor from the authority of the courts. We do not hark back to that. Rather, the nature of the problems that must be confronted in relation to this is sufficiently protean and diverse that a need was identified to arrive at a broad expression in the Bill, and “bad faith” was the language selected after consideration among Ministers and officials to represent that.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but I now realise that he has now moved on from Clause 61 and is talking about Clause 62. I was wondering whether he was going to answer my point about incompatibility with the ECHR memorandum. That says that
“where the person’s previous conclusive grounds decision was negative, the Secretary of State will be required to make a new conclusive grounds decision on the new referral, and the person will be protected from removal in the meantime, ensuring compliance with Article 10(2) of ECAT.”
However, you are not protecting them from removal in the meantime under Article 61, as far as I can see, so how is the Bill compatible with the ECHR memorandum?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
If the noble Baroness will bear with me, I will seek to get an answer to that question that I can deliver in the course of the debate—doubtless the Committee will remind me if I have not reverted to the noble Baroness by the time I sit down.
Amendments 160 and 162 do not define “exceptional circumstances” or “serious and ongoing” threat in relation to withholding protection from removal. As such, our view is that they would risk undermining the clarity which this clause seeks to provide and would make the power very difficult to use, meaning that potentially dangerous individuals would continue to receive the generous protections afforded by the NRM.
On Amendment 160A, Clause 62 specifies that disqualification applies when in the interests of national security, but it is right that the Government should also be able to withhold protections from individuals who pose a threat to public order more broadly, including where they have been convicted of serious criminal offences or have made a claim in bad faith, to use the expression that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred me to. I say that “bad faith” is appropriate in these circumstances because it is so broad and because it comprises so many aspects.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I want to intervene briefly on the “good faith” and “bad faith” point, in case it is of assistance to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and others. Concepts such as “good faith” and bad faith” are commonly used in civil and commercial matters; we understand that. In contracting matters, it is incumbent on parties to act in good faith, subject to the deal they have done with each other. Why I think the Committee is so concerned about what the Minister called the protean nature of the phrase here is that this is human rights protection, and we cannot afford to be protean or vague in the same way that we can when we are talking about how we enter into a contract. This is life and death.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The point I was seeking to make by that expression is, I think, the same one that my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar made earlier, when he spoke about this—it is as familiar to the noble Baroness as a practising barrister as it is to me, and I think it was referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. If we have a list that sets out heads A to E, and then counsel attempts to rely on point F which is not otherwise comprehended, or not specifically enumerated but which may be comprehended within the expression “or any other circumstance”, that always—as my noble friend Lord Wolfson said—places counsel at a disadvantage.
On the threats, or potential threats, and the potential scope for abuse which lie within the power of a person seeking to exploit and make a false application under these circumstances, what we are seeking to do is to identify a phrase or term which is sufficiently wide to encompass all those potential points. Noble Lords in the Committee have identified, under reference to the traffickers and criminals whom it is the intention of the entire Committee to thwart, their cunning, resilience and resourcefulness in finding ways to slip between the cracks of aspects of legislation.
Amendment 169 does not provide a definition of “public order”. I reassure the Committee that we adhere to relevant provisions in our international obligations but it is unnecessary to specify that in legislation, and we are satisfied that the current definition of public order complies with ECAT.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering proposes that we replace the “bad faith” provision with one of “improper claims”. That proposal can be addressed in conjunction with Amendment 163, which seeks to remove the bad faith provision entirely. Another reason for the expression “bad faith”, and its breadth, is to avoid inadvertently excluding administrative mistakes made when submitting claims, which may be interpreted as falling under “improper claims”. We believe that “bad faith” is the appropriate language.
In answer to submissions made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, under Amendments 169, 161 and 164, which seek to exclude children from this clause, ECAT does not specify an age limit. We deem it important that the United Kingdom maintains the full scope while ensuring that all decisions to withhold the protections of the NRM are balanced against our priority to safeguard children. The proposal set out in these amendments would create, in effect, a two-tiered system that could encourage those looking to misuse the NRM protections to provide falsified information regarding their age. We all sat late enough the other night in relation to the age amendment provisions elsewhere in the Bill for me not to wish to go into that area again, but we are concerned lest the proposals in the amendment provide an opportunity for persons to provide falsified information.
In relation to Amendment 168, the Government are aware that potential and confirmed victims of modern slavery may already have been convicted of serious offences or be involved in terrorism-related activity. I make it clear that neither the additional recovery period nor the public order disqualifications can be taken as being a blanket disqualification. Any decisions relating to disqualifications will be taken on an individual basis, taking into account the individual’s circumstances and vulnerabilities. This includes consideration as to the nature of any criminal exploitation that may have been made of them and the need to safeguard individuals. We think it is right that further details of how to apply this discretionary element should be set out in guidance for decision-makers rather than being placed in the Bill. That will give the Government the flexibility to meet the needs of victims and respond to changing patterns of criminal activity that may seek opportunities to misuse the NRM.
We do not consider that Clause 62 will present a barrier to people who have had convictions and prevent them coming forward, because of that discretionary approach and because there will not be a blanket disqualification on the basis of public order. All of us—the whole Committee, I am sure—want victims of modern slavery to continue to come forward for identification and support, irrespective of their personal circumstances or the circumstances in which they came to be exploited. However, we maintain that it is right that the Government can remove individuals who pose a threat to public order from the protections and support that the NRM affords.
Together with the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, was concerned lest such victims did not come forward if they had criminal convictions. First responders should still always refer victims into the national referral mechanism, in line with modern slavery statutory guidance, even where the individual has had a previous recovery period or has a criminal conviction. Decision-makers trained in the field will then carefully consider each individual case and take into account specific vulnerabilities and the needs of each individual, again on a case-by-case basis.
The recovery period may be withheld following a reasonable grounds decision, and the rights that flow from a conclusive grounds decision may also be withheld at that stage if relevant disqualifications apply. I emphasise that we will carefully consider each individual case to ensure that people who genuinely need protection and support will receive it. I reiterate that it is right that we should be able to withhold rights from individuals where appropriate—for example, from those who pose a national security risk to the United Kingdom.
I return to the matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in relation to compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights. The protections of the NRM will be withheld in accordance with Clause 61 only when so to do would be compliant with our international obligations—
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I am glad to hear that the Government want to comply with our international obligations—some of us feel that that is not entirely evident from the Bill—but I was asking about compatibility with the European convention against trafficking. Clause 61 allows “a competent authority” to remove someone even when a conclusive grounds decision is pending. I am sorry to repeat myself, but the European Convention on Human Rights memorandum, produced presumably by the Home Office for the Bill, says at paragraph 76.d:
“the Secretary of State will be required to make a new conclusive grounds decision on the new referral, and the person will be protected from removal in the meantime, ensuring compliance with Article 10(2)”.
That is not what Clause 61 does; it allows the Government to remove the person. They are not “protected from removal” pending a new conclusive grounds decision, so the ECHR memorandum and the Bill are in direct contradiction. Can the Minister take further advice and answer that point? If he cannot do so today, I am sure that he will be able to write to me. I am pretty sure that this was identified by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is why we wanted to change “must” determine the person’s removal to “may”, so that there is wiggle room that might be in compliance with ECAT. On the face of it, I cannot see that this provision is compliant, notwithstanding the assertion in the memorandum that it is.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
The noble Baroness graciously affords me the possibility of replying perhaps in more detail and later. Unless I have further information to provide to her, I propose to take that course. I am obliged to her for her consideration.
In relation to how to assess whether a person is involved in terrorism-related activity or is otherwise a national security concern, the Government have extensive experience of assessing these things, together with our operational partners, and using these assessments to inform executive decision-making.
Whether there are reasonable grounds to suspect that a person is or has been involved in terrorism-related activity is a crucial part of consideration for public order disqualification. Amendment 165 would weaken the United Kingdom’s ability to withhold protections from people of terrorism concern, and we therefore consider that it would increase the risk to the national security of the UK.
Regarding Amendment 166, NRM referrals for foreign national offenders and foreign nationals held on remand are rising, with an average of 85 per month for the first five months of 2021, compared to 19 per month in 2018. It is right that foreign nationals who have been convicted of the serious offences referred to in Section 32 of the UK Borders Act 2007 should be included within scope for consideration of the public order disqualification. This ensures that we will have a clear definition provided for in legislation to support decisions.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his typically courteous and thoughtful reply, and the way in which he attempted to answer every question put to him by noble Lords across the Chamber. We are very grateful and that was well received by everyone. I believe, however, that there is a very real problem at the heart of the Bill, with respect to Clause 61 and particularly Clause 62, notwithstanding his reassuring words.
It remains on the face of the Bill that an identified potential victim can be disqualified from the section if they are a threat to public order, or they have given information in bad faith. As noble Lords have said, there is no real clarification, notwithstanding the Minister’s response, on what a threat to public order means. We can see from what has been said, by many of the organisations that made representations, including lawyers and the Independent Anti-slavery Commissioner, that a threat to public order can include very minor offences. The Minister says, “Don’t worry, the decision-makers understand that Clause 62 does not apply if they are minor offences”, but that really is not good enough. It should be on the face of the Bill; it should be clearer, in primary legislation, what a “threat to public order” means—and indeed “acting in bad faith”. What on earth does “acting in bad faith” mean? That is usually something people use when they cannot think of anything else—“That’ll do, that will be something we can say because it encompasses everything.” It is not good enough, in primary legislation, to legislate in that way.
The purpose of the amendments that have been tabled, and the debate that has been had in Committee, will cause the Government to have to think again and, at the very least, be clearer in what they actually mean with respect to where they are going to disqualify somebody from protection when they are an unidentified potential victim.
The last point I will very quickly make is that there is real issue with respect to children. Both this Minister and the Minister who responded to the earlier groups say again, “Don’t worry, there is nothing to worry about. We understand the particular needs of children”. I say again that in virtually every area of government a distinction is made between adults and children, for obvious reasons. It beggars belief that it is not done anywhere in this Bill. We will come back to this at Report, but I thank the Minister for his reply and, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw the amendment.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would define the objective of assistance and support in line with Article 12 of the European Convention on Action Against Trafficking in Human Beings 2005.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I should declare an interest in that I presented the original anti-trafficking and anti-slavery Bill as a Private Member’s Bill to your Lordships, and your Lordships very kindly passed it in all its stages, thanks to the support of the whole House. I then sent it to the then Prime Minister, Theresa May, who made it a government Bill and made it comprehensive, with the support of many people in both Houses.
I wish to speak to the amendments in my name to Clauses 63 and 64, on support and leave to remain respectively. While I believe that issues of modern slavery should not be in an immigration Bill, we must nevertheless use the opportunity to improve the care provided to approximately 100,000 victims of modern slavery in the UK. These individuals deserve the opportunity to rebuild their lives. We have the potential to give them the support needed to ensure that each victim becomes a survivor.
Your Lordships will know that I have long argued, through my Private Member’s Bills, that support for victims in England and Wales during the so-called recovery period should be statutory, as it has been in Northern Ireland and Scotland since 2015. I very much welcome the Government addressing this matter at last in Clause 63. However, I have three concerns about Clause 63 which my Amendments 169A, 170 and 170A address. I thank the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Paddick and Lord Coaker, for their support for these amendments.
First, in Clause 63, proposed new subsection (2) of the new clause restricts support only to that necessary to assist with recovery from the conduct that resulted in the “positive reasonable grounds” decision in question. This is more restrictive than in Northern Ireland and Scotland. How do the Government intend to identify the harm caused directly by exploitation? Why have they decided to restrict the support in this way?
Article 12 of the Council of Europe Convention on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings, known as ECAT, requires states to provide various support to assist victims in their physical, psychological and social recovery. ECAT does not restrict support and assistance to only those matters that relate to a person’s immediate exploitation. Amendment 169A would amend the wording so that it is in line with ECAT.
Secondly, Clause 63 is not clear on the scope of support, and Amendment 170A would define the types of assistance and support to be provided in line with ECAT obligations. The Government said in another place that a list of what support should be available is not needed, even though such a list does exist in Scotland and Northern Ireland. While individual victims will have different needs and requirements, there still needs to be a framework, which Amendment 170A would provide. The Joint Committee on Human Rights asked whether the support provided will cover all the elements required by Article 12. I look forward to hearing confirmation from the Minister that it will.
My third concern is the lack of support once a person is identified as a victim, something I have been campaigning on with the support of the Free for Good movement, a coalition of 27 organisations which believe that long-term support is essential to a victim’s recovery. Without it, already vulnerable individuals are at risk of homelessness, destitution or even re-trafficking, as has been mentioned.
I welcome the assurance given by the Government on Report in another place, and reiterated here at Second Reading, that 12 months’ support will be provided to confirmed victims in England and Wales. However, to date the Government have not brought forward an amendment to ensure that this support is on a statutory footing, nor set out any details of what that might involve, saying instead that the details will be in guidance. The support needs to be more than an extension of current arrangements under the Government’s recovery needs assessment.
Amendment 170 would put the Government’s commitment to 12 months’ support in the Bill. The cross-party support for this amendment is both indicative and representative of an understanding across the House that long-term statutory support is vital in order to assist victims of modern slavery in their recovery. The problem with it not being in the Bill is that it gives the Government what one could describe as wriggle room. We do not know when the guidance will be issued, nor what it will say; by the time we do, we will have missed a valuable opportunity to make a significant difference to victims.
Clause 63 already puts support during the recovery period on a statutory footing. Amendment 170 is a simple extension to Clause 63 to put in a support provision after a person has been confirmed as a victim of modern slavery. I urge your Lordships to support Amendment 170 to ensure recovery, prevent re-trafficking and enable victims to work with the police to restrain the perpetrators responsible for their abuse. I sincerely hope the Minister will be able to tell the House that he will be tabling an amendment on this matter on Report.
I turn to my Amendments to Clause 64. The Government are putting the current discretionary leave-to-remain criteria on a statutory footing. In principle, that is welcome—except that, in doing so, they have made them narrower than the current guidance. We are taking one step forward but two steps back. I also want noble Lords to realise that very few victims who apply actually get that leave, so Clause 64 falls short of what victims really need. The Government have already recognised the need for confirmed victims of modern slavery to receive 12 months’ support. However, those individuals need leave to remain in order to access that vital support.
My Amendment 170B would ensure that anyone receiving support after being confirmed as a victim of modern slavery would be granted temporary leave to remain. My Amendment 171A would ensure that the leave would be for the length of time that support is being provided or for at least 12 months if granted under Clause 64. Without these amendments, long-term support is a mirage. It is something that confirmed victims who are non-UK nationals desperately need but, without immigration status, cannot access. They will also help the Government achieve their aim of increasing the prosecutions and convictions of perpetrators of modern slavery. Without clarity about their immigration status, victims are fearful, potentially subject to re-trafficking, and hesitant about engaging with the police. Amendments 170B and 171A would enable the Government to be firm on criminals who are profiteering off the exploitation and abuse of victims.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, with his usual clarity, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has introduced his amendments to Clauses 63 and 64. I regard it as one of the privileges of serving in your Lordships’ House to have become a friend of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, over these last 20 years. I not only deeply admire everything he has done on the issue of human trafficking but have seen first-hand some of the extraordinary work he has done with Mercy Ships, where he has given so much of his life and time as a notable surgeon. I have no hesitation today in echoing the remarks he has made to your Lordships’ Committee. I am not sure I can echo the Zulu remarks he quoted, but I think Nelson Mandela once quoted a Zulu saying about “ubuntu”, meaning “brotherhood”, that
“we are only people because of other people.”
In many respects, that goes to the heart of what we are trying to express in these debates and amendments today.
Statutory support for victims in England and Wales during the time they are in the national referral mechanism—the recovery period—which was the subject of Amendments 156A and 156B, which I spoke to earlier, is long overdue. We are seven years behind Northern Ireland and Scotland, and I welcome the Government catching up with the rest of the UK. I would like to say with the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, in hearing distance that I deeply admire what he managed to achieve in Northern Ireland, and I look forward to hearing what he has to say about his Amendment 171B, which, again, I associate myself with. Indeed, I support all the amendments in this group.
I draw the Committee’s attention to the current version of the statutory guidance on victim support in England and Wales, which says:
“The Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract operates as a bridge, to lift adult victims out of a situation of exploitation and to set them on a pathway to rebuilding their lives. As such, it is important that no support provided through the Modern Slavery Victim Care Contract prevents potential victims or victims from accessing support they would otherwise be entitled to receive.”
The statement about what a victim is entitled to receive goes straight to the heart of Amendments 169A and 170A.
Under the Bill, what do the Government intend to provide in terms of support? The noble Lord, Lord McColl, said that without support, the Bill simply becomes a mirage—a good metaphor to use. What are the Government going to do to provide support during the recovery period? Will the support be in line with Article 12 of the European convention? Both Ministers talked earlier about the importance of compatibility in these areas. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said, we seem to pick and choose what we want to have compatibility with and what we do not.
The frequently referred to and admirable Joint Committee on Human Rights recently published its review of Part 5 and highlighted that
“clause 63 (new section 50A MSA) does not specify details as to what ‘any necessary assistance and support’ should include, leading to some ambiguity”—
a word I referenced earlier in connection with being in good faith—
“as to whether clause 63 (new section 50A MSA) will indeed adequately give effect to the UK’s obligations under Article 12 ECAT to provide the types of assistance specified in that Article.”
It is worth recording in Hansard what the Committee said:
“The Secretary of State should confirm whether ‘necessary assistance and support’ will include all of the types of assistance listed in Article 12 ECAT”.
We will all listen closely to the Minister’s response to these amendments and specifically on that point about whether the support will be in line with Article 12 of the European convention.
I have also co-signed Amendment 170. As I have already said, the stated objective of the Government’s support to victims is
“to lift adult victims out of a situation of exploitation and to set them on a pathway to rebuilding their lives.”
Who could disagree with that? All the evidence from those working with victims is that this goal is far from completed when a person is confirmed as a victim of modern slavery by the Government. To continue on the pathway to recovery, as the Government themselves have acknowledged, a victim needs much longer support.
The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has been making that case for many years in your Lordships’ House and I have been happy on previous occasions to give him support. 1am glad that he has taken the opportunity provided by the Bill today. If the Minister cannot agree to incorporate this now, will he tell the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and Members of your Lordships’ Committee that, when the putative legislation that was referred to earlier in this area is brought forward, it will at least be attended to then? I am glad that the Government have recognised the need, but they should now act to bring their commitment into a concrete reality.
I also want to touch briefly on the amendments to Clause 64 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, which seek to give victims who are eligible for support leave to remain. It is not just the right thing to do for these individuals, it makes policy sense to ensure that we are able to bring perpetrators to justice. It has been said again and again, by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and others who have re-emphasised this throughout today’s debate. Without evidence from victims, cases are much harder to prosecute. Here is an interesting point: it also makes economic sense.
A 2019 report from the University of Nottingham, which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will be well aware of, on an earlier version of the Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, showed that his Bill was “value for money”. I hope that the Minister’s officials have drawn that report to his attention, so I ask him: why would the Government not support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and give this vital support to victims of modern slavery?
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton, for his kind remarks. For victims of modern slavery, escaping from their exploitation is only the beginning of their journey towards recovery. I will direct my remarks today to Amendment 171B in my name, which would assist victims on this journey.
I have been astounded by the individuals whom I have come across over the years, particularly those who I had the privilege of meeting during the passage of my Private Member’s Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly who have been victims of modern slavery in this country. These victims have experienced extreme exploitation and abuse in this country yet have shown commendable fortitude and strength in their determination to recover from their ordeal. When I consider Part 5, and in particular Clause 64, it is those individuals I think of. It concerns me that Clause 64, if unamended, will make the leave to remain criteria narrower and, in doing so, make vital support for survivors even more inaccessible.
Clause 64 will impact victims of modern slavery across the UK, yet there has been no impact assessment published to date—at least, I have not had sight of it—on how many victims will be granted leave to remain under the Bill, compared to the current numbers. I hope the Minister can address why this is the case and provide a timeframe for when we can expect to see one.
Previously, I had the opportunity to meet Anna, a young Romanian girl who was kidnapped here in London, trafficked to Galway and then moved to Belfast to be sold into the sex trade. This young girl was moved from pillar to post, to be exploited in one place then another. The only consistency she knew was exploitation. When victims like Anna escape from their situations of exploitation, they need stability and certainty as they start their recovery and begin to work through their trauma.
I am concerned that whilst Clause 64 puts discretionary leave to remain measures on a statutory footing, in the process of doing so the Government have made the criteria much narrower than current guidance. In particular, Clause 64(4) would prevent leave to remain being granted to a confirmed victim on the grounds of their need for support for their recovery, if they could receive that support elsewhere—even when the alternative country is not a signatory to the European trafficking convention. The Government have also not set out which countries without ECAT would be acceptable. This restriction is likely to affect EU citizens who have recently become entitled to automatic consideration for discretionary leave if they have no other right to remain, since the Secretary of State is likely to argue that these citizens could receive support within the EU. It sounds very much as if the Government are unfairly trying to skirt their moral duties and responsibilities to these victims. This goes to the point that, contrary to what the Government have said, this Bill is not fair for victims of modern slavery.
Amendment 171B in my name would ensure greater stability by removing the criteria of not granting leave to remain if assistance could be provided or compensation sought in another country. Without this amendment victims such as Anna, upon exiting their situation of exploitation, could find themselves without leave to remain and instead relocated to another country where they may not know anybody, speak the language or understand the customs. This will be disorientating, unsettling and frightening, and it will compound their vulnerability to re-trafficking.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McColl, and Sir lain Duncan Smith MP in the other place on the need for 12 months’ leave to remain to ensure that all confirmed victims can receive support, as proposed in the noble Lord’s Modern Slavery (Victim Support) Bill. I put on record my support for Amendments 170B and 171A in the name of the noble Lord. While Amendment 170 to Clause 63 in the noble Lord’s name applies only to England and Wales, I am pleased to see that steps are being taken to provide statutory support to confirmed victims in Northern Ireland. Through Section 18(9) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015, statutory support is already available to victims with a positive conclusive grounds decision on a discretionary basis.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Paddick has his name to Amendment 170. I know that he—I join him in this—is always pleased to have an opportunity to support the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich. Given that we are now past 4 pm, which, in the terminology of this House, was to be the lunch hour, I will not say anything more on this amendment. I hope that noble Lords can read between the lines.
Similarly, I particularly support Amendment 171A in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, for reasons to which the noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred.
Finally, when I bumped into the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, the other day, I said, “I don’t know what you’re going to say but I’ll support you”. He said, “I thought you would”.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, we have been quicker than I anticipated but what my noble friend said is true; I must admit that I am starving.
I will speak to Amendments 171 and 172 from the JCHR, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. They aim to remove the worst of Clause 64. Leave to remain is important for victims who are vulnerable to destitution and further exploitation without welfare benefits and other entitlements but, according to the anti-slavery commissioner, the number of victims being granted discretionary leave is very low. In 2015, it was 123. In 2019, it was 70. In the first three months of 2020, it was only eight; we do not have statistics for the whole of 2020-21.
Being granted leave can improve mental health by offering stability and thus a chance of recovery, but the equivalent reference to assistance and support in the Modern Slavery Act reads “physical or psychological harm”; that includes social harm. This Bill would put the law out of line with that and raise real doubts about compatibility with Article 14 of ECAT, which uses the phrase
“necessary owing to their personal situation”.
That is wider than what is in Clause 64(2)(a), which is why I commend Amendment 171 to the Committee. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, refer to the JCHR’s report; he also mentioned the importance of family relationships.
Amendment 172 aims to rectify the omission from Clause 64 of any consideration of the best interests of the child so as to make it compatible with ECAT and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. I seem to have mixed up my notes; I am sorry about that because I will now go back to Amendment 171.
In a case last year, the High Court held that refusing to grant discretionary leave while a slavery victim’s asylum application was being processed violated Article 14 of the European Convention on Action against Trafficking. It appears that, before amendments were made in the other place, Clause 64(2)(a) included a reference to the victim’s social well-being as well as their physical and mental health. However, it was removed on Report. Can the Minister explain why? Would the Government like to rectify this omission in the Bill regarding personal, situational and social harm so as to make me, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and the JCHR very happy?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, in the interests of time, let me just say respectfully to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, whose amendments I have signed, that I very much support him and the arguments and points that he made so well. We look forward to the Minister’s response. I pay tribute to the doughty work the noble Lord has done over a number of years to try to move the Government in what many of us regard as a simple and sensible way forward. Let us hope.
I shall speak to my Amendment 171AA. Clause 64 provides for limited leave to remain
“if the Secretary of State considers it is necessary for the purpose of (a) assisting the person in their recovery from any physical or psychological harm … (b) enabling the person to seek compensation”—
unless this can be done outside the UK
“or (c) enabling the person to co-operate”
with law enforcement. The standard, however, does not meet the UK’s obligation to children under the Council of Europe’s Convention on Action against Trafficking. Article 14.2 of ECAT specifies that in the case of children, residence permits
“shall be issued in accordance with the best interests of the child.”
Paragraph 186 of the Explanatory Report to ECAT explains that
“the child’s best interests take precedence”.
Amendment 171AA, which is a probing amendment, simply asks why the Government cannot include leave to remain where children are protected and where it is in the best interest of the child.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, in consideration of the flight of the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, I start by addressing Amendment 171B. ECAT sets clear parameters around when a signatory state is obliged to grant a residence permit to confirmed victims, which is where it considers that the stay is necessary either due to the confirmed victim’s personal situation or for the purpose of their co-operation with the competent authorities in an investigation or criminal proceedings. The Government have gone further than this and provided for a grant of leave not only on both of these bases, but also where it is necessary to enable a confirmed victim to seek compensation in respect of their exploitation.
A temporary leave provision is deliberately designed to allow for leave to be provided for as long as needed, where appropriate. It will be considered on a case-by-case basis and does not set an arbitrary time period. To specify a length of leave does not follow our overall approach of having a truly needs-based approach to addressing victim support. If it is necessary for leave to be granted for longer than 12 months in order to pursue a thorough investigation, or where an individual’s personal circumstances require it, leave can and should be granted.
I turn next to Amendments 169A, 170 and 170A. In Clause 63 we have sought to define the support entitlement during the recovery period for potential victims following a positive reasonable-grounds decision. Amendment 169A, however, would remove clarity on what these terms mean for victims and decision-makers and reduce the effectiveness of the clause in supporting victims. Our approach to the wording of Clause 63 has been chosen specifically to provide more detail on the circumstances in which support is provided, while being in line with our international obligations. Our approach is not to go into detail on the types of support provided for in legislation, as Amendment 170A suggests, but to do this in guidance, the purpose being to ensure flexibility in our approach in future, so this can be tailored to victims’ needs as our understanding of trauma develops. I refer your Lordships to remarks made earlier in the debate that understanding the impact and the effect of trauma on individuals is an ongoing and developing thing.
Further to this, and in response to a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, where necessary, all those who receive a positive conclusive-grounds decision and are in need of tailored support will receive appropriate individualised support for a minimum of 12 months. We committed to this in the other place and will consider where and how this commitment is delivered to ensure that it delivers best for victims. More details will be provided in guidance or in future modern slavery legislation, should parliamentary time allow. My noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich has been given that assurance by the Home Office Minister. The Home Office and, in particular, my noble friend Lady Williams are keen to continue working with the noble Lord on the implementation of this policy.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
I thank all noble Lords for taking part in this debate. However, it is quite clear that we will have to have further lessons in Zulu to make sure that things are done. The Minister has raised lots of questions, which will be brought up on Report, where I am quite sure there will be a very lively discussion. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Thursday 10th February 2022
(2 years, 2 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-V(a) Amendment for Committee (Supplementary to the Fifth Marshalled List) - (9 Feb 2022)
Lord Coaker
“(1A) This section may not come into force until the Secretary of State has conducted a review of the impact of subsection (1) and laid a copy of the review before Parliament.(1B) A review under subsection (1A) must include, but is not limited to—(a) identification of any parts of the Trafficking Directive which the Secretary of State considers to be incompatible with provisions made by or under this Act;(b) analysis of the costs and benefits of the disapplication of the Trafficking Directive;(c) the impact that the disapplication of the Trafficking Directive is likely to have on the identification, protection, support and access to wider remedies of victims of all forms of slavery in the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would require the Secretary of State to review the impact of disapplying the EU Trafficking Directive before this section can come into force.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, my Amendments 172B and Amendment 174A relate to Clause 67.
I say at the outset that I do not want to reopen a debate about Brexit, but I do want to reopen a debate about the practical implications of the UK being outside the EU and how it relates to the protection of children and those who are victims of slavery and trafficking.
The Government actively chose to opt into the trafficking directive in 2011, stating that it would send a powerful message to traffickers. The modern slavery strategy of 2014 stated that opting in showed
“our commitment to working with other countries in Europe to drive up standards across the continent in tackling trafficking.”
Can the Minister say what has happened to that and how the Government are demonstrating those continuing commitments? Why is Clause 67, on disapplying the directive, necessary? What the Committee would like from the Minister—which may be difficult to do now as he may need to refer to others before coming back to us—is to explain which specific provisions of the Bill the Government consider to be incompatible with the directive? The Government have not given any detail on this. Is it victims’ rights or children’s rights? In other words, what difference has it made, what was covered and what is not covered? These answers are necessary for us to make a comparison and see whether there are any gaps which we believe would be important to close.
In the Commons, the Minister said that
“the transition period for this measure finished in January, so in effect it has already been disapplied.”—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 2/11/21; col. 547.]
I hesitate to suggest this, but I certainly would not be able to tell noble Lords exactly which bits have been applied, which have been disapplied and whether it makes any difference. Can the Minister provide clarity on this? Are we disapplying it under this Act, or have the Government already decided that it does not apply? In other words, has it just been abandoned?
My amendment does not prevent the disapplication, but simply asks the Government to complete an impact assessment before this part comes into force—including identifying which parts of the Bill are incompatible and, crucially, what impact this would have on the identification and protection of victims of slavery. The Government may have already conducted an impact assessment but if so, I could not find one. If they have, it would be interesting for the Committee to note that. This is particularly important because a Google search finds all sorts of regulations and legislation which have been passed, presumably to protect victims of slavery and trafficking. So, my amendment is a simple probing amendment to ask the Minister what difference the disapplication has made. How do we know it has not made a difference if we have no information about the difference between what there was and what there is?
I do not intend to commence a huge new debate for this Committee, but I want to use this grouping as an opportunity to highlight the issue of internal trafficking and county lines. The Minister will know that large numbers of children are referred to the national referral mechanism. He will also know that 34% of referrals are British citizens. There is a real problem with slavery and trafficking within the UK. Euphemistically, this is called county lines, and we know what that means. This will be the tip of the iceberg. The Government have set up all sorts of initiatives to try to deal with this, but what I am seeking to do is simply to raise the issue of slavery and trafficking of children—British children—within the UK. How big is the problem, what is its extent and what are we doing to get on top of it? People of this country would be shocked at the numbers of British children being trafficked and enslaved. Often, including in the debate we have had on this Bill, much of the discussion has been about people coming into the country—rightly or wrongly—what the numbers are and what the impact of the new provisions will be.
Although this is a probing amendment, it is nevertheless really important. I am pleased to see that the Home Office Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, is now in her place. Perhaps these are issues that should be debated elsewhere, but county lines and internal trafficking are important issues and the number of British children in slavery is increasing. It is a growing phenomenon that is a great shock to us all, and we need to do more to tackle it. I beg to move.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I would like to lend our support from these Benches to both the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. The subject of retained EU law is one on which it is easy to go down a rabbit hole. But at least this is being put in primary legislation instead of being done by the stroke of an executive pen, which is what the noble Lord, Lord Frost—who is, well, I had better not say—who used to be the Brexit Minister, appeared to suggest would happen. So, I suppose we should be grateful for small mercies.
The EU trafficking directive is, in a sense, a classic EU directive. It aims to get common standards as a measure of human rights protection, in order to establish robust provisions to prevent and prosecute the crime of trafficking and to protect, assist and support its victims. But also, the point of trying to get similar standards was to facilitate cross-border co-operation between member states’ law enforcement authorities through police co-operation, exchange of information and best practices, and dialogue between police, judicial and other authorities. Sometimes misunderstood, the whole point of EU harmonisation was to enable things to happen better, not least law enforcement.
I too do not want to rerun the issue of Brexit, but it is hard to see how pulling out of the EU trafficking directive is a Brexit opportunity. It is a lost opportunity to co-operate internationally across European borders with Europol on major crime. I am afraid that major criminals are one of the beneficiaries of Brexit.
It is a great pity that the part of the TCA on security is so thin. Things like the EU trafficking directive deserve a place in it. You can withdraw unilaterally, but that means you do not get the reciprocity of other police forces co-operating when you have criminal perpetrators who come from all over. Of course, we know this is an international crime. The EU directive also enables the pursuit of action in non-EU countries, such as raising awareness, reducing vulnerability, supporting and assisting victims, fighting the root causes of trafficking and supporting third countries in developing appropriate anti-trafficking legislation. That is an action that would rebound to the benefit of EU countries and the UK, if we were to stay plugged in to the EU’s directives. So, I do not see that pulling out is other than a lose-lose situation.
On the other amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, as has been mentioned—I believe this figure comes from Care UK—in 2020, 34% of all potential victims of modern slavery referred to the NRM were UK nationals. So, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is right to focus on that and on the many children involved in county lines drug dealing. We fully support the call for a report on these issues.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 172B, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and concerning Clause 67, disapplies the EU trafficking directive so far as it is incompatible with provisions in the Bill. This means that any provisions in the directive that continue to have effect—I stress that we do not think that any do—and remain compatible with the Bill will be unaffected by this clause. Clause 67 provides an important point of legal clarity to ensure that victims can understand their entitlements, that we are clear on the rights that we are providing and that these are in line with our international obligations. I appreciate that this is a probing amendment, but what it proposes is unnecessary. In future, should it be required and parliamentary time allows, we will consider whether further legislation is needed to clarify other elements of the EU trafficking directive. Here, we seek to provide clarity on the specific measures in the Bill.
In speaking from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench, the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, took the opportunity afforded by this short debate to land some side swipes at Brexit and its consequences, a topic I would be happy to debate with her all night. However, not to take up the Committee’s time, I simply stress that we are not removing any entitlements from victims. I can confirm that this will not have an impact on victim identification, protection or support.
Turning to Amendment 174A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I take the opportunity to reassure the Committee that there are already robust mechanisms in place across government, the police and the criminal justice system for gathering, recording and publishing victim data. There are measures in place for collecting and publishing data on the areas in which the noble Lord is interested and to which he referred in Committee. The Home Office publishes data on potential child victims of modern slavery referred through the national referral mechanism. Anticipating my answer in greater detail to the noble Lord’s point about the need to collate statistics on the incidence of trafficking of British children, the Home Office also publishes the nationality of recorded potential victims, based on information provided by the first responder on arrival. The noble Lord is shaking his head; I suspect he knows these things better than I do but, for the benefit of the Committee, that information may be updated by the competent authority staff as further information is gathered.
Lord Flight (Con)
My Lords, can the Minister say what the contemporary definition of slavery is? We all know what slavery meant 400 years ago, but I find the word used in a way that makes it difficult to assess what it means.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Williams here: the short answer is to look at the Modern Slavery Act. It can involve coercion, which can be occasioned by way of threats to others or by threat to the individual. It can come in many different forms; it can be emotional or psychological as well as physical. It is a pernicious practice that exists among nationals of this country as much as it does overseas. Perhaps, therefore, it gives an insight into the universal failings of the human character. The short answer—I have detained the Committee for too long—is the advice that I gave, for which I was the conduit for my noble friend Lady Williams.
I was about to expand on the fact that data concerning criminal gangs is operational and held by each police force. Adding reporting requirements for this data would, we submit, require a significant change in the way the Home Office collates and publishes data on crime. Changing this reporting approach would be unnecessary since we already publish data on county lines NRM referrals through the NRM statistics publication.
I hope that goes some way to answering the noble Lord’s important concern over how we identify, go to the defence of and offer protection to children—nationals of this country who are the victims of these gangs. Modern slavery offences committed against children are, as I say, recorded and published by the police, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Ministry of Justice. The Crown Prosecution Service maintains a central record of the number of offences in which a prosecution commenced, including offences charged by way of the Modern Slavery Act 2015. All modern slavery offences committed against children are identified through the child abuse monitoring flag. The Crown Prosecution Service definition of child abuse covers any case where the victim was under 18 years of age at the time of the offence.
I reassure the Committee and the noble Lord that a child’s welfare and best interests are the primary considerations in any decision-making—in this Bill and any other. Local authorities are responsible for safeguarding and promoting the welfare of all children in their area, including child victims of modern slavery. In addition to this statutory support, the Government have rolled out independent child trafficking guardians, who are an additional source of advice and support for potentially trafficked children. These have been rolled out in two-thirds of local authorities across England and Wales. The Government remain committed to rolling them out on a national basis.
Given all this, I respectfully request that the noble Lord withdraws his amendment at this stage.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his answer. It was a short debate but an important one. There are couple of things that the noble Lord said in his answer about the EU directive that I think are helpful. It is something I might suggest with respect to the other amendment on county lines.
I think the people who read our debates will be pleased to hear the Minister say that no entitlement will be removed on victim support, protection or identification. I think I have that quote right. That will be helpful because, in the sector certainly, that is what a lot of people have been worried about: that the disapplication of the directive will impact on those aspects. The Minister’s reassurance will be welcome, although, as with everything, we will see how it works out in practice.
It was also interesting that the Minister said that other legislation may be needed to clarify the disapplication of the EU directive in due course—a fabulous phrase. As we move forward, we will see how it goes. Like Clause 67, this is very important. Sometimes, Governments fail to spell out how the disapplication works and what the practical consequences are. So, short debates like this are important.
On county lines and the report, I think that, despite the information being available, the British public have no idea that 34% of the referrals to the national referral mechanism—the body set up to deal specifically with this—are British children. I do not think that people have any idea that it is that high—that is an astonishing figure. Given that 47% of referrals to the NRM are children, this means that a very high proportion of all the people who are referred are British children. So that is the purpose of this.
It is not that the Government are not doing anything. If I had been the Minister, I would have mentioned the co-ordination centre that the Government set up in 2018, which is actually about all of the things that I am talking about: the need for more data, greater co-ordination, greater prioritisation of this work and greater identification of this as a new crime that people have not taken as seriously as they should; the fact that children are moving across county boundaries without being tracked or followed; the lack of statistical sharing between police forces, social services and children’s services; and children ending up on the south coast and coming back to London. All of those sorts of things are what the co-ordination centre was set up to deal with.
All I would say is that the Government, through the Home Office, need to keep their foot on the pedal on this because it is a growing problem. What is happening in our country is an absolute disgrace. Some of the children involved are not even teenagers; they are not even 17 and a half—I was admonished earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for mentioning 12 and 13 year-olds rather than 17 and a half year-olds, which is what he wanted me to say. Some of these children are seven, eight and nine years old. It is a disgrace, which is why I make no apology for bringing this forward in that context. British children are being enslaved and trafficked within our shores. I know that this is a priority for the Government and for all of us, and this has given me the opportunity to raise it, so that the people of this country can hear how bad the situation is and what we are seeking to do to try to address it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“Migrant domestic workers
(1) The Secretary of State must amend the Immigration Rules to make provision for the matters the subject of subsection (2).(2) All holders of domestic worker or diplomatic domestic worker visas, including those working for staff of diplomatic missions, must be entitled—(a) to change their employer (but not work sector) without restriction, but must register such change with the Home Office;(b) to renew their domestic worker or diplomatic domestic worker visa for a period of not less than 12 months, provided they are in employment at the date of application and able to support themselves without recourse to public funds, and to make successive applications;(c) to apply for leave to enter and remain for their spouse or partner and any child under the age of 18 for a period equivalent to the unexpired period of their visa and of any subsequent visa;(d) to be granted indefinite leave to remain after five continuous years of residence in the United Kingdom if at the date of application their employer proposes to continue their employment.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would serve to reinstate the rights and protections that domestic workers originally had under the terms of the original Overseas Domestic Worker visa, in place from 1998 to 2012.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 174, I will leave my noble friends Lord German and Lord Wallace to speak to their Amendments 181 and 183. I received a message asking me to pass on the apologies of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol, who signed this amendment; she is in her place, but I suspect that she is going to make a hasty exit at some point fairly soon. She is of course the bishop with safeguarding responsibilities. I have her speech on my iPad; we are not allowed to read out other noble Lords’ speeches, which is a pity because it is much more neatly set out than the rather scrappy notes that I have.
The very unhappy position of some—too many—overseas domestic workers and the appalling situations that many of them are in were explained very powerfully to many of your Lordships during the passage of the Modern Slavery Act. One of the things that remains in my memory is the thanks that we received after the discussion on the Bill, even though we had not achieved the changes that we sought. A number of women who had been treated as slaves and prisoners but who had escaped and have connections with the charities working in the sector, particularly Kalayaan, were very keen to get us all together after those defeats to say thank you and of course to continue the campaign. They presented each of us with a single flower, which felt very significant.
It was a cross-party effort at that time. At the end of the day, we did not succeed in amending the Bill, but the Government commissioned an independent review into the terms of the overseas domestic worker visa to see whether it facilitated abuse and, as a result of that, made some changes to the visa regime in 2016. I am advised that these remain, in practice, ineffectual. The Government accepted in 2015-16 that workers need an escape route and should not be trapped working for abusive employers, so they reinstated the right of workers to change employers, but it is limited to the time remaining on the worker’s visa, which is kept at six months—so in practice a worker has weeks or, rarely, months, but very little time remaining to find new employment. Of course, most employers need the certainty of having someone working for a longer period. Many workers do not have their passports and they cannot demonstrate that they have valid leave, so automatically they fail work checks.
Lord German (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 181 seeks an exemption from the immigration health surcharge for international volunteers who come to the UK to work with vulnerable adults and children. International volunteers make a significant contribution to the work of UK charities across the whole of our country, particularly in the health, social care and education sectors.
The decision of international volunteers to travel hundreds and thousands of miles to help vulnerable people in the UK is a huge decision and commitment. Though they might get a subsistence allowance and board and lodge, they receive no salary. Additionally, the volunteers have to pay for their visa, insurance and flights. The additional impact of the immigration health surcharge simply adds to the financial burden on these volunteers and the charities they support, with the net result that the UK will probably attract fewer international volunteers.
Beyond the role they play in our domestic work, helping our society, these volunteers often become friends for life, not just to the individuals they have helped but as friends of the United Kingdom, in much the same way as international alumni of UK universities become friendship ambassadors of this country. They have formed bonds of friendship that can pay big dividends for us as time passes.
This amendment has the support of 55 charities and voluntary sector bodies across Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales and England. These organisations are feeling the impact of this surcharge and are seeking an exemption for their international volunteers. One of these organisations is Camphill Scotland, which supports more than 600 people with learning difficulties and other support needs. It works in the social care sector and has the support of more than 300 international volunteers. Without them, the charity would have to curtail its work. The Welsh Centre for International Affairs supports international volunteers, many of whom work with young people in disadvantaged areas in the south Wales valleys.
By way of comparison, if the work of international volunteers was undertaken by full-time paid staff, each post would cost the charities more than £17,000 per year. Volunteers cost charities about £600 plus subsistence, board and lodge. But the volunteers have to pay £625 for a visa, plus now another £230 for the immigration health surcharge, plus their air fares, plus their insurance. As an example, this is what international volunteer Constantin Jacobs says of the problem:
“There will be so many people that cannot afford to volunteer abroad any more, it might not sound like a huge difference for everyone but for young people who have just finished their school or their studies, and who do not have a lot of money, this difference can mean the decision to go or not to go to the UK to spend their voluntary year there. The UK would be much less attractive as a host country. I am sure that there would be many people who would actually love to go to the UK, deciding in the end to go to another country because of this change. This would be very bad for the volunteers and even worse for the organisations in health and social care systems that rely on volunteers from abroad!”
International volunteers are unpaid—not because they are worthless but because they are priceless. If they are priceless, I hope the Government will consider removing this charge from this one special group of people to allow us to continue the work being done and to create such good will around the world.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 183, which I hope the Government may be willing to accept before Report.
Investor visas were introduced in 1994. They became tier 1 investor visas in 2008. Conditions were tightened under the coalition Government in 2011 and further in 2014. Successive Governments, from different parties, have allowed them to continue. Theresa May announced a review of the scheme in 2018, after the Salisbury poisonings raised concerns about the numbers of wealthy Russians resident in the UK, but so far that review has not been published.
The majority of investor visas have been given to wealthy people from Russia, China and central Asia—all countries with high levels of corruption and extreme inequality. Given the FCDO’s recognition that the greatest state threats to the UK come from Russia and China, this does not fit easily with the Prime Minister’s aspirations for “global Britain”. It has been reported that more than 6,000 golden visas—half of those ever issued—are now being reviewed for possible national security risks. Many of those who received them will by now have acquired full UK citizenship.
Two Court of Appeal judgments in the past year have thrown up new questions about the regulation of this scheme and the sources of the finance pledged by applicants. Paragraphs 49 to 52 of the Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report, now published over three years ago and to which the Government have been extremely slow to respond, let alone to implement its recommendations, say that
“the UK has been viewed as a particularly favourable destination for Russian oligarchs and their money. It is widely recognised that the key to London’s appeal was the … UK’s investor visa scheme … The UK welcomed Russian money, and few questions—if any—were asked about the provenance of this considerable wealth … What is now clear is that it … offered ideal mechanisms by which illicit finance could be recycled through what has been referred to as the London ‘laundromat’. The money was also invested in extending patronage and building influence across a wide sphere of the British establishment … there are a lot of Russians with very close links to Putin who are well integrated into the UK business and social scene … This level of integration … means that any measures now being taken by the Government are not preventative but rather constitute damage limitation … It is not just the oligarchs either: the arrival of Russian money resulted in a growth industry of enablers—individuals and organisations who manage and lobby for the Russian elite in the UK. Lawyers, accountants, estate agents and PR professionals … To a certain extent, this cannot be untangled and the priority now must be to mitigate the risk”.
After warning about the extent of illicit Russian financial activity in the UK, including extensive donations to political parties, the report states in paragraph 56:
“One key measure would be an overhaul of the Tier 1 (Investor) visa programme—there needs to be a more robust approach to the approval process for these visas.”
So far, the Government’s published response to the ISC report makes no reference to this recommendation. If this has been true for Russians, it has also been true for Kazakhs, Azeris, Malaysians and Chinese. The Government recently made a great fuss about a British citizen with close links to the Chinese state and the funds she had donated to a Labour MP. It is surprising that they have so far made much less fuss about our resident Russian-linked community.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very strong case, but I rise to strongly support Amendment 174, to which I have added my name. I am grateful to my friend Professor Fiona Williams, an important researcher on this issue, and Kalayaan, to whom I pay tribute for all their work on behalf of migrant domestic workers and for their briefings.
As we have already heard, it is clear that the 2016 reforms are not working. Rather than listening to overseas domestic workers and reinstating the original ODW visa, the 2016 changes ignore the need for workers to be able to exercise their rights before exploitation escalates. Support organisations such as Kalayaan and Voice of Domestic Workers report the bind in which the current situation leaves many such workers. Do they risk leaving before abuse escalates? If this abuse does not equate to trafficking, they could be left destitute, without a reasonable prospect of finding work and without access to public funds or legal aid to challenge mistreatment. The desperate need to remit money to one’s family and pay off debts means that workers may not feel able to risk leaving exploitative labour situations.
Professor Williams argues that key to understanding the problems faced has been the shift from placing ODW protection within an employment and immigration rights frame to a trafficking frame. The problem with the latter is that it puts the onus on the worker to prove that they have been trafficked when their exploitation may come from daily infringements of what should be their rights as workers. It leaves them more vulnerable to these infringements, not less.
Kalayaan has given me a recent case study that exemplifies the problem. I will go into some detail because it makes the case rather well. Jenny—not her real name—is from the Philippines. She comes from a poor family but, having won a scholarship to train as a teacher, she was unable to finish her training for various reasons. She later married and gave birth to a daughter who caught an aggressive form of pneumonia, which needed specialist costly private treatment. Jenny and her husband had to borrow money to pay for it. Their joint income could not cover the loan repayments, which prompted Jenny to look for work abroad.
Jenny moved to Lebanon to work as a cleaner. Her employer gave birth to a third child; Jenny was instructed to look after the baby as well as continue her cleaning duties, which was not in her contract. She worked longer hours than expected and was on the go and on call for much of the day. She had wanted to return home at the end of her first contract but was persuaded to stay when the family relocated to London. She was offered shorter working hours and pay at the national minimum wage.
Jenny arrived in the UK last year on a visa. In contravention of UK published policy, she was issued no information on her rights as a worker in the UK, either during the visa application process or on arrival. She worked the same long hours as before and, although she was paid a little more than in Lebanon, her hourly rate was less than half the national minimum wage. Her employer told her that she would be arrested if she left. Nevertheless, she did leave because she was exhausted from her long working hours for pay less than she had been promised.
Jenny approached Kalayaan when her visa had two weeks before it expired, having only just heard of the organisation. Kalayaan explained to her that her visa was non-renewable and that while she had permission to work in the UK, it would only be while her visa remained valid—for the next two weeks—after which she would be subject to the UK’s hostile/compliant environment for migrants. On the basis of Kalayaan’s assessment, it did not consider Jenny to be a victim of trafficking or slavery, so could not refer her to the NRM.
It is worth noting here that even cases that Kalayaan has judged appropriate for NRM referral are frequently turned down on the grounds that, while the working conditions may have breached employment terms, they do not constitute trafficking or slavery. Yet calls for the reinstatement of the original ODW visa are repeatedly met with the response that workers who have suffered abuse can avail themselves of the NRM.
Despite experiencing labour law violations, Jenny’s right to change employer was in practice of no use to her, given that she was not allowed to renew her visa. Had she entered the UK on the original kind of ODW visa, she would have remained visible to the authorities by renewing her visa annually, while contributing in taxes and visa renewal fees. Jenny’s case underlines how unhelpful it is to require maltreated migrant domestic workers to fit themselves into the slavery or trafficking frame, and how their rights would be better protected through the restoration of the original ODW visa.
Professor Williams also argues that the issue should be seen in an international context, where there have been very important advances in employment rights for domestic workers. In particular, ILO Convention 189 on domestic workers has been ratified by 35 countries—but not the UK. Ironically, when the convention was voted on, the UK Government abstained on the grounds that the UK already had a progressive policy—the OWD visa—which they then went on to withdraw. Will the Government therefore now rethink their position and restore the ODW visa without further delay?
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 183 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, which I am cosponsoring along with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, and the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. I do not always agree with the Lib Dems, but I think the noble Lord’s arguments were very powerful and need to be listened to. The effect of this route is to sell permanent residence in the UK, and later even citizenship, to anyone who turns up with a couple of million to spare, with no questions asked about where that money came from. It is an extraordinary outcome. I can see why one might have thought this was a good idea initially, but it has turned into a nonsense.
As the Committee may know, this route is for individuals able to make an investment of £2 million. The applicant does not need a job offer or sponsor, and the visa includes all immediate family members. The tier 1 investor visa is initially granted for three years and four months and can then be extended for another two years by providing evidence of an investment of the required amount. The funds must be invested in UK gilts, bonds and equities only—of course, the money can be taken out of those afterwards, so it is a very convenient little entry for your money.
Currently, if you invest—so called—£2 million, you will get your permanent residence in five years; if you have £5 million to spare, it is three years; and if you have £10 million in your pockets, it is two years. The whole thing is just absolutely absurd, frankly. Indeed, between 2008 and 2020 it has led to a total of more than 12,000 such visas being issued. There is not even any economic benefit to the UK in this. According to Sir David Metcalf, a former chair of the Migration Advisory Committee, in 2014,
“the main beneficiaries are the migrants. Investors benefit from, for example, rule of law, property rights and access to efficient markets. Second, at present, the investment is a loan, not a gift.”
A MAC report from 2015 noted that the main proponents of this type of visas are—guess what—law firms, accountants and consultancies that help organise the affairs of such extraordinarily wealthy investors. There are also speculative concerns around whether this investor visa is being used by criminals. In an October 2015 report, Transparency International UK argued that it was highly likely that substantial amounts of corrupt wealth stolen in China and Russia had been laundered into the UK via this visa programme.
It is not clear what will happen to the tier 1 investor visa under the new points-based system—at least, it is not clear to me—but it seems that it will remain in place. I suggest that a thorough review is in order and, meanwhile, the route should be closed, as set out in this amendment.
Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am happy to join the noble Lords, Lord Green and Lord Wallace, and others who have brought this amendment. I may not agree with all that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, says, but I share with him a passion for the rule of law and a real concern for our reputation for protecting the rule of law. It is a real irony that our reputation for protecting the rule of law is one of the things that attracts people who have very little regard for the rule of law themselves and come from countries which ignore it almost altogether. I am afraid that this Government and their predecessor have a very inadequate record in responding to the threat of corruption of all sorts, and of course I support the proposals in this amendment.
In 2016, the then Prime Minister, David Cameron made a seminal speech about the importance of stamping out corruption. The Minister will remember the Criminal Finances Act 2017 and what a nuisance I was during its passage. I found it inadequate in a number of respects, including unexplained wealth orders, which I did not consider were nearly tough enough. I also put down amendments to try to persuade the Government to establish a register of overseas entities’ property, in order to try to reveal a great deal more about who actually owns vast parts of London. The noble Baroness was emollient and responded that as soon as parliamentary time allowed, there would be an appropriate response. I was slightly reassured by that. I continued to harry the Government. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Young, when he was a Minister, about the progress of matters. He was reassuring—none more reassuring than he—and said good progress was being made.
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure and privilege to make this trio of noble Lords—of naughty boys—into a quartet led by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, because I strongly support all the points that have been made. On this occasion, I am talking not about people with millions of pounds, but about domestic workers, mentioned in the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Here, there is another financial imperative for the Treasury, because I have long thought that we force people into the black economy because they simply cannot find a legal way to stay here.
I suggest to the Minister that this amendment would at least help a lot of people to come out into the open and pay taxes. If they could extend legal visas, those people would not go into the black economy and extend that uncontrolled area of work.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I support all three amendments in this group and particularly that of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, for two reasons. First, it gives me a rare and particular pleasure to say that I strongly support an amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, among others. His dedication has been remarkable throughout these debates, and this is the first time I have agreed with what he has said.
Secondly, there is just one element missing from the powerful case for this amendment made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. It is partly filled by the remarkable speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, and it is about reputation. The noble Lord said that we have become a laughing stock worldwide but, in America and large parts of continental Europe, it is worse than that. People are not laughing; they think it is beyond a joke. I strongly recommend this amendment to the Minister.
Earl Attlee (Con)
My Lord, I strongly support the basic thrust of Amendment 183 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. I do so having regard to the negative effects of the system of tier 1 visas, both in our own country and overseas. The first undesirable effect of this dirty money is on the economy of London; in particular, the cost of housing being pushed up to unaffordable levels by foreign so-called businessmen seeking secure investments, as explained by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. My noble friend Lord Faulks identified a lack of progress by the Government in this area.
I accept that there may be some business opportunities in meeting the demand and providing both professional and artisan services to tier 1 investors. Personally, I would not want to earn my living from dirty money, in effect stolen from people of overseas countries. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, explained this with his usual skill. Not only do some of these tier 1 investors illegally suck money and assets out of their own country to enjoy in ours but they take full advantage of our well-developed system of justice and the rule of law—JROL. This means that they can keep their assets secure and also enjoy a reliable means of passing them on to their offspring. Of course, they have no incentive to seek to implement any decent form of JROL in their own country because it is not in their interests to do so. The lack of JROL and the negative effects of corruption mean that countries such as Russia, and many developing countries, will never be able to achieve their full economic potential.
For instance, defence equipment apart, I cannot think of any manufactured product that comes from Russia. No wonder it has an economy the size of Italy’s, despite its natural wealth, larger, if declining, population, and vast space. It is not for us to interfere with the internal arrangements of other sovereign states, but if we denied oligarchs, the super-rich and despots of countries without JROL the safety and advantages of a safe landing and base in UK and other similar countries, they might be more inclined to seek to put their own countries in order. This would have enormous economic benefits and other benefits for the people of those countries.
I turn to the problem of Ukraine. It is clear that any invasion by Russia will result in severe sanctions against Putin’s regime, including Russian tier 1 investors in the UK who are judged to be close to Putin. I am confident that the Government are planning such potential sanctions as we speak, although the likely targets will already have taken precautionary action. However, if our worst fears are realised, we should go much further and hit all Russian tier 1 investors, whether they are President Putin’s friend or foe. That way, they might be more inclined to get off their posteriors and put pressure on Putin and maybe even think about improving JROL and press freedom in Russia. Furthermore, this course of action would not adversely affect the inhabitants of Russia.
We cannot continue to allow filthy, dirty money to come into the UK via the tier 1 investor visa route, because it pollutes our economy, damages the economies of other countries, and seriously erodes our soft power position.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Amendment 174 would return rights to people in the UK who are on the overseas domestic workers visa—primarily, the right to change their employer and renew their visa for a period of not less than 12 months. The then coalition Government changed the visa regime in April 2012, so that workers and their immigration status are tied to their original employer, and their visa cannot be renewed past six months. That has caused real concern that the working people involved are tied into situations of abuse and slavery. The cross-party Joint Committee on the Draft Modern Slavery Bill, as it then was, said that the changes to the regime had
“unintentionally strengthened the hand of the slave master against the victim of slavery.”
It concluded:
“Tying migrant domestic workers to their employer institutionalises their abuse; it is slavery, and is therefore incongruous with our aim to act decisively to protect the victims of modern slavery.”
In 2015, the independent Ewins review called for all overseas domestic workers to be given the right to change employer and apply for further leave to remain in the UK for up to 30 months. It found that the terms of the domestic worker visa were
“incompatible with the … protection of overseas domestic workers’ fundamental rights while in the UK”.
Unfortunately, the Government disagreed with the recommendation; instead, they made more limited changes to the Immigration Rules, with the effect that all domestic workers can change employer during their six-month visa, but only those who are found to be victims of trafficking or modern slavery can change employer and apply to stay for longer in the UK. The problems with this limited approach were set out in the Ewins report: they failed to provide an immediate escape route out of abuse; the six-month limit makes it difficult for people to find other employment; and the national referral mechanism requirement means that a person must have taken the step to report, and met an evidential burden to prove, that they are victim of slavery, which, frankly, many are too frightened to do. We certainly support the thrust of Amendment 174.
Amendment 181 would exempt international volunteers from paying the immigration health surcharge, and I await the Government’s response with interest. I would like to know what consideration the Government have given to extending the exemption, and have the Government met charities which have raised concerns about its effect on volunteering in particular sectors, especially social care?
Amendment 183, about which most has been said—with some feeling and fervour—would require the Government to suspend the tier 1 investor visa route, known as “golden visas”, until the review into those visas has been made public. In its 2020 Russia report, the Intelligence and Security Committee recommended that a key measure for
“disrupting the threat posed by illicit Russian financial activity”
is an
“overhaul of the Tier 1 (Investor) visa programme—there needs to be a more robust approach”.
In March 2018, the Government announced a review of golden visas issued between 2008 and 2015. This followed revelations that the Home Office and banks had made next to no diligence checks in that period. According to a freedom of information request in June 2021, the Home Office is reviewing 6,312 golden visas, half of all such visas ever issued, for a range of possible national security threats. Almost four years since the Government announced the review, and as has been said more than once this evening, the findings have not yet been reported.
Many of those who received visas during this period will have been eligible to apply for British citizenship over the past seven years, and it is surely essential that there is full transparency about the findings of the review, including: a detailed breakdown of how many visas have been revoked; how many cases have been referred to law enforcement; and how many applications for renewal or citizenship have been denied.
In the Commons last month, Stephen Kinnock MP asked the following question:
“Six months ago, the Government said that they were finalising their report into how more than 700 Russian millionaires were fast-tracked for British residency via their so-called golden visa scheme. Can the Foreign Secretary tell the House when that long-overdue report will be published?”
The Foreign Secretary’s reply was:
“We are reviewing the tier 1 visas that were granted before 5 April. I am sure the Home Secretary will have more to say about that in due course.”—[Official Report, Commons, 31/1/22; col. 60.]
Therefore, I ask the Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government: does the Home Secretary have “more to say” about this tonight? We are all waiting to hear why it has taken so long to produce this report. In the absence of a credible explanation, one can conclude only that there are some embarrassing reasons that have led the Government to delay producing this report.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thought it might be helpful to slightly unpick the two types of workers—the difference between domestic workers in households and those who work for UK-based diplomats. Obviously they are different groups with different needs, the latter being served by the temporary worker international agreement route, which permits dependants. This is not the only aspect of our domestic immigration system that already provides what the amendment proposes. Both groups of workers are free to change employers; in fact, our existing arrangements already go further than the amendment proposes, and I will outline why.
We do not expect domestic workers to register with the Home Office because we want a worker to be able to leave as soon as their mind is made up to do so, so we must avoid anything that may act as a barrier to exercising that right. Imposing an extra condition now risks undermining changes that have been made for the better. We have already made provisions under which both groups of domestic worker can obtain a two-year extension of stay if they are found to be a victim of modern slavery. I think these arrangements strike the right balance, ensuring that those who find themselves in an abusive employment situation are able to escape it by, first, finding alternative employment and, secondly, encouraging them to report that abuse through the appropriate mechanism.
On the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on overseas domestic workers who are not slavery victims, very similar to the case that she has pointed out, but are actually exploited, the Immigration Rules are deliberately designed to prevent the importation of exploitive practices—for example, they set out that they should be paid the national minimum wage. I hope that helps on her point. I appreciate that the case she outlined seemingly falls between the cracks, but the Immigration Rules are very clear on that.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The fact is that I do not think it is an unusual case; I asked Kalayaan for a recent case study and that is what it came up with. The Immigration Rules are not working in that respect. We have overseas domestic workers who are being exploited but, even when they are referred to the NRM, are told that it is not slavery or trafficking. Would the Minister be willing to look at that again? There is a problem, as she put it, of some people falling through the cracks.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am not going to look at it again but I will perhaps explore it further and see why what is happening is happening. That is probably fair enough.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
Is the Minister aware that, in some countries, applicants choose those families that come to London regularly in the summer, with a view to leaving them after a month or two and settling, legally or otherwise, in the UK? The system needs to be fairly tight to avoid trouble on that front.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Between what the noble Lord has just outlined and what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has just said, that probably explains both ends of the system in different ways.
On visa extensions, although I fully support the noble Baroness’s determination to improve protections for migrant domestic workers, rewinding the clock and reinstating the features of a route that were deliberately removed almost a decade ago is not the answer—probably, in part, for some of the reasons that the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, outlines.
The overseas domestic worker visa caters specifically for groups of visitors who by definition stay for short periods. That visa allows private domestic staff to accompany their employer where that employer enters the UK as a visitor and where they intend to leave together. Approximately 20,000 visas are issued every year on that basis, and the vast majority leave well within the validity of their visa.
The amendment seeks to reintroduce features of the route which were removed for good reason. We must not forget that abuse existed before 2012 and be mindful that allowing overseas domestic workers to stay could inadvertently create a fresh cohort of recruits for traffickers. We must avoid a route that could be used by criminals to entice victims to come to the UK.
Noble Lords have referred to the report, commissioned by the Government, by James Ewins QC, which, crucially, did not establish a direct link between the length of stay and the likelihood of exploitation. Years later, this picture remains. There is no greater risk if a domestic worker is here for two weeks or 12 months, so increasing the length of time that they can stay will not afford them greater protection from being exploited.
I think that the noble Baroness and I share the same objective of the delivery of a safe and appropriate system for a very vulnerable category of workers. However, for all the reasons that I have given, we do not agree on the means of achieving it.
I am aware of comparisons that have been made between those employed in the healthcare sector who are exempt from the health charge and those who come to the UK as volunteers. However, there are very clear and important distinctions between workers and volunteers on the charity worker visa. The route should not be used to fill gaps in the labour market, even on a temporary basis. To answer the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, yes, we have been engaging with charities. The Government think that appropriate immigration concessions are already in place, which support volunteers on this route. The charity worker visa offers a low fee, compared to other work routes, and sponsors pay a lower licence fee, in recognition of their charitable status. While the charity worker route is the main route for volunteers, it is not the only way in which volunteers can be recruited to support the work of charities.
I note the concern of the noble Lord, Lord German, that the immigration health charge might deter volunteers from coming to the UK. Published figures indicate that, for the years immediately preceding the pandemic—clearly the years after that are very unusual—the number of charity visas granted remained broadly consistent. This indicates that volunteers are not being deterred by having to pay the health charge.
The NHS must continue to be properly funded and the immigration health charge plays an important role in that. It has generated almost £2 billion for the NHS since its inception, and it ensures that temporary migrants who come to the UK for more than six months make a direct contribution to the comprehensive range of NHS services available to them during their stay. Those who pay the charge can, from their point of arrival in the UK, use the NHS in broadly the same way as a permanent resident, without having to make any prior tax or national insurance contributions. For those reasons, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord German, will not press his amendment.
On Amendment 183, I hear noble Lords loud and clear. I recall the debate that my noble friend Lord Faulks and I had during the Criminal Finances Bill. I also completely acknowledge the point about those relying on funds that have been illegitimately acquired. It is because of those concerns that we have committed to a review of visas issued under the route between 2008 and 2015. We are finalising the review, if noble Lords can be patient, and we will publish it in due course—I knew there would be a sigh from behind me and in front of me when I said that.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Four years is quite a long time to produce a report. Why has it taken four years to date and why are the Government still in a position where they cannot really give any proper indication of when it will be produced? “In due course” is the cop-out expression for a Government who do not really know.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I will have to think of a new phrase: perhaps “shortly”.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I say to noble Lords that I share their concerns. I will also be writing to the Committee before Report on this very matter. Since 2015, we have excluded investment in government bonds and strengthened the rules to ensure that investments are made in active and trading UK companies. Applicants must also demonstrate that they have a wealth of at least £2 million for at least two years, up from 90 days, or provide evidence of the source of those funds. We require banks to explicitly state in a letter to the Home Office that they have completed all requisite customer due diligence and know your customer checks prior to opening the applicant’s account, and we have increasing evidential requirements where migrants have invested their qualifying funds through a chain of intermediary companies so that the Home Office can better assess the ultimate destination of qualifying investment.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I hope the Home Office has consulted the FCDO on this issue. The Minister will be aware of the report from the Center for American Progress in Washington which argues—and this is the conventional wisdom in Washington as far as I can see—that we are the weak link in the West’s relations with Russia, and the reason why we are the weak link is because of this large colony in London with such close links to Putin.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I acknowledge all the points that the noble Lord has made and agree that there is more to be done here. I do not think anyone could deny that. The Criminal Finances Act was a start and there is more to be done in this space, most definitely, but I think I will leave it there. I hope, with what I have said, that the noble Baroness will be happy to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my noble friends both made very powerful cases. I hope that my noble friend Lord Wallace will forgive me if I make only one comment on his amendment, in fact in response to what the Minister said about banks checking up: I wonder whether the banks check up on the holders of golden visas as often as they check up on noble Lords who are PEPs.
With regard to my amendment, like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I ask why we would have been asked to propose this amendment if there were no problem. I regarded the registration with the Home Office as a sort of olive branch, something that might make the Government feel a little more comfortable. The Immigration Rules are not working because there is not the distinction to which she and I have referred.
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley of Knighton—how is “Berkeley” pronounced? I should know from hearing him on the radio—referred to the financial aspect of this and forcing people into the black economy. It is wider in respect of people who are here irregularly, of course, because it is hugely important. But it is exactly the same as the point made by the Minister that if the situation were changed it would provide a group of people who would be—I wrote it down—a cohort for traffickers, but that is exactly what the danger is now. I am puzzled and disappointed but clearly we are not going to make progress today, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(c) the individual is travelling to Northern Ireland on a local journey from the Republic of Ireland.” Member’s explanatory statement
Under this amendment, persons who are neither British nor Irish would nevertheless be able to make local journeys from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland without the need for an Electronic Travel Authorisation.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, the amendment is in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and my noble friend Lord Coaker. Its purpose is to ensure that persons who are neither Irish nor British would nevertheless be able to make local journeys from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland without the need for an electronic travel authorisation. Clause 71 amends the Immigration Act 1971 to introduce electronic travel authorisations. It provides for a pre-entry clearance system which requires anyone who does not need a visa, entry clearance or other specified immigration status to obtain authorisation before travelling to the UK. This includes journeys within the common travel area; indeed, the clause has been expressly formulated to ensure that CTA journeys are captured.
This system does not apply to British or Irish citizens or those who have already been granted leave to enter or remain in the UK. The system will impact mainly non-visa nationals, including EU nationals, who can presently enter the UK visa-free for set periods. Almost all such persons are presently automatically considered to have deemed leave to enter the UK when crossing into Northern Ireland on the land border. It is believed that new subsection (4) in Clause 71 has been drafted intentionally to ensure that persons who are travelling within the CTA and consequently would not need leave to enter the UK will still require an ETA.
In preparing for this amendment today, I spoke to both the Human Rights Commission and the Equality Commission based in Belfast, which have commitments under Article 2 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol in all these matters. I spoke also to the Committee on the Administration of Justice, and my noble friend Lord Coaker and I spoke to representatives of the Irish Government based in the Irish embassy, who are deeply concerned about the impact of Clause 71 on tourism, not only in the Republic of Ireland but in Northern Ireland —for those people who come in to have a holiday via Shannon and Dublin airports and then move northwards.
It appears that the UK Government intend the scheme to apply on the land border and, so far, are dismissive of concerns raised. This looks very much like it is in breach of Article 2 of the Ireland/Northern Ireland protocol, which deals with specific rights of individuals. The clause shows a total lack of understanding of the border, which has many crossings. The noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, who served in Northern Ireland as a former Minister and was chair of the Patten commission on policing, will be well aware of the geography not only of Northern Ireland but of the border area. I am sure that he would very clearly see the issues involved.
The situation for some time has been that almost all EU, EEA and non-EEA citizens who are non-visa nationals present in the Republic of Ireland can cross the land border freely on local journeys into Northern Ireland without any requirement for prior immigration permission. In some ways, the Bill conflates modern slavery issues with immigration, as well as with the necessities of an economy and tourism.
It has been the case for some time that citizens who are non-visa nationals present in the Republic of Ireland can cross the land border freely on local journeys into Northern Ireland, without any requirement for prior immigration permission. For EU-EEA citizens since Brexit, as was already the case with other non-visa nationals, permission in such circumstances is restricted to entry as a visitor and certain activities, such as work, are restricted when entering the UK this way. However, this system has allowed non-visa nationals resident in border areas in the Republic of Ireland to enter Northern Ireland freely for a range of activities, even visiting family members or for work purposes. I am aware of people who do that; they contribute to the economy in the Republic but have family in the north, and vice versa.
Under this new proposal, non-visa nationals resident in the Republic of Ireland will be required to apply in advance and pay for an ETA before crossing the border into Northern Ireland. It is clear that this will have a detrimental impact on non-visa nationals who need to enter Northern Ireland for activities such as visiting family, accessing childcare, carrying out permitted work engagements and accessing services and goods. This system will also impact the ability of members of the migrant community to take part freely in cross-border projects and programmes. I am sure the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, living in County Fermanagh, will be well aware of these issues for people who are resident or working in Counties Monaghan, Cavan and Donegal.
Concerns have also been raised about the impact of the ETA system on business, health and tourism, plus recreational issues, as it would require non-visa nationals in the Republic of Ireland to obtain an ETA before a visit to Northern Ireland, a fact that has been recognised and raised directly with the Home Office by the Irish Government. This would have an impact on tourism in Northern Ireland, as many people travel via Dublin and Shannon airports and head northwards. Therefore, the Government’s ETA proposal will impact detrimentally on tourism and economic opportunities in Northern Ireland. It will act as a disincentive to people from North America coming northwards to visit the Mourne Mountains in my own area and the Giant’s Causeway in north Antrim, which are both geographical icons. My noble friend Lord Coaker will be aware of this from his time as shadow Secretary of State, when I travelled with him round the constituency of South Down.
In the context of an invisible land border that British and Irish citizens can freely cross, it is eminently foreseeable that many other persons who have hitherto been able similarly to cross the border without any prior permission will be largely unaware of the ETA requirement. There are legal impacts to this. I am a member of the protocol sub-committee in your Lordships’ House. We wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, with a series of questions on 14 January. To my knowledge, we have not yet received an answer. We asked whether she would specify
“who will be required to have a valid ETA, and any exceptions to this; the form or manner in which an application for an ETA may be made, granted or refused; any conditions that must be met before an ETA application can be granted; the grounds on which an ETA application must or may be refused; the validity of an ETA (length of time and/or number of journeys); and the form, manner, or grounds for varying or cancelling an ETA”.
I hope the Minister answering this debate will be able to provide the Committee with some answers this evening and will exhort his colleague, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, to reply to the chair of the protocol sub-committee. I ask again: can the Minister confirm whether holders of a frontier worker permit will be exempt from the requirement for a valid ETA? Will there be any other exemptions or special arrangements for people crossing the land border frequently from the Republic of Ireland?
It would be preferable if ETA requirements did not exist or were not applied when travelling from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland. I understand that much discussion has taken place. I exhort the Minister to give such commitments here this evening. If he cannot, can he give a commitment that the Government are prepared to come back with an amendment on Report to deal with this matter and cancel ETA in such circumstances, because it is utterly crazy? Can the Minister specify what the results of those discussions have been? If the Government do not wish to adopt my amendment, will they bring forward an amendment on Report to deal with these issues?
I also agree with Amendment 175ZA in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. Although it is very much an exploratory amendment, it is a very important one that is allied to mine. I agree too with the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, which I have also signed. It deals with the birthright commitment under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the onus on the Government to report on progress in giving effect to the nationality provisions of that agreement. We should always remember that the Belfast/Good Friday agreement states that people can identify themselves as
“and be accepted as Irish or British, or both, as they may so choose.”
For my part, I hold an Irish passport. I am Irish and I declare myself to be Irish, although I live in the UK—which I freely recognise.
I look forward to the Minister’s response. I thank noble Lords who will speak in support of these amendments, and I hope that the Minister brings us some positive news tonight, or that he indicates what the Government might do on Report.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I will speak in favour of Amendment 175 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, to which I have added my name. I also support Amendment 175ZA, in the names of my noble friends Lord Paddick and Lady Hamwee, and Amendment 186, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti.
I will be brief because I fully support and agree with the very powerful points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. As it stands, the Bill does not give proper consideration to the economic and legal implications for the island of Ireland. Amendment 175 would amend the Bill so that all local journeys from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland, including for people who are neither British nor Irish, could continue to be made without the need for electronic travel authorisation.
I will highlight three areas of concern about the proposals as they stand and would very much appreciate a response from the Minister. The first is the question of legal uncertainty. If the Home Office remains committed, as I sincerely hope it is, to no checks on the land border on the island of Ireland, how will it enforce this new measure in practice? As the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, has said, thousands of crossings are carried out each day by non-British and non-Irish residents in the Republic of Ireland who need to cross the border for work, leisure, family or educational purposes. There is currently no requirement or expectation that people carry passports if they live or work in the border areas. Given the very particular circumstances of the border areas in Ireland, I would be grateful if the Minister could explain how these measures will be enforced in practice.
The second area of concern is how these measures will sit with the existing commitments on the common travel area, as set out in the Northern Ireland protocol. The protocol sets out quite clearly that, irrespective of nationality, the rights and privileges contained within the common travel area will continue
“with respect to free movement to, from and within Ireland for Union citizens and their family members”.
Can the Minister confirm that this will continue to be the case?
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. I had not necessarily thought about saying anything, but she mentioned me in her speech. First, I declare an interest in that we are involved in tourism at home. Secondly, my brother is chairman of Tourism Ireland, a cross-border body that survives on funds from both the United Kingdom and Ireland to market the island of Ireland. Therefore, this particular regulation would make a complete fool of the whole practical implementation of it.
People ought to understand what the border really is—or, in fact, what it is not. We have come through all the Troubles. Before them, we had a border and we had to have certain papers to cross it. Then we all joined the European Union and that side was taken out of it. But then we had the Troubles so, in effect, the border was reinstated, albeit for a different reason. We do not have those border checks now; there is no border under the Good Friday agreement and everything since, including the protocol. That is the way it should be. Whether the noble Baroness and I are supporters of the protocol is neither here nor there; it is about the practical problems raised by this.
Whether tourists from another country cross the border, and who polices this, is of course an issue. In fact, they will not know whether they are crossing it, so it becomes rather ridiculous—on the whole, they do not have a clue. During the Troubles, there was a time when even our own British people—soldiers and police—did not know whether they were crossing it, so they used to draw yellow lines on it so that they knew when they were. A certain part of the population moved the yellow lines, so they still did not know where they were and then there were diplomatic incidents.
I live in County Fermanagh, which is one-third of the border in Northern Ireland. The border does not just affect it in terms of regulations—people cross it not just from day to day but time and time again in one direction or another to do very simple things. I know that you can use euros here if you are pushed, but every shop and business there uses euros and pounds. Therefore, half the time, no one has a clue whether they are in the north or the south, even when they walk into a shop. All the people working there, and of course the ones who are straightforward British or Irish, are not covered by this.
However, a wealth of people who are not British or Irish live and work within a few miles of the border and they do not think twice about it. If you cannot get a plumber very locally—we might get one from further afield anyway—you just ring up the nearest person. We are five miles from the border and he could well be from either side of it, and he might not be an Irish or British citizen.
I entirely support this amendment. I know that what I have said is not technical and I can only be very grateful to the noble Baroness, as we all can, for going into it in such detail because there is very little for us to say, except for the Government to sort it out.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and spoken to by other noble Lords. I was grateful, too, to have been briefed by the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission. I did not need to be convinced of the importance of local journeys for work, education, health services, shopping, frontier workers and so on. I was lucky enough to be a member of the EU Select Committee of the House during the transition period, when we heard direct from people living and working in Northern Ireland about the concerns which the amendments in this group address.
I want to speak particularly to Amendment 175ZA. The points raised in it apply more widely than to the Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland border. I certainly do not want to suggest that there is greater concern about criminals in the Republic than at other borders. I am not quite sure why these proposals come to be in the same group but I understand why there is a concern to get through the remaining amendments. The point is relevant to the border and there is a practical problem, as the noble Viscount just said.
My noble friend Lord Paddick is concerned about checks on the criminal record of an individual, now that we are no longer a member of the EU or have access to SIS II or ECRIS. We have to fall back on the Interpol database, which requires specific uploading of information and is not integrated with our police national computer or with member states’ national systems.
The report of the EU Security and Justice sub-committee on post-Brexit arrangements in that area is due to be debated on 25 February. I know that the Minister will deal with the points in the report then. I was going to say that I was sorry to see she does not get that Friday off, but it is never off for a Minister, is it? The points in it are relevant to Northern Ireland.
My noble friend Lord Oates has Amendment 180, which is not in this group, on physical proof of status. This amendment relates to the points that I know he will make and asks the very pertinent question: what happens when the digital system malfunctions? I am normally a glass-half-full person but that is pertinent to everyone, especially at this land border.
I noted, and think it deserves to be mentioned here, that the Constitution Committee of your Lordships’ House has reported in the following terms:
“The House may question why the detail of the Electronic Travel Authorisation scheme introduced under clause 71 is not set out in the Bill.”
It is because the scheme has not been worked up—at any rate not to completion, as I understand it. The report continues:
“If it is appropriate to make such provision in immigration rules, the House may expect it to be subject to a form of affirmative procedure, at least for the establishment of the scheme.”
The committee is saying much more delicately what I said the other day: we should not be expected to deal with criminal offences, as it was that day, arising from the scheme when we do not know what the scheme is. That also applies here.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick and Lady Suttie, for raising this issue, and I think some very good questions have been asked. I have a different question. In the absence of an electronic travel authorisation, are there problems in enforcing immigration, asylum or indeed criminal law? Can we be reassured that there would not be an incentive for people who want to come to the UK to come in large numbers through the Republic of Ireland? That would be my one concern in trying to address the very real issues across the border that have been identified, and which you see in other countries where you have borders—especially where there has been a practice of having no border.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I will very briefly give support from these Benches to all three of these amendments. They all demonstrate the practical consequences of Brexit. I declare a bit of an interest on Amendment 175—not that I am neither British nor Irish but that I am both British and Irish. In fact, I have been Irish from birth without for a long time realising it, but I have now just got my passport, so I am a dual national.
But it makes no sense—and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, gave very graphic examples of how silly it is to try to stop people crossing the border. It is not just about tourism; it is about work and business. Surely it is not in the spirit of the good relationship that we have with the Republic of Ireland, or of the Belfast agreement, or of everything that we want to work, Brexit or no Brexit—or despite Brexit. We want to have very good relations on the island of Ireland. I am not sure how it would actually work, but trying to stop people would be a nuisance, to put it at its mildest, and harmful from every direction.
On the point about the ETA system having to rely on the clunky Interpol system, my noble friend reminded me that we are going to be debating the report from the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, in a couple of weeks. We do not have access to SEIS or ECRIS, or other EU instruments, and this is not good for operating an ETA system. So it would be very good to hear from the Minister whether he has anything positive to say about how to remedy the practical consequences, to use a neutral word, of Brexit, both for internal travel on the island of Ireland and for how the ETA system can work optimally.
Lord Moylan (Con)
Perhaps I, too, should declare that I am both British and Irish since birth. I understand the difficulties locally that potentially arise and have been so well illustrated by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, but I wanted to ask the Minister whether he could put this in the context of the common travel area. Does it really exist in practice as a reciprocal arrangement? I specifically ask because I have never been able to land at Shannon Airport, even on a direct flight from Heathrow, without standing in a queue and presenting a passport—yet when I return and land at Heathrow, I walk straight through and am guided past the passport gates. To what extent is this common travel area being operated by the Irish Republic on a genuinely reciprocal basis? Could it not in a sense be tied up with this issue?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will add my voice of support to my noble friend Lady Ritchie. It is good to have the perspective that she brings to this Committee. Our institutional memory in Parliament, in this place and the other place, with respect to Ireland is not as great as it was. It is a perspective that needs to be brought here more often, so this is an important little debate. I think the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, will agree.
I say to the Minister that, whatever the rights and wrongs of all this—and I agree with what my noble friend said—it plays into the narrative that the Government do not have a grip with respect to Ireland. The consequences of that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, pointed out, are absolutely and potentially really difficult. Even if people are non-British or non-Irish, if they have to have an ETA to cross the border, how on earth is that going to work? Practically, at the end of the day, if it is worth having, somebody will have to check it. I know that it does not apply to British and Irish citizens, but suppose, as a British man, I have an American wife or a French girlfriend; we go to Northern Ireland and somebody checks it—with the history of the police and security forces checking documents. The Government have to wake up to this. Unless the Minister can get up and say, “We’re going to sort this and this is what’s going to happen”, it will drift on and on and the consequences will be potentially really difficult.
It is no wonder that the Irish Government and various organisations across the whole of the UK and Ireland are saying that the Government need to get a grip on this. It is ludicrous. I gave an example. The noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, will know far better than me. What about somebody who for years has lived a mile across the border, has a mixed marriage in terms of nationality—somebody who is a British or Irish citizen married to an American—and wants to go shopping or to a hotel four miles down the road that happens to be in Northern Ireland? Do they need an ETA?
This is one of those things about which people outside Parliament say, “Do you know what you are doing?” Frankly, this is something that is so serious, and all the time we are looking at it we are trying to resolve it. It is difficult. It raises issues that you do not appreciate. If only you understood how difficult it is. Well, I do understand how difficult it might be, and I also understand this: the border, for reasons that we all know, whether it is drawn in Ireland or down the Irish Sea, has consequences that are enormous for the people of Ireland and for people here.
The Government have to sort this out in a way that commands respect and agreement from all communities. The amendment that my noble friend Lady Ritchie has brought before us is important, but I implore the Government: whatever the rights and wrongs of getting into Shannon Airport, whoever is right about whether it is seen as a back-door way of getting into the UK, et cetera—and I should say that the Irish Government have visa requirements as well, which will influence how people come in, so that may be one of the answers —it just has to be resolved. There has to be more than a ministerial, “We understand the importance of this and the difficulties, and that it needs to be sorted out”. The frank reality is that the time for sorting it out was yesterday, not today or tomorrow. It is about time that the Government got a grip of this, otherwise there will be very serious consequences further down the road.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords very much for participating in this short but powerful debate. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and second the point of view of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that you bring—I said “you” again; I am very sorry—an interesting and unusual perspective to this debate. I thank her for that. In answer to the noble Baroness’s question about the letter to my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford, the noble Baroness will have a reply in a week that will outline the details she asked for.
The Government are clear: there will continue to be no routine immigration controls on journeys to the UK from within the common travel area, and none whatever on the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. That will remain the position when the ETA scheme is introduced.
It may be helpful if I explain that all individuals, other than British and Irish citizens, arriving in the UK, including those crossing the land border into Northern Ireland, already need to enter in line with the UK’s immigration framework. I think this goes some way to answering the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about the hypothetical American wife or French girlfriend. I think it also deals with the point made by my noble friend, Lady Neville-Rolfe. For example, visa nationals are required to obtain a visa for the UK when travelling via Ireland, otherwise they are entering illegally. We are therefore applying the same principle to individuals requiring an ETA who enter the UK via Ireland without one.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, referenced Article 2 of the protocol. The Government consider that the ETA scheme is compliant, and they will continue to consider their obligations under the protocol with regard to this. I want to reassure the noble Baroness that the process for obtaining an ETA will be quick and light touch. I am told that it will be not dissimilar to acquiring an American ESTA, which I am sure many noble Lords are familiar with. As many people will know, that is very straightforward and easy. Once granted, an ETA will be valid for multiple journeys over an extended period, minimising the burden on those making frequent trips, including those across the Northern Ireland border. I perhaps should have said that I have had considerable experience of crossing that border on numerous occasions.
In terms of the specific questions on the CTA, as far as I am aware, it has nothing to do with Brexit. It predates Brexit does it not? It goes back to 1923 and partition I think, from my dim and distant memory. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong. All CTA members are firmly committed to protecting the common travel area. I will reiterate this point: even with the introduction of ETAs, there will be no routine immigration controls on arrivals to the UK from elsewhere in the common travel area—only intelligence-led controls with no immigration controls whatever on the Ireland/Northern Ireland land border. Given the tone of the debate, I hope noble Lords will allow me to keep reiterating that point.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank the Minister for giving way. Could he outline to the Committee how these ETAs will operate. Where will the work be carried out? How will people complete the necessary requirements and what will be the cost? These are the issues that the people are asking. They do not want ETAs to be a disincentive to tourism, the local economy or business generally.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness for that intervention. I am going to come on to a number of those points subsequently. In terms of cost, I am told it will be competitive with international norms. I have just referred to the ESTA programme in the States. I looked that up this morning in anticipation of this, and it is currently $14, so it is not overwhelming. In terms of the enforcement, which I think is at the heart of the matter, I will come to that in a second if I may.
There will be no controls whatever on the Northern Ireland land border. Individuals will be able to continue to pass through border control at first point of entry to the common travel area. As is currently the case, individuals arriving in the UK, including those crossing the land border into Northern Ireland, will need to continue to enter in line with the UK’s immigration framework. Obviously, that includes the ETA.
Many noble Lords, including the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, have asked about the impact on tourism. The Government acknowledge that a clear communication strategy is obviously going to be key to tackling any misunderstanding about the requirements to travel to Northern Ireland. We are planning to work across government, utilising internal and external stakeholders and a variety of communication channels to ensure that the ETA requirement is communicated very clearly.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
Can I just make one point? Northern Ireland is the size of Yorkshire. What the Minister is really stating is that somebody who goes on holiday to Yorkshire must not go to a neighbouring county for any reason without complying with this regulation. I am terribly sorry, but this is complete and utter rubbish. It is nonsensical and it is not going to work. What do people do if they go touring in Yorkshire? They tour outside it. If tourists go to Ireland, why should they not simply tour Ireland? No amount of communication will do—I am very sorry—and there is nobody to police it. What the Government are talking about is simply unworkable and disastrous.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank the noble Viscount—sort of. There will be no hard border. As I said, there is not going to be a hard border in Northern Ireland, and within the CTA there is effectively no change.
In answer to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, about enforcement, which was brought up subsequently as well, I have said it three or four times now: there will be no routine border controls on journeys from within the common travel area, which goes some way to answering the Yorkshire example. There will be none at all on the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. Everyone entering the UK, regardless of where they enter from—again, as I have said—is required to meet the UK’s immigration framework. In answer to “What’s the point of having it, then?”, anyone entering the UK without an ETA, or any form of immigration permission where required, will be entering illegally and may be subject to enforcement if encountered during intelligence-led operational activity.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I say gently to the Minister that he has to be really careful with language on things such as conforming to immigration policy and the UK border. The historic context of some of the language that he used means that he has to be really careful when talking about moving across borders or even saying that there will not be a border control but talking about complying with UK immigration policies.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I completely understand the point that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is making. I promise him that I am sticking very closely to the script. I am well aware of that.
I think I have dealt with most of the questions, albeit probably not to noble Lords’ satisfaction. What I cannot do, I am afraid, is commit to coming back on Report with anything, but obviously I am going to reflect very carefully on the tone of this debate—to go to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker—and take that back to the department.
Turning to Amendment 175ZA, I assure the House that the Government will conduct robust identity and suitability checks before granting an ETA. We will use the information supplied in the ETA application form to check against our watchlist system. However, as I am sure the noble Lord and the noble Baroness will understand, I cannot go into details of the exact checks that applicants will undergo or how those checks will be conducted, as to do so could undermine our ability to secure the UK border. Such a detailed commentary could provide those people whom we want to prevent from travelling to the UK sufficient information to attempt to circumvent our controls, undermining the very objective of the ETA scheme and the wider universal permission-to-travel requirement to enhance the security of our border.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked about what has happened since we left the European Union and lost access to the European Criminal Records Information System and the Schengen Information System. The UK participated only in the law enforcement aspects of SIS II, meaning that we could not, and did not, use SIS II information for immigration purposes. Therefore, having returned to the Interpol channels, we are now routinely exchanging information with EU member states on persons of interest, including missing and wanted individuals, and on lost and stolen documents. Moreover, through the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, we continue to share criminal records with the EU for law enforcement purposes, including to assist criminal proceedings and for public protection. This is almost identical to the arrangement that we had under ECRIS as an EU member state.
I assure noble Lords that the confirmation of an individual’s status prior to travel will be a matter for the Home Office and their carrier. The onus will not be on the individual to produce evidence of their status to a carrier; instead, carriers will be expected to check and confirm with the Home Office that an individual has an appropriate permission before they bring them to the UK. It is our long-term ambition for all carriers operating scheduled services across all modes—air, rail and maritime—to use interactive advance passenger information, or iAPI, systems to provide passenger information to the Home Office in advance of travel. In return, passengers will receive confirmation of permission to travel prior to boarding.
iAPI is already a well-established mechanism used around the world, particularly by other countries that already operate travel authorisation schemes. None the less, the Home Office will undertake rigorous systems testing to ensure that our messaging to carriers works before the scheme goes live. We expect the likelihood of a technical malfunction occurring to be negligible.
In the unlikely event that a technical malfunction does occur—
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
I wanted to ask my noble friend about what happens when there is a technical malfunction, but I think he was going to answer that question. Having been caught out when the ESTA system went down when I was trying to go to California, I ended up missing my flight and having to go via Seattle, which took another eight or nine hours. It is important to have strong technical systems if you are going to rely on them, but it may be that there is a waiver or some arrangement that can be introduced.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I completely agree with my noble friend: obviously it is important to have well-established protocols in place if such a thing happens. I can assure noble Lords that the Home Office will ensure that passengers are not disproportionately impacted or prevented travelling to the UK. As is already set out in Clause 72, we will not penalise carriers where, due to a Home Office systems outage, it is not possible for them to establish an individual’s status.
On Amendment 186, the Government are steadfastly committed to the Belfast agreement and the two distinct birthright provisions in it: the right to identify and be accepted as British, Irish or both; and the right to hold British and Irish citizenship. In recognising the birthright of the people of Northern Ireland in respect of identity and confirming their birthright in respect of citizenship, the Belfast agreement is clear in guaranteeing that these rights already exist. It expressly and clearly said how and where the law should be changed in many areas but it made no such stipulation on this particular matter of identity.
This amendment would require the Home Secretary to propose stipulating a particular view of identity in law. Doing so would risk impinging on the freedom of the people of Northern Ireland to choose what their identity means to them. It would also amount to treating an integral part of the United Kingdom differently. The Government cannot accept such a proposition; nor can they accept an amendment that is contrary to the intention of the Belfast agreement.
I am aware that some of these answers have not satisfied noble Lords. As I said, I will reflect the tone of this debate back to the Home Office very carefully. I am also aware that I have not answered my noble friend Lord Moylan’s question about reciprocity; I am sure that he will forgive me for not even attempting to do so.
I invite the noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate from across the Committee. I say to the Minister that I happen to agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough: the proposal in Clause 72 is a nonsense and will be unworkable, not because people will not want it work but because it will be dysfunctional both physically and operationally. It will act as a disincentive to tourism and business, as well as to societal arrangements because many non-Irish and non-British people who live in the Republic of Ireland have family in Northern Ireland. There will be preventions there.
I urge the Minister to reflect on all the contributions that have been made today in his discussions with the Home Office. Again, I suggest that we will probably come back on Report with a further amendment on this issue because we do not want impediments placed in the way of our tourism industry, our economy, our business and the normal day-to-day travel of people who live on both sides of the land border, which is largely invisible as it stands. Noble Lords who have travelled a lot will know exactly what we are talking about.
For those reasons, I rather reluctantly beg leave to withdraw my amendment but reserve the right to bring it back on Report.
Baroness Hamwee
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the short point that my noble friend Lord Paddick wanted to make, as he generally does, in leaving out Clause 74(3) is that, again, this seems to conflate immigration and terrorism. It extends powers to question people about involvement in terrorism at the border and applies the powers to people being detained under a provision of the immigration Acts, and so on. The objection runs like a thread through the Bill, to so many points. Immigration and terrorism are not the same. Not all terrorists are immigrants. Terrorists who have succeeded in the UK have been British, and if the Government allow, in legislation, the bias implied by the conflation of these two, no wonder others display the same bias. I beg to move.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
This clause would extend the use of Schedule 7 to the Terrorism Act to people who have been detained under the immigration Acts and transported outside of a port or border area. Schedule 7 can be an important tool in the prevention of terrorism, but it has had a chequered past at times. It has been improved in recent years by the work of independent reviewers of terrorism legislation, two of whom we are now fortunate to have as Members of this House.
I have three or four questions for the Government on the provisions of Clause 74. Have the Government consulted on the extension of the power? Has the change been requested and, if so, by whom or by what body? Can the Minister give more detail on the scale of the problem this is designed to address? How many individuals are officers unable to stop and question under the current arrangements? How was the period of five days arrived at? For those who travel through conventional routes, does not the power have to be used pretty much immediately, in which case five days is a considerable extension? Finally, the powers apply provided an officer “believes” that the person arrived at sea, was apprehended within 24 hours of arrival, and it has been no more than five days since they were apprehended. What will that “belief” that the officer is required to have be based on? It would be helpful if the Government could give some responses to those questions.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank both Members of the Committee for their remarks. Schedule 7 examinations have been instrumental in securing evidence to convict terrorists, yielding intelligence to detect terrorist threats and supporting the disruption or deterrence of terrorist activity. Currently, officers may exercise Schedule 7 powers only when an individual is located within a port or border area as defined in the Act. Clause 74 will provide an added layer of protection to the existing processes in place for dealing with those who arrive irregularly by sea in the UK. I think that goes some way to answering the question of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser—they are arriving irregularly outside of ports. The Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, Jonathan Hall QC, has stated:
“In principle, people arriving irregularly in the United Kingdom should be liable to counter-terrorism examination as much as those arriving at sea ports and airports.”
This clause ensures that, for those arriving irregularly by sea, such as via illegal channel crossings, this will continue be the case.
There are several reasons why those who engage in illegal channel crossings can be moved to a different location from their place of arrival very quickly after arriving. They can range from weight of numbers to the need to move the vulnerable or those in need of medical attention to more appropriate facilities. It is impractical and inhumane to keep large groups of people port side in order to give counterterrorism police an appropriate opportunity to exercise their current powers under Schedule 7.
I reassure noble Lords who tabled the amendment that this is by no means an attempt to treat all migrants arriving in this manner as terrorists, or to stop and examine large numbers of people away from ports and borders. Schedule 7 is not designed and cannot be used as a universal screening mechanism, and Clause 74 has been deliberately drawn to provide an appropriate time window for counterterrorism police to exercise their powers under Schedule 7.
To remove the effect of Clause 74 would impact our ability to determine whether those who are entering the UK in this way are involved in terrorism, impacting our national security. It would continue a scenario where those who arrive in the UK by conventional means are subject to powers to determine involvement in terrorist activity, whereas those who have arrived irregularly by sea, and about whom we have very little documented information, may not be.
I cannot answer precisely who has been consulted on this, other than the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Legislation, and obviously the counterterrorism police will have a keen interest in how this debate develops. To answer on the numbers, this concerns those arriving irregularly by sea, outside established ports, under the existing rules. I could not tell you how many there are. The other questions impinge on operational matters, on which I am not qualified to comment. I therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the Minister said there is a deliberate time limit to these powers. I may be reading this wrong, but they apply to
“the period of 5 days beginning with the day after the day on which the person was apprehended”.
It is not five days from entry or arrival. I am not sure whether that would alter those points that the Minister suggested we take into account. But, since we are not even half way through the groups of amendments, I had better just beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has her name to the opposition to Clause 76 standing part of the Bill. I am happy to pick this up briefly, as she has had to leave.
Clause 76 gives the tribunals a charging power in respect of wasted resources. I do not know whether it is aimed at lefty, liberal lawyers, a group to which I would be proud to belong, although I do not think I quite qualify—lefty maybe, liberal certainly, but I am an ex-lawyer.
I am trying to read my notes, but I cannot understand what I wrote last night.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
Perhaps while the noble Baroness looks at her handwriting, as a lefty, liberal lawyer, I say briefly to the Minister that the immigration and asylum system is the most unlevel playing field in our legal system. Tribunals were set up, as the Minister will remember, with the aim of people being able to represent themselves, not as places for expensive lawyers.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Monday 28th February 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-R-I(Manuscript) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (28 Feb 2022)
16:10 - Division on Amendment 1 - Ayes: 237 / Noes: 154 - Amendment 1 agreed.
18:42 - Division on Amendment 20 - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 173 - Amendment 20 agreed.
19:15 - Division on Amendment 24 - Ayes: 218 / Noes: 140 - Amendment 24 agreed.
20:33 - Division on Amendment 28 - Ayes: 204 / Noes: 126 - Amendment 28 agreed.
“Provision for Chagos Islanders to acquire British nationality
(1) Part 2 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (British overseas territories citizenship) is amended as follows.(2) After section 17H (as inserted by section 7), insert—“17I Acquisition by registration: descendants of those born in British Indian Ocean Territory(1) A person is entitled to be registered as a British overseas territories citizen on an application made under this section if they are a direct descendant of a person (“P”) who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of P’s birth in the British Indian Ocean Territory or, prior to 8 November 1965, in those islands designated as the British Indian Ocean Territory on that date.(2) An application under this section must be made before the date specified in subsection (3).(3) The specified date means—(a) in the case of a person aged 18 years or over on the date of coming into force of this section, five years after the date of coming into force of this section, or(b) in the case of a person under the age of 18 years on the date of coming into force of this section or born within 4 years of that date, before they reach the age of 23 years.(4) A person who is being registered as a British overseas territories citizen under this section is also entitled to be registered as a British citizen.(5) No charge or fee may be imposed for registration under this section.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would allow anyone who is descended from a person born before 1983 on the British Indian Ocean Territory to register as a British overseas territories citizen. They may also register as a British citizen at the same time. Both applications would be free of charge. The application must be submitted within 5 years, or in the case of a minor born before the date of coming into force or born within 4 years of that date, before they reach 23 years old.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 1, I am grateful to my fellow signatories; to BIOT Citizens and Chagossian Voices for their assistance; to the APPG on the Chagos Islands, of which I am a member; and to all those noble Lords from across the House who supported a similar amendment in Committee. The breadth and strength of that support reflected the recognition that this amendment is about rectifying a long-standing injustice in citizenship law, just as earlier, welcome clauses in the Bill do.
The injustice that Amendment 1 addresses concerns the descendants of Chagossians, who were all evicted from their homeland by the British Government to make way for a US airbase back in the 1960s and early 1970s, and who remain exiled. Those descendants are now denied the right to register as citizens, which they would have had were they still resident in their homeland. The reason they are denied that right is because they are no longer so resident, but that is because they have been exiled from that homeland by the British Government.
The amendment would simply end the “appalling injustice”, as Conservative MP Henry Smith put it. To allay government concerns about the open-ended nature of his Commons amendment, which received considerable support, this one applies a five-year time limit for registration. The consequences of the injustice include broken families, divided communities, insecurity for those living here who are undocumented, hardship and the aggravation of the trauma associated with exile.
To give one example, provided to me by Chagossian Voices, S, born in Mauritius, is the son of a Chagossian who is British by descent and is now in exile in Crawley. S has lived in the UK since the age of eight. When he turned 18, his mother used her meagre savings from her job as a cleaner to apply for his British citizenship; this was rejected, but he was then granted a limited visa, which has now expired. She cannot afford to reapply and fears that her son could be deported at any time. “I am terrified of my family being split up”, she says. This cannot be right.
What this means to Chagossians has been made painfully clear to me in emails I received following Committee, and I think, too, to the Minister, who very kindly met some of us, including Rosie Lebeck of BIOT Citizens last week. In Committee, the Minister expressed her sympathy and empathy, and I believe that she genuinely understands what is at stake here, but that has not yet been translated into the actions needed to remedy this injustice. Instead, she pointed to how some second-generation Chagossians would benefit from the earlier clauses in the Bill, which address discrimination in nationality law. When questioned, neither she nor her officials could say how many that would be—I suspect not many.
The Minister has also spoken about how the Government are looking at what more can be done to help Chagossian families seeking to settle here, but we have been given no details of what that might mean and, in any case, that is to ignore once again the importance of citizenship—a theme running through many of our debates in Committee. She also talked about a willingness to consider how the £40 million fund set up to support Chagossians settled in the UK might be used, but that fund was announced more than five years ago and, to date, I understand that only £800,000 has been spent. Certainly, some of the fund could be used to defray any costs associated with this amendment, but it is no substitute for it.
We come to the nub of the matter. In Committee, the Minister reiterated the Government’s concern that the amendment would be contrary to long-standing government policy and warned that it goes further than the rights available to many other descendants of British nationals settled elsewhere around the world—but how many of those other descendants are settled elsewhere because they have been forcibly exiled by the British Government? None, I would suggest. As a junior Minister in the Commons acknowledged, the Chagossians’ case is unique, yet the Government appear terrified that to concede on this amendment would create a precedent, despite there being no other group in this situation. Why can they not follow the advice of the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner of Margravine? In Committee, the noble Baroness suggested that the Minister needs to make it clear in the response today—it may not be her response; it may be his response—that he or she
“does not intend this Act—a humanitarian Act—to set a precedent”.—[Official Report, 27/1/22; col. 494.]
In conclusion, no one knows for sure how many Chagossians would avail themselves of the right contained in this amendment, but the best estimate, based on a census carried out by BIOT Citizens, is no more than 1,000. That said, this is not a question of numbers but of finally putting right what everyone accepts is an injustice. I hope that we will take the opportunity provided by the Bill to end this injustice. If the Minister does not accept the proposed new clause or offer to come back with an alternative at Third Reading, I shall beg to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, as vice-chair of the All-Party Group on the Chagos Islands, I will add one brief point to the amendment so persuasively moved by my noble friend. If resettlement had taken place following the High Court ruling of November 2000 that the ordinance banning the Chagossians’ return was unlawful, it would have much reduced the need for an immigration route to the UK. Her Majesty’s Government should lift that ban immediately, in addition to accepting my noble friend’s amendment. The recent Mauritian expedition helpfully showed that there is no reason why the Chagossians should not return to their homeland. Some will probably want to do that rather than come to the UK, which would much diminish the apparent problem that the Government have.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I sat as a judge in one appeal on the Chagossians and learned about the disgraceful behaviour of successive Governments of all political views—not, I have to say, the Lib Dems because they were not in power, but certainly the Conservatives and Labour have each left the Chagossians to their fate. One appalling thing they did was take an agreement from them whereby they signed away their rights for some paltry sum, such as £1,500. It is time that at least some of these Chagossians got some rights. As the noble Baroness who moved the amendment pointed out, this situation is unique. Therefore, the Government really should be generous and understanding and do something to repair the appalling damage done in the past by this Government, as well as the previous Labour Government.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I recognise that the Bill removes discrimination against those, including some descendants of Chagossians, unable to claim previously through their mothers or unmarried fathers. But with this amendment we are talking about a limited number of people, in the hundreds—maybe 800 to 1,000—who, as descendants of Chagossians evicted from the islands, will still have no rights to British overseas citizenship and, in due course, British citizenship even with Part 1, even though they would have that right if they had not been evicted. In Committee, the Minister’s only answer was that
“offering this right is contrary to long-standing government policy.”—[Official Report, 27/1/22; col. 497.]
That position does not take into account the exceptional nature of what happened to the Chagossians. No other British Overseas Territories citizens suffered this fate. Chucking out colonial subjects in the modern age was also, I hope, contrary to good government policy. If an exception could be made for the Chagossians then, one can be made now.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, in Committee there seemed to be some representations from noble Lords who did not know about the plight of the Chagos Islanders; they were hearing about it for the first time. There is so much injustice in the world that it is very difficult to keep track of all the consequences of British and American imperialism, but it is one of the beauties of your Lordships’ House that any of us can table amendments that can be debated and discussed. I say a big thank you to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for debating this issue and for her powerful speeches on this cause. Having had the issue raised in Committee, and now again on Report, no one can claim ignorance of this real injustice. We have to take action. It is time for the United Kingdom to make reparations for forcing changes on the Chagos Islanders. This amendment is the beginning of that process and the Greens support it completely.
Baroness Altmann (Con)
My Lords, I commend the Government, in that this Bill seeks to remedy some long-standing injustices and discrimination in British nationality law. That is why I am so sad that there has been a refusal so far to accept this amendment. The Chagossians are the only category of British Overseas Territories citizens who were expelled and excluded from the British territory in which they lived by the British Government themselves in modern times. I commend the BIOT Citizens group, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and my honourable friend Henry Smith in the other place, who called this an “appalling injustice”. He is right.
As others have said, this is a unique case and it sets no precedent, but unfortunately the Government seem to be relying on the cause of the injustice to refuse to remedy that same injustice. I know my noble friend is sympathetic and has empathy with the situation that these good people find themselves in. In his response, could he explain why the Government are refusing, without simply saying that this sets a precedent? Clearly, it does not. There is no other group in this situation. If there is, could the Government enlighten us as to who that group might be? Knowing that this situation arose as a result of Britain wanting to support the United States in the Cold War, and, at this time, as we face global perils, today would be a timely opportunity to remedy this injustice. It is an enormous injustice in terms of the Chagossians’ lives, but tiny in the scope of this Bill. Action would show that we recognise our responsibilities to people we have wronged in the past.
This amendment is wholly reasonable. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has tried again and again to change the wording to include stricter time limits, accommodate the Government’s concern and reach some kind of compromise. So I hope my noble friend will be able either to accept it or commit to coming back with the Government’s own amendment at Third Reading. Otherwise, I shall, in good conscience, vote in favour of this important amendment.
Lord Ramsbotham (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 1, to which I have added my name. I declare an interest as a vice-chairman of the Chagos Islands (British Indian Ocean Territory) All-Party Parliamentary Group. How do the Government have the neck to condemn others for far less, while at the same time standing condemned by both the International Criminal Court and the General Committee of the United Nations for refusing to allow the Chagos Islanders and their descendants citizen rights to return to their homeland, despite promises that they would be allowed to do so after 30 years? I remember, as long ago as 2013, reading out a letter from a Pentagon Minister to the then Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister saying that the Pentagon had no objection to the return of the islanders to Diego Garcia, being used to having indigenous people living alongside island military bases in the Pacific.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I must correct the noble Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, in one regard: the Lib Dems could have done something about this when they were part of the coalition Government. I am not particularly pointing to the Lib Dems: we are all guilty of the shame of what has happened to the Chagos islanders. All three parties, I am afraid, have done nothing to deal with the dreadful situation the Chagos islanders find themselves in as a result of successive Governments of all parties. I hope that my noble friend the Minister—he is having a hard time today, now having to answer this question as well as previous ones, and I really do feel sorry for him—can offer us some hope in this matter today.
My noble friend Lady Williams explained when we discussed this issue previously that the problem is that what we are asking for runs counter to long-standing government policy. However, the truth is that we ourselves created this situation. Surely, long-standing policy should be flexible enough to deal with a problem which we ourselves created. There is no group of people other than the Chagossians in this situation, and that is why we have to be flexible. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has looked again at this amendment and drawn it ever more tightly, so that fewer additional problems can arise. I commend her on that effort.
We know from events such as the Windrush scandal that issues such as this are a matter not just of law but of how individual cases are handled in Home Office administration. I do not criticise that administration because I know from my own experience as a Member of Parliament how difficult such cases can be to deal with, and I often sympathise with it regarding the decisions it has to make. However, I would like the Chagossian community to be given some particular form of access to government. Perhaps an officer should be allocated to deal with their problems on a regular basis, so that there is a point of contact in the Home Office whom they can go to as a matter of course. I found during my previous experience as a Member of Parliament that this can make a huge difference to those who often simply want to contact in an easy and friendly way people who understand their problems, having been long versed in them.
I hope that my noble friend the Minister can give us some succour on this administrative issue, as well as on the legal matters. This issue is not going to go away.
Baroness Verma (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. This would be absolutely the right thing to do at this time, in order to demonstrate UK leadership. When it comes to long-standing government policy, we are a democracy and we should evolve, and policies should evolve with it. These people deserve our support in being given the right to go back to their homes. If we are to have any standing in the world, let us show that leadership today.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, this is a unique situation. These islanders were forced out of their homes not because of any objection to them, but to facilitate the development of bases desirable, perhaps, rather than necessary, in war. They have done nothing wrong and would be entitled, were they still there, at this level, to the citizenship which the Act gave them. The only reason they are denied it is that they are not now living where they would be, had they been left at home. That cannot in any way be imputed to their blame or against them in desiring to get what they would have otherwise had.
I want to understand what this long-term government policy is. Is it that people who have been damaged by activities of that kind should not be recompensed, or is it some other policy? Unless and until this extended government policy is explained, it is hard to see what sort of policy worthy of the name could be applied to making a refusal in this situation. It is difficult for those of us who are old enough to carry responsibility for what the Government did, but more difficult still to carry responsibility for what the Government are now apparently refusing to do.
If there is anything wrong with the drafting of the amendment—I am not conscious of it, but it may be pointed out—I see no reason why the Government should not extend this until Third Reading and correct any mistake. As I say, I do not see anything wrong with it, but I am always subject to being corrected and therefore I leave that open for my noble friend the Minister to deal with.
The real essence of it is that these people were put out of their homes for reasons that had nothing to do with any deficiency, damage or ill-considered action on their part. Nobody has suggested that they did anything wrong, and I find it very difficult to see why they should not get the benefit of what they would have had if they had not been wronged.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to say a few words in tribute to one of the most remarkable parliamentarians I have ever known and one of the best friends I have had in my time in Westminster: the late, great Tam Dalyell. He was on to this before anybody. He campaigned publicly and in the House of Commons. If he is looking down on your Lordships’ House as we debate this afternoon, I think he will have a thrill of satisfaction having heard the speeches we have just heard, particularly that of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern.
It is never too late to put right a wrong. It is never too late to offer justice to those to whom it has been denied. It is incumbent on any Government who value their own self-respect to put right this wrong. I had to hear my noble friend’s other answers from the Bar of the House. I sympathise with him; he has drawn not one but two short straws today, and he is a new Minister, but he will earn enormous credit from your Lordships’ House if he is able to get up and say, “Yes, this is an overwhelming moral argument. Yes, I accept the justice of it. Yes, I will take it away, talk to my ministerial colleagues and come back with something satisfactory”—although, in my view, this is satisfactory—“at Third Reading”. If he does that, I know the noble Baroness who moved the amendment will be satisfied; she is indicating that she will. If he cannot do that, I hope she divides the House and I will be with her.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I hold my hands up: I am one of those who, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, mentioned earlier, did not know much about this issue before we started this debate. However, I followed it and pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for the way in which she has led this. It is quite clear that it is completely unjust and needs to be dealt with. I hope that the Minister has noted that, while in most debates, many of us around this House and the noble Lord, Lord Horam, will not agree, we agree on this one completely—100%. There is no justification for anything other than accepting this amendment.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, to assist the House to move swiftly on to votes, we on these Benches will try to restrict ourselves to one speaker who will speak for us all, unless we are provoked by subsequent contributions. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, that it is rather unfair to the Minister—particularly as he is a new Minister—to ask him to deviate from his script. However, we agree with my noble friend Lady Ludford and with all other noble Lords.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett has set out the background to and purpose of this amendment. As we know, currently only those born on the islands and the first generation born in exile have the right to British Overseas Territories citizenship and, therefore, to British citizenship. As a result, families have been broken up and communities divided. Some members have access to citizenship rights while others do not.
In the Commons, as has already been commented on, the Government accepted, on 4 November last year during the Committee stage of the Bill, that the Chagossians presented a unique case. By Report Stage in the following month, however, the Government seem to have decided that the Chagossians were no longer a unique case, because going down the road proposed,
“would undermine a long-standing principle of British nationality law … under which nationality or entitlement to nationality is not passed on to the second and subsequent generations born and settled outside the UK and its territories”.—[Official Report, Commons, 7/12/21; col. 258.]
The reason that the small number of Chagossians in question do not meet this condition is because they are descended from people who were evicted against their will from a British overseas territory. That is why they are unique, as the Government have already conceded. They did not leave of their own free will to settle elsewhere: they were kicked out—forcibly evicted. There would be no precedent set by agreeing to this amendment. In effect, the Government are using, in support of their case to deny these Chagossians the right to British citizenship, the cause of the very injustice which this amendment seeks to address. We support this amendment, and it would appear that we are far from the only ones in this House to do so.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for meeting my noble friend Lady Williams last week and for the opportunity to hear further about the issues impacting the Chagossian community. As has been said previously, both in Committee and when my noble friend met the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, last week, and as noted by my noble friend Lady Altmann, the Government empathise and sympathise with the Chagossians about how they were treated in the 1960s and 1970s.
It is, however, important to clarify who this amendment seeks to assist. It is not those Chagossians who were of the generations born on the British Indian Ocean Territory, as they have always been British nationals and have been automatically considered both British Overseas Territories citizens and British citizens since 2002. Similarly, it is not their children, the first generation of Chagossians born outside of British territory, who are also both automatically British Overseas Territories citizens and British citizens. It is also not those in the first generation of Chagossians born outside of British territory, who, as the Chagossian community highlights, have missed out on rights to British nationality due to historical legislative unfairness, and this Bill already seeks to rectify that issue.
This amendment is limited to those in the second and successive generations of Chagossians born outside of British territory who, like all children of British nationals by descent, face a different route to British nationality. For this generation, if they wish to acquire British nationality, it is right that they must establish a close, continuing connection with either the UK or a British overseas territory by lawfully residing and settling there, although I recognise that since the 1970s, it has not been possible to establish such a link to the British Indian Ocean Territory. This must be in line with either the UK’s or an overseas territory’s Immigration Rules. This has also been the case with Hong Kong British Nationals Overseas, who do not have a right of abode in British territory and must complete a period of residence in the UK before acquiring the permanent residence status that is required in order to naturalise as a British citizen.
The points raised by the descendants of Chagossians, who are members of the second generation born outside British territory and who are now seeking to settle in the UK under the Immigration Rules, are often very complex. As the Minister for Safe and Legal Migration has stated in the House of Commons, the Home Office is keen to consider what more we could do to support those families seeking to settle here under the current system.
The Home Office is actively engaging with the Chagossian community to identify practical proposals that would support the second generation born outside British territory in navigating the system. In addition, the Home Office is discussing with the FCDO how the £40 million Chagos support fund, referenced by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, could be used to deliver further support for Chagossians seeking to settle here under the Immigration Rules. Those discussions are current and ongoing, and I had some this morning.
As the Government have consistently stated, allowing entitlements to—
Baroness Altmann (Con)
I thank my noble friend for giving way. Can I ask him to confirm that, had the grandparents of these individuals not been expelled against their will from their islands, these people would now be entitled to the citizenship we are currently denying them?
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I think I have already answered that question. It is to do with the generations born outside British territory, so yes.
As the Government have consistently stated, allowing entitlements to citizenship to be passed on beyond the first generation born outside the British territory, bypassing requirements to reside and settle here by those who do not have a continuing connection with the UK, would unfortunately undermine a key principle in British nationality law that applies to all other descendants of British nationals born abroad.
I recognise that the noble Baroness’s amendment has sought to limit the right to register as a British national to current generations who must apply within a limited timeframe. However, this does not alleviate the Government’s concern that offering this right is contrary to long-standing government policy and goes much further than the rights available to many other descendants of British nationals settled elsewhere around the world today.
I finish by saying that I have listened very carefully to this debate, and I realise I am something of a lone voice.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I apologise to the Minister, but could I ask him to deal with this unique position? There is, as far as we know, no other group of people who have been evicted as they have and have not been allowed to go back. They are in a special position, but the noble Lord is not even dealing with that point.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I can only deal with it by extension, which is to say that it would be contrary to long-standing government policy to even deal with it.
I have listened very carefully to this debate. I have taken on board what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham has said about broad agreement—of course I have, and I will take it back to the Home Office. I will also take my noble friend Lord Horam’s suggestion back to the Home Office about dedicated support within the department, which strikes me as a very sensible suggestion. I am afraid that I am going to earn no credit with my noble friend Lord Cormack, because I invite noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I think it is unusual to have more support from the Government Benches than from any other Benches—and very strong support it has been.
The two interventions really put their finger on how the poor Minister—I am afraid he is making a face—did not address the fact that this is a unique case, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, said. As the noble Baroness, Lady Altmann, said, if their grandparents had not been forcibly evicted and kept in exile, these people would probably still be living on the Chagos Islands and be entitled to British citizenship. It is citizenship that they want. Certainly, the Chagossians who have been in touch with me are desperate to be seen as citizens; they do not want to come through some intricate way of dealing with the Immigration Rules—that is not what they are seeking.
I am sorry that the Minister has not addressed the key issues here. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, described successive Governments as demonstrating “disgraceful behaviour”. As the noble Lord, Lord Horam, said, we all, in terms of our political parties—not the Green Party, but all the others—have responsibility here. This is our opportunity to put this injustice right. I wish to seek the opinion of the House.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, the Minister has said that he would take it back. It may well be that if he takes it back—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
The Minister said that he would take it back, but not with a view to bringing it back at Third Reading. Therefore, I must test the opinion of the House.
Lord Russell of Liverpool
“(1A) In section 1 (acquisition by birth or adoption), in subsection (5)—(a) in paragraph (a), for “minor” substitute “person”, and(b) after paragraph (b), for “that minor shall” substitute “that person or minor (as the case may be) shall”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to bring British nationality law in line with adoption law in England and Wales. In those nations, an adoption order made by a court may be made where a child has reached the age of 18 but is not yet 19. Yet such an adoption order currently only confers British citizenship automatically where the person adopted is under 18 on the day the order is made.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, your Lordships will be delighted to know that I will be extremely brief in moving Amendment 2. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who moved this amendment in Committee in my absence when I was laid low by some lurgy that has thankfully now gone. I declare that I am a governor of Coram, the children’s charity; this includes the Coram Children’s Legal Centre and CoramBAAF, which has been quite involved in briefing for this amendment. I am pleased to tell the House the good news that, amazingly, we have made some progress between Committee and Report.
The amendment highlights an anomaly in that British nationality law is not in alignment with adoption law in England, Wales and Scotland. A very small number of children have fallen foul of a Catch-22 situation whereby the automatic right to UK nationality has been denied them. This is because, while the adoption proceedings began before their 18th birthday, the adoption was not ratified until after. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, Edward Timpson from the other place, the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, the two parts of Coram that I referred to earlier and I have been working with the Minister and her colleague in another place—Kevin Foster, the Minister with responsibility for this area—and we are pleased to be able to say that we seem to have found a way through this situation. This was outlined in a letter sent to Edward Timpson and me this morning. We look forward to the Minister replying in as much detail as possible when winding up.
The Government are proposing to deal with these cases through using Clause 7 in the Bill, putting in place detailed guidance—I quote from the letter—to
“help caseworkers assess applications fairly and consistently and to provide applicants with guidance when applications are likely to be granted.”
The letter continues:
“We are still in the process of developing guidance but, given that you would understandably want assurances on this, I will place a copy of this letter in the Library of the House confirming this intention.”
I am most grateful to the Minister and his Home Office colleagues for their co-operation and at least their willingness to listen. However, I have some questions arising from the letter, to which I would be grateful for answers, either at the Dispatch Box or, if that is not possible, in writing as soon as possible hereafter.
First, in Clause 7, would adopted children—the examples in subsection (2) do not include adoption—come under
“(a) historical legislative unfairness” or
(b) an act or omission of a public authority, or
(c) exceptional circumstances”?
Would the Government consider putting adopted children over 18 in primary legislation as an exceptional circumstance? This would be more secure than guidance, which could be changed without parliamentary scrutiny.
The letter mentions any delays that were beyond the parent/child’s control. If this means delay of the adoption, it seems to suggest that there is an obligation to adopt before the 18th birthday. This is not in line with current adoption law. The letter says that new guidance will be
“subject to there not being any adverse factors”.
While I understand that this is meant to cover situations where, for example, the individual might have a history of offending, what about a real-life example where the child being adopted has no immigration status? This is in no way, shape or form the child’s fault. Would this be held against them as an adverse factor? Surely not, so clarification on that would be appreciated.
I expect that I am primarily going to leave this debate open to those noble Lords discussing Amendment 21. I hope that the Minister will be able to give as full and comprehensive an answer as possible when he winds up. We shall listen to, and subsequently read, what he says with great care. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I do not want to take the time of the House other than to say, with thanks for the letter, that I hope the Minister will accept that discretionary registration is qualitatively different from automatic citizenship, which is what we have been seeking, and understand my concern that the letter uses terms such as addressing
“exceptional cases in a flexible and proportionate way”.
This is vaguer than one would wish to see and a situation which I am sure is nobody’s fault but one of those unintended consequences of legislation not aligning.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, has reached agreement with the Government. I wish I could say the same.
I will speak to Amendment 21 to Clause 10, which requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied that a child aged between five and 17 cannot reasonably acquire another nationality in order to be registered under the stateless child provisions. The Government allege that parents were deliberately not registering the birth of their children and acquiring citizenship of the parents’ home country to wrongly claim British citizenship, by falsely claiming their children were stateless. We believe this clause should be taken out of the Bill.
In Committee the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, provided, at column 548, figures of five cases of this route being used in 2010, which peaked at 1,775 cases in 2018. The Minister concluded “I rest my case”, but this raised further questions: for example, were those 1,775 cases in 2018 the number of stateless children born in the UK who were granted British citizenship in total, legitimately or otherwise, or the number where parents had deliberately chosen not to register their child’s birth to take advantage of the system? The Minister assumed it was the latter but said that she would write, and she did so on Friday.
In Committee, I specifically asked the noble Baroness whether the 1,700 odd cases in 2017 that she referred to were the total number of stateless children granted UK citizenship, or the number of cases of deliberate abuse of the system that Clause 10 purports to tackle. The Minister replied:
“I assume … the latter, but I will write to the noble Lord with the details of the figures I have here”.—[Official Report, 27/1/22; col. 550.]
However, when the Minister wrote, the figures in the letter do not equate to those she gave from the Dispatch Box. Neither is there an answer to the question: of those cases, how many were a deliberate—or even a suspected—case of abuse of the system?
The letter goes on to talk about the sampling of over 200 stateless child applications received between 2015-2021, which on my calculations is about 1% of the applications received. It goes on to say that, in 96% of the sample, the parents were Indian or Sri Lankan and then:
“90% of Indian and Sri Lankan parents had been able to take steps to contact the High Commission to obtain a letter to show their child was in fact not a citizen of that country”
and, in brackets:
“(We do not have data on how many actually attempted to register the birth)”.
In summary, we have numbers in the letter that appear to be at odds with what the Minister said at the Dispatch Box, we have a sample of only 1% of all applications and we do not know how that sample was selected. In the sample, in 90% of cases the relevant high commission confirmed the child was stateless and the Government have no data to show whether parents attempted to register the birth at the time. Despite this, the letter concludes:
“This demonstrates a clear and conscious decision by the parents not to acquire a nationality for their child for at least 5 years”.
That conclusion cannot possibly, in good faith, be drawn from the facts, whichever sets of facts presented by the Government that the House chooses to believe—either the facts the Minister gave from the Dispatch Box or the alternative facts contained in the all-Peers letter.
If the Government cannot now determine how many cases are genuine and how many are the result of attempting to inappropriately acquire British citizenship, on what basis will the Secretary of State exercise her powers under Clause 10 to decide whether the child in question is able to acquire another nationality? Specifically, if, as in 90% of cases in the sample, the relevant high commission confirms the child is stateless, on what basis will the Home Secretary decide not to believe the high commission, decide that the child could acquire the relevant nationality and deny the child British citizenship? What happens to the child denied nationality by the relevant high commission and by the Secretary of State?
If, as the Government suggest, this route is being used inappropriately by parents to acquire British citizenship for themselves, the Government should bring forward legislation to prevent parents acquiring British citizenship through their children by this route, rather than making innocent children, born in the UK, stateless. I was hoping the Minister would write in good time, with a clear and unambiguous answer to the questions I put to her in Committee on 27 January. She did not and she has not.
I am reluctantly left with two options: either the Minister addresses the apparent discrepancies and presents the House with a clear case for Clause 10 now or he agrees to take this away and address our concerns at Third Reading—otherwise I will be forced to conclude that the case is not made for Clause 10 and will divide the House. We cannot leave UK-born children stateless at the whim of the Home Secretary. Clause 10 should be taken out of the Bill.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I will not say anything on the amendment addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, in view of what he has indicated about the progress that has been made between Committee and Report, although of course we will listen very closely to what the Minister has to say and indeed read what is in the Minister’s letter, which I think is what the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, referred to.
As has been said, Clause 10 is intended to disentitle stateless children in the UK from their statutory right to British citizenship. Under our international obligations we have safeguards that mean that a child who was born in the UK and has always been stateless can acquire British citizenship after five years of residing here. Through Clause 10 the Government propose to restrict and amend that obligation. Clause 10 requires the Secretary of State to be satisfied a child was unable to acquire another nationality before being permitted to register as a British citizen. That, of course, creates an additional—and one would probably feel unjustified—hurdle to stateless children’s registration as British citizens which could be difficult for a child or those acting on their behalf to prove.
There is also the issue that the uncertainty created by Clause 10 could be highly damaging to a child’s personal development and their feelings of security and belonging, due to this exclusion and potential alienation being inflicted in their formative years. Indeed, the question was asked in Committee: how can this be in the best interests of the child?
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made reference to the figures which were given by the Government in their response. He also referred to the question which was asked as to whether the figure of 1,175 was the number of stateless children born in the UK who were granted British citizenship, or whether it was the number of cases where parents deliberately chose not to register their child’s birth in order to take advantage of the system. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to the letter that was received on behalf of the Government, and to the apparent discrepancies between what was said in Committee and the figures which appear in the letter.
I wait with interest to hear the response of the Government, because we, too, asked the question about what the case for Clause 10 was. I think I am right in saying—I recall it being said—that the Government felt that the figures that they gave at Committee were a fairly conclusive argument in favour of abuse of the system, and therefore that this was the case for Clause 10. On the basis of the letter which has been received, and the comments which have been made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, there is some doubt as to whether the case has been made.
The noble Lord has asked a number of questions and asked for a number of assurances. The answers he receives will clearly influence the decision he then makes in respect of Clause 10 standing part, and will influence what we, as the Official Opposition, do if the matter is put to a vote.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate.
I turn first to Amendment 2. As has been acknowledged, there are differences in adoption law in various parts of the UK. This is why we do not think that amending Section 1(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981 would be the answer. The Adoption and Children Act 2002 applies only to England and Wales, whereas the territorial reach of the British Nationality Act 1981 includes the whole of the UK. This means that this amendment could have different results in a person’s ability to acquire citizenship, according to where they were adopted. For example, Scotland permits adoptions for those over 18, but differs from England and Wales as there is no upper age limit. Northern Ireland does not currently permit adoptions to happen after the age of 18. Therefore, the effect of this amendment would be to create differences across the UK in who can acquire British citizenship. This should not and could not be right.
Within nationality legislation, automatic acquisition of citizenship is generally reserved for minors. Granting automatic citizenship to adults could result in unintended consequences, possibly affecting another nationality which they hold. Where other countries do not allow their nationals to hold dual nationality, there are often exemptions for children which do not apply for adults. We normally offer adults a registration route so that the person can make a conscious choice about becoming British and take into account any potential implications of doing so.
While we do not want to amend Section 1(5) as proposed, we could use Clause 7 of the Nationality and Borders Bill in these cases. Clause 7 creates a route to British citizenship for those who missed out on acquiring it because of historical legislative unfairness, an act or omission of a public body, or exemptional circumstances relating to that individual. The noble Lord, Lord Russell, has noted this, and I will come to his specific questions in a moment. Registration would allow a person to acquire citizenship without causing unintended consequences as a result of the different legislation in devolved regimes and the overarching nationality law framework.
We will set out in guidance how we intend to use the adult discretionary registration provision created by Clause 7. The discretion must be considered on a case-by-case basis, but we can give examples of where it would normally be used. We think it would normally be reasonable to grant citizenship to an applicant where, for example, an application for adoption is made before a child’s 18th birthday but the adoption order is made afterwards for reasons beyond the control of the parent or child, or where the adoptive parent is a British citizen and the child would have become a British citizen under Section 1(5) of the British Nationality Act 1981, if they had been 18 at the time when the adoption order is made.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I will not deal directly with Amendment 21, whose time will come in due course, but will respond on Amendment 2.
I understand that, given the current Government’s slightly prickly relationship with the Government north of Hadrian’s Wall, issues to do with the extent of UK legislative authority, when it comes to possibly clashing with Edinburgh’s idea of what its own jurisdiction should be, are a tricky area. I understand why they do not wish to tread there too much. It is a pity, though, because we are talking about the interests of a small group of children rather than the niceties of bouts between the devolved Administrations and Westminster. I take the point.
I thank the Minister for confirming that Clause 7 will be used and guidance produced. In addition, I understand that Edward Timpson found out that apparently—it was a surprise as much to the Home Office as to anybody else—in its office in Liverpool there is a specialist adoption unit whose remit is to look specifically at adoption issues. Kevin Foster said that the unit will be involved under this guidance and that any of the types of cases we are talking about that are flagged up will be brought to the attention of this adoption unit, which I hope will have enough expertise, experience and specialism to be able to really understand the situation and to avoid any mistakes of the kind we have evidenced in the past happening in future. When the guidance is forthcoming, I would be grateful if that could be made clear.
I am also grateful for the confirmation that a child’s immigration status would not be considered an adverse factor when it comes to considering their case. I thank Edward Timpson very much for all the work he has done and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, among others, for their support.
I do not know how quickly the draft guidance will be available—does the Minister think it might be available before Third Reading? Clearly, it would be very helpful if it were, and rather unhelpful if not, so could the Minister come back to me as quickly as possible with confirmation on when it will be ready? Will he and the noble Baroness commit to a meeting with those of us most directly concerned, including Edward Timpson, to review this and perhaps help guide the draft guidance in the right direction? That would be much appreciated. If we are unable to resolve this situation satisfactorily before Third Reading, we shall be back, but in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(1A) Schedule 1 also amends the British Nationality Act 1981 to allow the Secretary of State to treat a person who has indefinite leave to enter or remain as meeting certain residence requirements in relation to an application for citizenship under those sections.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendments to Schedule 1 in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I will aim to speak to all 11 amendments in my name, given that they touch on the same issue of requirements for citizenship applications. In doing so, I particularly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, both for raising this issue in previous debates and her willingness to meet me, along with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, to explain more fully her concerns. The noble Baroness has retabled her previous amendment on this subject, and I will set out how measures that we are proposing will, I hope, address her concerns.
As noble Lords will know, the British Nationality Act 1981 set out the requirements for persons wishing to become British citizens based on a period of residence in the UK, be that through naturalisation under Section 6(1) or Section 6(2), or registration under Section 4(2). All three of those application routes have a number of residential requirements designed to demonstrate sufficient ties to this country. One is commonly referred to as “lawful residence”—essentially requiring that the applicant was not in breach of the immigration laws during the requisite residential period prior to the application.
For the majority of applicants this requirement causes no issues. However, as highlighted previously by the noble Baroness, it can lead to frustration for some people. While not restricted solely to those who hold indefinite leave to remain—also known as settled status—under the EU settlement scheme, this group serves well to highlight the problem. In particular, those individuals who had previously been resident here as students or self-sufficient persons were required to hold comprehensive sickness insurance under the EEA regulations. That they had not done so did not preclude their being granted indefinite leave to remain under the EU settlement scheme.
Many of that group understandably wish to progress to become British citizens. However, because they did not hold comprehensive sickness insurance, they technically were in breach of the immigration laws during their previous residence and fall to be refused in any application to become a British citizen. While the British Nationality Act allows for discretion around the lawful residence assessment, this can be applied only in the special circumstances of a particular case. Inevitably, that creates uncertainty for the applicant and may necessitate additional evidence to be supplied to justify the use of discretion.
The main thrust of these amendments is to resolve that impasse. Although not removing the lawful residence requirement itself, we aim to provide the Secretary of State with a much broader power to not even inquire into lawful residence for those who hold indefinite leave to remain. This is based on the simple fact that, for the vast majority of such individuals, any concerns about their immigration history will have been considered and addressed prior to any grant of indefinite leave. In other words, the immigration system, and reforms made since 1981, already demonstrate fulfilment of that requirement.
The amendments do not create an obligation to follow such an approach, but it is expected that it will be in only an exceptional case that we would not want to do so. An example of that might be where adverse information comes to light after indefinite leave has been granted and serves to cast doubt on the wisdom of that decision, but I stress that that would be an exception. The vast majority of people, to whom this does not apply—certainly those whom the noble Baroness has championed so ably—will be able to benefit from these changes.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I very much thank the Minister, who has taken a very welcome personal interest in this matter, which is very encouraging. The government amendments are interesting and represent some progress, but they are unspecific for EEA citizens, and there is still that discretion, not certainty, that the Secretary of State “may” but not “must” do this.
As I said in Committee, I was grateful for the concession, announced by the Minister and which she has just talked about, to the effect that the Government would
“amend the Immigration Rules … to disapply any requirement for a Lounes dual national”—
this area is littered with technical terminology—
“to have held CSI in order to sponsor applications by relevant family members”
for settlement. I would be very grateful, as we asked in Committee, to know whether there is any further knowledge of what progress there is on that change to the Immigration Rules.
So far, so good—but on the other two arms of my amendment, on registration of children as British citizens and naturalisation as British for an EEA settled person, both without looking at past CSI history, as my amendment asked for, the Minister said in Committee that
“it would not be right to single out EEA nationals”,
and she has repeated that. We are slightly in the same territory as we were on the Chagos amendments, whereby the Government say that they cannot do something specifically for this group. The Minister also said in Committee that
“it would not be right to treat certain nationalities differently”—[Official Report, 1/2/22; col. 794-95]
and she is maintaining this approach.
However, EEA nationals are being treated differently. They have resided previously in this country, often for a long time; a large chunk of an international treaty, the withdrawal agreement, is devoted to them and to their counterparts, British citizens in the EU, and legislation specifically covering them; and there are various arrangements for monitoring and supervising how they are treated. So they are a special case. I would just mention that some children who should have been born British were not, and now have to be registered at a cost of more than £1,000 because of the specifics of the situation of EEA nationals.
After the meeting of the UK-EU joint committee last week—the committee on the withdrawal agreement—Vice-President Šefčovič recalled that
“it was a commitment from both of us that we will do our utmost for the UK nationals in the EU and the EU citizens staying in the UK.”
An EU official was reported as saying that the Commission would consider whether to launch consultations on citizens’ rights, and could ultimately trigger an arbitration process. I am not saying that those remarks were targeted at this specific problem, but that reminds us that there is an oversight mechanism for the fate of EEA citizens.
The CSI issue affects only EEA citizens, nobody else, so removing it entirely from being a virus—I called it “snakes and ladders”—in our immigration regime, would simply bring EEA citizens into line with all other migrants, who do not have a CSI problem. When Prime Minister, Theresa May said:
“The requirement for comprehensive sickness insurance is an EU requirement, and as long as we are members of the EU, it will continue to be there. Once we leave, we can indeed remove it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 26/6/2017; col. 315.]
It is true that the Government removed it for applicants for settled status but, as I hope I have explained through the passage of this Bill, the problem is that it pops up later. You do not get rid of it; that is why I call it a virus. You do not get rid of it—it sort of comes back.
What is not to like about removing red tape? I suggest that while the new government amendments represent some progress—again, I thank the Minister—they still rest on discretion and do not treat EEA citizens on the fair, legally secure basis that I believe they deserve under the withdrawal agreement. I hope that the Government can do more and ward off any possible action from the European Commission and enforce a slightly more secure basis.
If I cannot get what I really want—acceptance of my amendment—I ask the Minister to confirm at least that, when implemented, the guidance will be updated to always state that the Secretary of State will always exercise her discretion in favour of applicants by not inquiring as to whether they had CSI and by treating self-sufficient persons, students and their family members as not having breached immigration laws. That should be in guidance as a firm commitment. Otherwise, I would like to hear the Minister further.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we support much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, has just said and some of the questions she has put forward. No doubt, the Minister will respond to those questions. It has to be said that the Minister has come forward with some amendments that do improve the situation.
Can I just emphasise the important points the Minister made and clarify, in the light of the questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that she said it would apply to all residents, not just EU residents? That is an important point that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, made, and the House needs further clarification on what “all”—not to be pedantic—actually means in these circumstances for clarity of legislation.
Having welcomed the step forward the Minister has clearly made, I think that what “exceptional” means is also important—so that the Secretary of State will not use the power to prevent somebody without CSI gaining citizenship other than in exceptional circumstances. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, again, is right to ask for greater clarity about how “exceptional circumstances” will be defined and whether there will actually be guidance that any future Home Secretary will have to take into account in determining whether leave to remain should be changed to a full citizenship status in the particular circumstances with which this group of amendments is dealing.
I thank the Minister for coming forward with those amendments and trying to meet many of the concerns that were raised in Committee and before. I look forward, with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, I am sure, to the answers to the important questions that have been raised, notwithstanding the amendments before us this afternoon.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for the points they have just made. I did refer to guidance in the points I was making in introducing. Yes, the guidance will make things clear.
In terms of “all”, “all” means all nationalities; the provisions will apply to all nationalities. I know the noble Baroness says this is a particular EU problem, but we are trying to make provisions that apply to all countries.
In terms of that point about “may” and “must”, “may” rather than “must” reserves the “may” for the most exceptional cases where it would not be appropriate to take that more generous approach. The provisions will be applicable to the vast majority of applicants, apart from those “may” applicants where a generous approach would not be appropriate—for example, criminality. I hope that explains it to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I do thank the Minister for that reply. I am not absolutely certain. It may just be that I did not follow the detail, but I am not sure I quite heard that the guidance, apart from in the exceptional case of criminality, will say that the Secretary of State will always exercise her discretion in favour of EEA applicants by not inquiring about the CSI record of the people that it affected.
I have some understanding for what she said about people with a criminal record but, that apart, I should like to hear—perhaps I will not get this today—that the guidance will say that, in normal cases, for EEA nationals, there will always be a good outcome in disregarding a CSI gap. I am not sure that I have quite heard that. I do not know whether the Minister wants to clarify that now, or whether I should just accept—
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I cannot make an absolutist comment, but I was trying to explain to the noble Baroness that anyone in the normal run of things—other than, for example, serious criminality—would be caught by the government amendments.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I thank the Minister for that further clarification. I think I have got as far as I am going to get—
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Finlay of Llandaff) (CB)
My Lords, I think I should put the Question.
“(b) in section 41(4), for “that section” substitute “section 41 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (regulations)”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor clarificatory amendment which is consequential on the amendments to the 2009 Act made by Clause 8(2).
“(1) Section 4 (acquisition by registration: British overseas territories citizens etc) is amended as follows. (2) ”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 86, line 16.
“(3) After subsection (4) insert—“(4A) Subsection (4B) applies where, on an application for registration as a British citizen made by a person to whom this section applies, the applicant has indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.(4B) The Secretary of State may for the purposes of subsection (2) treat the applicant as fulfilling the requirement specified in subsection (2)(d), without enquiring into whether or not the applicant was in the United Kingdom in breach of the immigration laws in the period there mentioned.(4C) The reference in subsection (4A) to having indefinite leave to enter or remain is to be construed in accordance with the Immigration Act 1971.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that, for applications for citizenship under section 4 of BNA 1981 where the applicant has indefinite leave, the Secretary of State may without further enquiry treat the applicant as fulfilling the requirement not to have been in the United Kingdom in breach of the immigration laws.
“(ba) after that sub-paragraph insert—“(1A) Sub-paragraph (1B) applies where the applicant has indefinite leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom.(1B) The Secretary of State may for the purposes of paragraph 1 treat the applicant as fulfilling the requirement specified in paragraph 1(2)(d), without enquiring into whether or not the applicant was in the United Kingdom in breach of the immigration laws in the period there mentioned.(1C) The reference in sub-paragraph (1A) to having indefinite leave to enter or remain is to be construed in accordance with the Immigration Act 1971.”;”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that, for applications for citizenship under section 6 of BNA 1981 where the applicant has indefinite leave, the Secretary of State may without further enquiry treat the applicant as fulfilling the requirement not to have been in the United Kingdom in breach of the immigration laws.
“(2A) In paragraph 4, in paragraph (a)—(a) for “the reference” substitute “the references”;(b) for “a reference” substitute “references”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 86, line 27.
“(za) the existing text becomes sub-paragraph (1);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 86, line 38.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 86, line 38.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 86, line 38.
“(c) after that sub-paragraph insert—“(2) Sub-paragraph (3) applies where the applicant has indefinite leave to enter or remain in the relevant territory.(3) The Secretary of State may for the purposes of paragraph 5 treat the applicant as fulfilling the requirement specified in paragraph 5(2)(d), without enquiring into whether or not the applicant was in the relevant territory in breach of the immigration laws in the period there mentioned.(4) The reference in sub-paragraph (2) to having indefinite leave to enter or remain is to be construed as a reference to any status formally granted under the immigration laws in force in the relevant territory which is broadly equivalent to the status of having indefinite leave to enter or remain under the Immigration Act 1971.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would provide that, for applications for citizenship under section 18 of BNA 1981 where the applicant has indefinite leave to enter or remain in the relevant territory, the Secretary of State may without further enquiry treat the applicant as fulfilling the requirement not to have been in the relevant territory in breach of the immigration laws.
“(4) In paragraph 8, in paragraph (a)—(a) for “the reference” substitute “the references”;(b) for “a reference” substitute “references”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the other amendment in the name of Baroness Williams of Trafford at page 86, line 38.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
“SCHEDULE 1A DEPRIVATION OF CITIZENSHIP WITHOUT NOTICE: JUDICIAL OVERSIGHTThis is the Schedule to be inserted after Schedule 4 to the British Nationality Act 1981—“SCHEDULE 4A Section 40(5E)DEPRIVATION OF CITIZENSHIP WITHOUT NOTICE: JUDICIAL OVERSIGHTDeprivation without notice: application to Special Immigration Appeals Commission1_(1) If the Secretary of State proposes to make a conducive grounds deprivation order without notice, the Secretary of State may apply to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission under this paragraph.(2) If the Secretary of State makes a conducive grounds deprivation order without notice, the Secretary of State must apply to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission under this paragraph within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which the order is made (unless an application has already been made under sub-paragraph (1)).(3) The function of the Commission on an application under this paragraph is to determine whether, in respect of each condition in section 40(5A) on which the Secretary of State relies, the Secretary of State’s view is obviously flawed. (4) In determining that question, the Commission must apply the principles that would be applicable on an application for judicial review.(5) If the Commission determines that the Secretary of State’s view is obviously flawed in respect of each condition in section 40(5A) on which the Secretary of State relies—(a) if the order in question has not been made, section 40(5) applies in relation to the order (notwithstanding section 40(5A));(b) if the order has been made, the Secretary of State must, within the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the Commission made the determination—(i) give late notice in respect of the order,(ii) revoke the order, or(iii) make an application under sub-paragraph (6).(6) The Secretary of State may (at any time) make an application to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission for fresh consideration of a decision the Secretary of State has made under section 40(5A) where—(a) in the opinion of the Secretary of State, circumstances have changed materially since the determination mentioned in sub-paragraph (5), or(b) the Secretary of State wishes to provide further evidence to the Commission.Sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) apply to an application under this sub-paragraph.Deprivation of citizenship without notice: review2_(1) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) apply if—(a) the Secretary of State makes a conducive grounds deprivation order without notice, and(b) the Special Immigration Appeals Commission has not made the determination mentioned in paragraph 1(5) (Secretary of State’s decision obviously flawed).(2) The Secretary of State must, at least once in every review period, review the circumstances of the person in respect of whom the order was made (so far as known) and decide whether to give late notice in respect of the order.(3) On such a review, the Secretary of State must decide to give late notice to the person unless it appears to the Secretary of State that any of the conditions in section 40(5A) is met (reading any reference in those provisions to notice under section 40(5) as a reference to late notice).(4) If the Secretary of State decides at any point to give late notice in respect of the order—(a) the Secretary of State must give the notice as soon as reasonably practicable, and(b) once the notice is given, sub-paragraph (2) ceases to apply in relation to the person.(5) If on the expiry of the final review period the Secretary of State has not given, or has not decided to give, late notice in respect of the order, the Secretary of State must make an application to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission within the period of seven days beginning with the day after the final day of that review period.(6) Sub-paragraphs (3) to (6) of paragraph 1 (except sub-paragraph (5)(a)) apply for the purposes of an application under sub-paragraph (5) as they apply for the purposes of an application under that paragraph.(7) For the purposes of this paragraph, each of the following is a “review period”— (a) the period of four months beginning with the day after the day on which the Special Immigration Appeals Commission first determined an application in relation to the order under paragraph 1, and(b) each of the next five successive periods of four months.Interpretation3_(1) In this Schedule, references to making a conducive grounds deprivation order without notice are to making an order under section 40(2) without giving notice under subsection (5) of that section (in reliance on subsection (5A) of that section).(2) In this Schedule, “late notice”, in respect of an order under section 40(5), means written notice to the person in respect of whom the order was made specifying—(a) that the Secretary of State has made the order,(b) the reasons for the order, and(c) the person’s right of appeal under section 40A(1) or under section 2B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts a new Schedule into the British Nationality Act 1981, to make provision for judicial oversight of decisions to deprive a person of their citizenship status without notice on grounds that the deprivation is conducive to the public good.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
My Lords, the circumstances in which British citizenship may be removed were keenly debated in Committee. This group concerns a narrower issue: whether it should be possible to remove someone’s citizenship without giving them notice of it at the time and, if so, in what circumstances. Clause 9 struck me as so problematic that, in Committee, I tabled a stand part notice; that is echoed today by Amendment 20 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza. In Committee, I asked the Minister to take Clause 9 away and challenged her, if she could make the case for such an extraordinary power, to come back with a version of it that is far more limited in scope and subject to proper safeguards and accountability.
The Minister responded to that challenge as positively and wholeheartedly as I could have hoped. I pay tribute to her, to her fellow Minister, Tom Pursglove, to the Bill team and to those at the Home Office and in agencies with whom I have discussed these issues—and I pay no less tribute to the NGOs and individuals who have impressed on me the dangers of Clause 9. The result, after what I think I can fairly describe as very considerable movement on the part of the Government, is the first six amendments in this group, together with Amendment 85, which concerns commencement. They have been pulled into proper shape by the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel, and I hoped that they could be tabled last Monday as government amendments, with my support, but an extra day was needed to conclude our discussions, so they appear under my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, and the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for adding their support.
These amendments achieve four important things. The first is a far more restricted range of circumstances in which notice can be withheld. The original Clause 9 would have allowed the Secretary of State to withhold notice whenever that appeared to her to be in the public interest. Amendments 15 and 16 remove the subjective element and provide that notice may be withheld only if the Secretary of State does not have an address for service, or if she reasonably considers it necessary on one of the four exceptional grounds specified in Amendment 16.
Let me illustrate my understanding of how those exceptional grounds could arise in practice. A terrorist may be living in a safe house here, or more likely abroad, without realising that his whereabouts are known to the authorities. To require a notice of citizenship deprivation to be served on him at that address would reveal to him that he is the object of covert surveillance, contrary to the interests of national security: proposed new sub-paragraph (i). The same may be true of a participant in “organised or serious crime”—the phrase being taken from Section 1 of the Serious Crime Act 2015, which defines the remit of the National Crime Agency: proposed new sub-paragraph (ii). If intelligence as to location was supplied by a foreign liaison partner which does not wish its cover to be blown, notification at that address could jeopardise our intelligence relationship with that country: proposed new sub-paragraph (iv). The person in question might be, for example, with a dangerous armed group in a failed state. To require a courier to travel to such places to serve notice, at great personal risk, would be wrong: hence proposed new sub-paragraph (iii).
I do not believe that these grounds will be commonly advanced—it seems that, with a degree of ingenuity, workarounds have been found in the past—but neither, I suggest as a former independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, should they be dismissed as fanciful. It may be relevant that the laws of two of our closest allies are, if anything, more broadly drawn than this amendment. The New Zealand Citizenship Act 1977 allows for notice of deprivation to be dispensed with if it would be for any reason “not practicable” to serve it on the subject. The Australian Act of 2020 allows the Minister to determine that notice should not be given if it could prejudice the security, defence or international relations of Australia or Australian law enforcement operations.
The second feature of these amendments is to introduce powerful safeguards for conducive grounds deprivations that were entirely absent from the original Clause 9. In New Zealand, they have judicial scrutiny of these decisions. In Australia, they have regular ministerial review. Elements of both those safeguards are contained in the new Schedule 4A, which is set out in Amendment 14 and referred to in Amendments 17 and 19.
The judicial safeguard is in paragraph 1 of the schedule. If the Secretary of State wishes to withhold notice, she must apply to a superior court of record—the Special Immigration Appeals Commission—in advance or within seven days. SIAC will examine her reasons and decide, applying judicial review principles, whether her assessment is obviously flawed. That is the same test that is applied to the making of terrorism prevention and investigation orders under the TPIM Act 2011. SIAC will no doubt develop similar rules to deal with it, which might, in an appropriate case, provide for the appointment of a special advocate. If she does not succeed on her first attempt or on a subsequent application, which must be based on material change of circumstances or further evidence, the Secretary of State must either give notice in the normal way or revoke the deprivation order altogether.
The review safeguard is in paragraph 2 of the schedule. The Secretary of State must consider, three times a year for two years, whether the reasons for non-notification remain valid. If, after the sixth review, she still resists notification, she must make a further application to SIAC, which will, once again, give independent scrutiny to her decision.
The twin requirements of judicial approval and regular review will place a significant burden on the Secretary of State in any case where she wishes to exercise this power. I make no apology for that. Under the Immigration Rules, as they stood between 2018 and 2021, it was easy—far too easy—not to give notice but simply to record it on the file. That path was taken in no fewer than 29 of the 45 conducive grounds deprivations, mostly related to national security activity abroad, that were made in 2019, 2020 and 2021. These amendments not only require non-notification to be a last resort on paper; they make it hard work in practice. They should ensure that, in its own interests, the Home Office will take this exceptional course only when there really is no possible alternative.
The third feature of these amendments relates to appeals. Of course, a subject cannot appeal against a notice of deprivation until he has become aware of it. But Amendment 18 provides that time for appeal will begin to run only once notice has been given. It will not, therefore, be necessary to rely on the discretion of the court to extend time for appeal in cases where deprivation has not been notified at the time.
The fourth and final feature is in the proposed new subsections 5(c) and (d) inserted by Amendment 18. Any person whose citizenship was removed without notice must be informed of that fact, with reasons and information about appeal rights, as soon as they make themselves known to the Home Office, whether within the two-year review period or thereafter; for example, this might be by seeking consular assistance or a fresh passport.
Amendment 18 has another significant and, I would suggest, highly beneficial effect. The point has been well made by other noble Lords that upstanding citizens of this country, notably dual citizens, may be anxious about the removal of their citizenship without their knowledge. Amendment 18 provides such people with a means of reassurance. They have only to contact the Home Office to be told whether this has happened or whether, as will almost always be the case, it has not.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Blunkett, challenged the House to
“find a way forward on Report that takes away the genuine fear from millions of people who believe—erroneously, but they believe it—that Clause 9 as drafted and the implementation of further measures will put them and their families at risk”.—[Official Report, 27/1/2022; col. 518.]
These amendments rise to that challenge. They should ensure that non-notification is confined to those rare cases where it is truly necessary, and they are subject to strong safeguards, including regular review, judicial scrutiny and a right to be informed on request.
I come finally to subsections (5) to (7) to Clause 9, which seek to limit the effect of the D4 case by providing that an unlawful failure to notify a pre-commencement deprivation order should not affect the validity of that order. I will listen carefully to my noble friend Lady D’Souza develop her manuscript amendment to remove those clauses, but in the meantime, to assist our deliberations, I ask the Minister to give two assurances relevant to that amendment. First, will she confirm that anyone subject to a pre-commencement deprivation order will be informed of that fact if they contact the Home Office, by analogy with proposed new subsections (5C) and (5D), as inserted by Amendment 17? They would then be in a position to proceed with any substantive appeal. Secondly, will she confirm, by analogy with Amendment 18, that the Home Office will not suggest that any of these people are out of time for appeal as a consequence of the interval between the decision to remove their citizenship and the giving of notice?
If my amendments are accepted, and those assurances given, I believe that we will have played our part as a revising Chamber and achieved a broadly acceptable balance. Opinions on citizenship removal will, of course, continue to differ, but the aggravating factor of removal without notice will be strictly confined and properly safeguarded for the future, as it was not in the Immigration Rules as they stood prior to the D4 judgment of last year, and as it was not under Clause 9 as it was passed by the Commons. I beg to move my amendment and, if necessary, I will test the opinion of the House.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for her support in drafting these amendments, and I hope that she will give an assurance that the Government do, indeed, support these amendments. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, for addressing many of the concerns that I raised in Committee, particularly those expressed to me by the Law Society of Scotland, which was extremely dissatisfied that, in the original Clause 9, the Government had not fully justified the removal of citizenship without notifying the affected person. It asked that this clause be reconsidered, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for doing so.
Equally, in Committee, I raised the concerns expressed to me by the European Network on Statelessness in its briefing. It was very concerned that Clause 9 as drafted would
“have severe impacts on the rule of law and on a person’s fundamental rights”,
and that, as drafted, Clause 9
“disregards many of the UK’s international obligations, including the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality, the obligation to avoid statelessness, and the right to a fair hearing.”
In its view, the UK Government
“has not provided any justification as to why such a restriction on fundamental rights is needed.”
I pay tribute to the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich; many of my concerns have been addressed. I support the amendments introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and support the reasons that he has given. The restrictive range of circumstances has been greatly reduced in which a citizen’s rights could be taken away. I support the powerful safeguards he set out as to why a citizen could be deprived of their citizenship, the rights of appeal, the provision that a citizen must be informed that their citizenship is going to be removed and the reassurance that he set out that could be given by condition C at that time. I support the amendments.
Lord Macdonald of River Glaven (CB)
My Lords, powers to deprive British citizens of their citizenship have historically been very tightly drawn under UK immigration law for obvious reasons. However, I reminded the Committee that in 2003, 2006, 2014 and 2018, these powers were very considerably expanded, so that now they are exercisable against any British citizen who has dual nationality, where the Secretary of State is satisfied that deprivation is conducive to the public good. The breadth of this power is perhaps best understood by the Supreme Court’s conclusion in the Begum case, that this includes situations where the individual is unaware that they hold dual nationality and even where that individual has little or no connection with their country of second nationality.
I reminded the Committee of the words of the leading immigration law silk, Raza Husain QC, who said:
“This progressive extension over the last two decades has meant that it is no longer necessary to demonstrate that someone is a terrorist or a traitor before stripping them of British citizenship. Individuals may be deprived of citizenship on general public interest grounds of the sort usually invoked to justify deportation, rather than on the basis of their severing the bonds of allegiance that are the hallmark of nationality.”
The drastic nature of this power was well described by the United States chief justice Earl Warren, a Republican, put on the court by President Eisenhower, who said that the loss of nationality amounts to
“the total destruction of the individual’s status in organised society… the expatriate has lost the right to have rights.”
He was channelling Hannah Arendt there.
Deprivation of citizenship is such a drastic and far-reaching power that it must be accompanied by proper procedural safeguards. That much is obvious. This is a power that has been beloved of some of the worst regimes in history. If we are to permit this power to a Secretary of State, it must be accompanied by procedural safeguards. In its original form, Clause 9 went in precisely the opposite direction, removing the most basic safeguard of all—the safeguard of notification —really at the Secretary of State’s whim. That was not good enough and, like my noble friend Lord Anderson, I am grateful to the Government for having listened to the debate in Committee and for having changed course. Again, like him, I am satisfied that serious movement has been made and that some of our most serious concerns about the clause as originally drafted have been responded to appropriately. For that reason, I will be supporting this amendment and am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for moving it.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, add hugely important safeguards to Clause 9, but subsections (5) to (7), which are set out on page 12 at lines 13 to 19, would remain in place and appear to make lawful what is clearly unlawful. The secret power to deprive citizenship without notice and/or appeal threatens our cherished British values of fair play and the rule of law. It would also risk unduly affecting ethnic minority communities. Subsections (5) to (7) seek to instruct the courts to treat past unlawful deprivations as if they were lawful, even where the courts have found that these actions failed to comply with statute at the time when they were made.
Parliament, it seems to me, is being asked to condone a disregard for the law by those Ministers who took away British national citizenship when it was illegal to do so. If these provisions remain in the Bill, a series of unlawful deprivation orders made against young women from minority ethnic communities will not be subject to any scrutiny whatever. This cannot be right.
It seems clear from what has been said so far on this clause that the most profound concerns still relate to Clause 9 as a whole and—although the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, alters the whole tenor of the Bill and grateful thanks are due to the Minister for enabling this—the concerns remain. These clauses would create a secret power. Clause 9 goes well beyond cases where the Government cannot provide notice. According to the Policy Exchange think tank, at no point in the last century has it been thought that national security called for depriving British citizens of their citizenship without notice. We cannot see the case for this now, at a time when our closest allies, such as the US, are warning that depriving individuals of citizenship is not an effective way to fight terrorism.
The main issue in this group of amendments is whether Clause 9 should remain part of the Bill. My suggestion is that it should be removed to create certainty and clarity. It seems to me that the optimal solution would be to remove this clause altogether, not only because, as it stands, it is contrary to British law and indeed to parts of the UN refugee convention, but because this clause—as well as new subsections (5) to (7) proposed by the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson—seem to enable further restrictive orders, something that we as a scrutinising Chamber should avoid at all costs. Therefore, while I will of course support the noble Lord’s amendment, I will also seek to move my amendment, which would leave Clause 9 out.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and I agree with what she said and that, although the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, have made Clause 9 less bad, it is still a bad clause that should disappear from the Bill. When introducing this group, the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, said that these amendments were all about Clause 9. I would rather say that my Amendment 22, to which I will speak, was provoked by Clause 9. One thing revealed in public debate—and there has been an enormous amount of public debate around Clause 9—is the fact that so many people had not realised that what the Minister described earlier as the “warm embrace of citizenship” can be taken away, and that there is profound discrimination in the way that this can happen.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, talked in Committee talked about two-tier citizenship; I talk about it as two classes of citizenship. I regret that I was not able to take part in Committee; I thank my noble friend Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb for very ably speaking for me. However, there are about 6 million Britons—I declare an interest as I am among them—who, because of another citizenship or their descent from people who came to Britain and chose to be Britons, have second-class citizenship. It can be taken away by the Government and, as the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, just outlined very clearly, we have seen a very rapid and considerable escalation of the ways in which that power can be, and has been, applied.
My Amendment 22 makes one exception. If someone attains citizenship by means of fraud or misrepresentation, obviously, the power should remain for that citizenship to be taken away, but if that citizenship has been acquired honestly, my amendment says that it cannot be taken away. I suggest to your Lordships’ House that this is the only way that we can ensure that every British citizen is the same class of citizen and treated in the same way. Given that people who have, or have access to, alternative citizenships come from migrant backgrounds, the discrimination in how this is applied is very obvious. I note from having read the Hansard report of Committee very carefully that the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, expressed support for this. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for also expressing support in principle for the idea that there should be only one class of citizenship and the Government should not be able to take it away.
I can imagine the response I might hear from the Minister: what about someone who is a security threat? If we have given millions of people British citizenship, we have benefited from the contributions, of all kinds, that they have made to the UK. Should we be able to say, “This person’s a problem so we’re going to get rid of them”, and make them someone else’s problem? If a person is a security threat to the UK, they might well be a security threat to the country that they hold citizenship for and that we send them to. Why should we be able to dump our problems on someone else?
I find myself torn. I aware of the desire in your Lordships’ House to take away some of the worst elements of the Bill, but I also find myself supported by many people in civil society who say that they want to ensure that there is one class of citizenship. I have said to all the relevant authorities that I will reserve the right to call a vote on this, because I find it a matter of principle on which it is very difficult simply to withdraw the amendment. I would really like to hear everyone’s position on this, particularly the Front-Bench speakers—I hope one of the Lords spiritual might contribute—and everyone’s explanation of whether they believe there should be two classes of British citizenship. Having heard that debate, I will make a decision about whether to push Amendment 22 to a vote.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
Thank you. My Lords, I am grateful for the suggestion that the House might like to hear from the Lords spiritual. I support the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, which proposes that Clause 9 should not stand part of the Bill. We debated this at some length in Committee. It is somewhat disappointing that the Government have not taken the opportunity to reconsider more fully. I will not delay the House by repeating the arguments, but I will briefly speak about trust.
The Government seem genuinely confused by the level of opposition that the clause has triggered, but this should not have been surprising because I am afraid that it is symptomatic of a serious breakdown in trust between the Home Office and society groups, particularly minority ethnic groups, as we have heard. The response to the Windrush Lessons Learned Review promised a new culture in the Home Office—one that was more compassionate, that saw faces behind the cases and would rebuild and enhance
“public trust and confidence in the Home Office”.
The Bill as a whole does not do much to create the impression that this new culture has been embedded. Trust is hard to build and very easy to lose. On the issue of deprivation of citizenship and the treatment of minorities, trust is sufficiently low that any new changes to these powers must surely come with a compelling and overwhelming demonstration of a serious and widespread problem that needs to be solved.
I remain unconvinced that the Government have demonstrated that there is a sufficiently major problem that existing powers do not address. I am quite convinced that the impact this clause will have—indeed, already has had in continuing to undermine trust between the Home Office and civil society—is serious enough that the Bill would be greatly improved by Clause 9 being removed in its entirety. Having said that, I have heard the words of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. He provided a compelling and informed case for his saving amendments. I will listen with interest to the Minister’s response.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I apologise to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford for my lack of control over my new varifocals, and to your Lordships for entering the debate at this late stage. I have been listening to the debate in the context of my concerns about the majority judgments in the D4 case, which has already been mentioned. I read my noble friend Lord Anderson’s amendments and listened with enormous care to his very clear—indeed, brilliant—opening. I support his amendments. My view is that they go further than is absolutely necessary in terms of proportionality between the duties and rights of citizens and the setting of safeguards to ensure that this equation is well balanced. Overbalancing in favour of protections is a good fault in the circumstances, hence my declared support for my noble friend’s amendments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The noble Lord has displayed a very touching faith in the Home Office, which I do not think reflected the view of your Lordships’ House in an earlier debate in terms of how we are approaching Ukrainian refugees. Is he aware of the case of the gentleman known as E3, who was deprived of his British citizenship for many years, was eventually able to appeal that, has never been arrested or charged, and has finally—on 11 February—returned to the UK and is now back with his family after many years of separation.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am not aware of the details of that case, but I would say to the noble Baroness that the architecture that the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, set out would protect such a person in a much better way than was the case before.
Baroness Warsi (Con)
My Lords, I start by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, on the detailed measures that he has brought forward. I really appreciate the time that he has given to the discussions and debates that he and I, and other Members of this House, have had over the last few weeks and months. I also pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Williams for her work and her calls, and for the way in which she has dealt with this issue, reaching out to try genuinely and sincerely to find a compromise. That is what this is—it is a compromise, and compromise is good, but fairness, justice and equality are better. Therefore, despite the fact that these amendments go some way to making what was really bad legislation slightly less bad, they are simply papering over the cracks.
Once again, we are being asked by the Government to keep incrementally changing this law from the early 1980s—each time it has been changed with one case law or one individual situation—so that more and more people in this country, from a wider and wider scope, with more and more different offences, are now included in a space where their citizenship can be stripped. Therefore, we have an opportunity in this House to, once again, incrementally, make a bad law slightly less bad—or we can take a position and say that the underlying law itself is so bad that we are no longer prepared to keep making these incremental changes.
This takes the bad law a little further. If we go back to what this law actually does, first, it strips citizenship from those who were born and raised here, know nowhere else and whose family have been here for generations, but who are deemed to have—they do not actually have—another citizenship through some tenuous link to a country that their grandfathers or great-grandparents may have come from. Secondly, under this law, in our courts in the United Kingdom we punish two people convicted of the same crime differently based upon their heritage—not on the crime committed, but on their heritage. That is what the underlying law does.
I take issue with the idea that these people are not second-class citizens; they are. Let me give an example. My grandfather came here in the 1950s; my father came in the 1960s. I was born here; I have no other citizenship. My children were born here; they have no other citizenship. My grandchildren have been born here; they have no other citizenship. However, if my grandchildren—we all bring our children up well, not to commit crime, but we can never predict how their lives will turn out—were to commit not just a terrorist offence but a criminal act such as a sexual offence or an offence involving fraud, they could, in court, be punished for the crime but also have their citizenship stripped. That is fact. That makes me a second-class citizen. It makes my children second-class citizens. It makes their children second-class citizens. How far back do we go before we say to people that they are as equal as anyone else in this country?
Today, by supporting the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, we can say, from this House, that despite all the assurances and the changes, we believe in equality for all in this country. My noble friend mentioned New Zealand and Australia, and I accept that changes have been put in place there; safeguards have been put in place where it is deemed not fit to serve notice. But we also have allies, such as the United States and Canada, who simply do not even have the law—they do not believe that we should be stripping our citizens of their citizenship.
The current law has been used throughout two decades of the war on terror, during the rise of ISIS, and while terrorist fighters from the United Kingdom have been going overseas. Over the years, we have managed to use the law, without this additional incremental change, to ensure that we have stripped people who we consider to be dangerous of their citizenship. We have managed under the current law; this further change is not required.
In conclusion, we may not have taken this moment to put right the wrongs of the past—many noble Lords, including many noble friends from my own Benches, stood up and asked for the original law to be considered. However, the least we can do is to stop a bad law becoming worse. If the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, tests the opinion of the House, I urge Members to vote for it because I will be voting for it, too.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I shared the concerns expressed by my noble friend Lady D’Souza about Clause 9 as it was originally drafted. However, I am very satisfied with the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Anderson, particularly as the exercise of these powers is subject to the control of the independent Special Immigration Appeals Commission. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that this is not to have trust and faith in the Home Office. Whether or not that is justified, I have trust and faith in the independent Special Immigration Appeals Commission. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, that this is not a compromise or papering over the cracks. Rather, this is a great tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and to the work done by the Minister: it is to achieve the protection of both the public interest and the rights of individuals. This is what this House should be aiming to do.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
My Lords, I had the honour, with the then Leader of the House, to present to this House the 1981 Bill which became the Act. We certainly understood that it was a very drastic power which enabled citizenship to be taken away. Therefore, it was only right that notice should be required, and provided for, in Section 40(5) of that Act. It included the need to make clear to the person affected that the application was on. It used the last known address as a possibility. However, the more that difficulties arise, the more it is seen that something further is required. Therefore, it is right that Section 40(5) should be amended. I think that the amendments, as now proposed—and subject to the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, if, as I hope, the Government will accept them—are an acceptable way of dealing with this very delicate matter.
I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, that the real and ultimate protection is in the independent judicial review by the special court for that purpose. It is essential that, as this nation is subject to many different ways of being attacked, we should be protected as much as possible. This is a very sensible way to do it, provided that the Government are prepared to accept the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I spoke in Committee and, obviously, after two and a half hours then and 50 minutes now, one is in danger of ending up with—in that famous phrase of the football manager—a sense of déjà vu all over again. I will try to avoid that and just raise a couple of points.
I listened very carefully to what was said by the noble Baronesses, Lady D’Souza and Lady Bennett, and the right reverend Prelate—and I am not a lawyer. I also listened again to my noble friend Lady Warsi—having heard her passionate speech at the earlier stage—and the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik. I did not see the provisions of Clause 9 as an attack on people, and particularly not an attack on a particular part of our community. I saw the clause as a defence of the values that tie us all together and the glue that binds our society: the tolerance, freedom of speech and economic opportunity that has brought people to this country over the years, some more recently than others. That has been the essence of the attractions that have brought people here.
However, I was extremely concerned, and pointed out in Committee, that there was a gap in the arguments using the phrase
“conducive to the public good”.
I was worried about that, but I said—and still believe—that there is a need for the Government to protect the citizens of the country and that that is the overriding proposition we need to follow. Do I find the issues of Clause 9 easy? I do not. Do I wish we did not have to have Clause 9? I do so. But there are evil people about and wishing will not make it so. I thought in Committee, and still think now, that the underlying purpose of Clause 9 is right.
I pointed out in my speech then that, without the informed consent of the population of the country, the respect for and the importance of the rule of law become undermined. The travellers on the Clapham omnibus would regard some of the issues that have been raised this afternoon—such as having to send a courier into an extraordinarily dangerous country and put his or her life at risk—as a perverse outcome.
I recognise that there is a gap. I said that I hoped there would be some opportunity for smoothing some of the sharp edges in Clause 9 as originally drafted. As a non-lawyer, it seemed to me that the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, answered the points that were made. Can it answer all the points? No, but it answers them effectively. It seems to provide a means to smooth the corners or close the gap—whichever metaphor you wish to use.
I would support the Government, whatever happened, as I think the underlying purpose of Clause 9 outweighs the disadvantages. However, I hope very much that my noble friend will be able to see the advantages of the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and will be able in that way to make the compromise that I think makes the argument unanswerable.
Baroness Mobarik (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, to leave Clause 9 out of the Bill. I find it difficult to comprehend that we are even debating something so out of step with our rules of justice and fairness. Depriving someone of their citizenship without even informing them, as would be the case if Clause 9 were to be enacted into law, is in effect an addition to the already punitive measures that have existed since 1918.
As the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of River Glaven, stated, Clause 9 effectively removes the right of appeal, which has evolved over the decades to become ever more powerful. If the Home Office deems it to be in the public interest or, as is worded,
“conducive to the public good”,
then the long-standing position under the British Nationality Act 1981 that an individual must be notified if they are to be deprived of their nationality is being amended, so that they do not even have to be informed. Currently, citizenship deprivation letters can be delivered to the individual’s last known address, so why are we changing that? Essentially, over this past decade, the Government have failed to provide notice on many occasions, and it appears they are now seeking to declare all unlawful deprivation orders as lawful by making Clause 9 retroactive.
Clause 9(5) purports to make lawful deprivation orders which courts have found unlawful because of failure to give notice. That is making lawful a breach of requirements as laid down by Parliament, after the fact. This completely undermines the rule of law as we understand it. While I support the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, which would provide some safeguards on the use of Clause 9, the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, to remove the retroactive application of Clause 9 in its subsections (5)(6) and (7), should be considered seriously.
Former Prime Minister Sir John Major has warned that we should search our souls before taking this step. Others such as the Institute of Race Relations, the House of Lords Constitution Committee, the think tank Policy Exchange and the former Attorney-General Dominic Grieve, as well as five separate UN bodies, have stated that such deprivation orders made under Clause 9 are likely to be discriminatory and unlawful. I hope that we would give attention to such notable organisations and individuals.
I add that I support in principle the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, to omit subsections (2) and (4) of Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981, but understand that it is probably outwith the scope of the Bill. However, we have to address this, because we are in danger of creating a two-tier system of citizenship.
The fact is that Clause 9 has a disproportionate impact on people from ethnic-minority backgrounds. As a person cannot be made stateless according to international conventions, by default it is more likely to affect those who have a connection to the Commonwealth or a country where they are entitled to dual nationality. But it is not even as obvious as that, for some Commonwealth countries allow dual nationality or will accept people if they have a connection through their parents or grandparents, while others do not. Take south Asia, for example: while Bangladesh and Pakistan offer dual nationality to British citizens who have a direct link, India does not, so citizenship deprivation would not impact British citizens of Indian heritage. As I said in Committee, if Clause 9 is enacted into law, we are heading towards a society made up of degrees of citizenship, where some are full citizens while others are half-citizens and others somewhere in between.
Growing up between two distinct cultures, one is acutely aware of certain idiosyncrasies and traits which define each. The core values are, of course, the same, but there are always certain endearing features: the British sense of humour, with its self- deprecation and the ability to laugh with others at one’s own expense is one. The other is this sense of fairness. How often do we hear the phrase “That’s not fair”? Then there are all the variations: “Let’s be fair”, “Fair enough” and “Fair is fair”. Do noble Lords think it fair to have a two-tier system of citizenship? Do we think it is fair to deny someone their citizenship without informing them?
I understand that our intention is to root out ruthless individuals and deny them entry to our country, which is absolutely right. Not one of us would disagree that we must do everything to protect our people, but it begs the question: will it protect our citizens to have ill-intentioned people free to continue to conspire against us elsewhere, rather than having them locked away safely, following the rigours of our excellent courts? It also begs the question: what if there is a mistake, as has already happened in the case pointed out by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, of the British Bangladeshi man referred to as E3? He spent five years in Bangladesh trying to get back, having had his citizenship revoked without him even being informed. He eventually got back, as there was no evidence that he had committed any crime or had any intention of doing so—a completely innocent man, wrongfully accused. Was that fair or unfair?
Britain has a proud tradition of justice, equality and fairness. Let us keep it that way.
Baroness Verma (Con)
I was not intending to intervene, but may I ask my noble friend the Minister whether there is any major change to the current law that forces the commentary that my noble friend has just made? I have seen on WhatsApp groups worried people and citizens of this country with a lot of misinformation, and I have gone through the Bill and fact sheets and tried to get my head around what this is about—apart from the fact that we want to make sure that people are aware when their citizenship may be taken away, when they cannot be reached, and that is not based on anything other than their performing a criminal or terrorist act.
May I have some clarification? Sitting here, I have listened very carefully to every contribution made today, and while there are lawyers among us who know the details very well, ordinary citizens out there—people in groups with WhatsApp messages going around—are very frightened. They feel very scared, and they need to know that this is not the case.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. I think that the way this matter has been handled reflects extremely well on the flexibility and the detailed application of the minds of Members of your Lordships’ House in dealing with very great problems, especially when these problems are new and have recently arisen.
I was struck by the words of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, when he referred to the fact that when the 2011 Act was passed, he could not have imagined the need for these arrangements. Let us be aware that the thing that is new is the creation of a new political body, which has nothing do with religion, the Islamic State. It claims the ability to grant citizenship and demands loyalty but also—by definition, because it believes in theocracy rather than democracy, and the theocracy itself is an aberration with little to do with the noble aspects of Islam—believes in something that puts its members in permanent enmity with this country. They deny the right of other states to exist, which is why, of course, we should be taking steps to defend the realm against the possibility of such people using citizenship for the destruction of this country.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, although at first glance it would seem reasonable for the Home Office not to have to give notice to a terrorist overseas that they were being deprived of their British citizenship, it of course means that there is no effective right to appeal, as the subject would be unaware of the decision. We have also seen cases where the Home Office could have given notice, even to the last known address or by email, and chose not to. The increase in the use of this power needs to be reversed.
The amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, seek to introduce a range of judicial oversights, would remove the subjective element of the decision and tighten the grounds on which a deprivation of citizenship order may be made without notice to the person concerned. Others would strengthen the test for making such a decision; ensure, if the person concerned contacts the Home Office, that he is told what has happened and that he has a right of appeal; and allow the Special Immigration Appeals Tribunal to oversee such decisions. Any time limit on appeal would start when the subject is notified.
I understand that a government Minister would have signed these amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, had they not been out of time—the deadline for tabling government amendments being several days before that for other amendments. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, for the time, effort and ingenuity he has brought to bear in bringing forward such a comprehensive suite of amendments that could arguably halt, if not throw into reverse, the current practice by the Home Office increasingly to use this power to deprive citizenship without notice. We wholeheartedly support these amendments.
However, were the House to divide on taking Clause 9 out of the Bill, we would, along with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford, support that Division. At the end of the day, the Government should be taking ownership of the actions of British citizens, including terrorists overseas, ensuring, wherever possible, that they are extradited to the UK to stand trial, rather than depriving them of British citizenship, preventing them returning to the UK, and making them some other country’s problem, whether with notice or not. However, while therefore agreeing with much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has said, we are unable to go so far as to support her amendment, as there could be exceptional cases where, as a last resort, citizenship should be removed.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I think I am right in saying that until the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, spoke, all those speakers who had spoken against Clause 9 were noble Baronesses. I am not sure what the significance of that is, and I do not say that in any wrong way; I think it is a great credit to them. Like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I hope they will forgive me for intruding on their space.
Although we appreciate that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, are certainly an improvement on Clause 9—I, too, would like to express my thanks to the noble Lord for all the work I know he has put in—as it stands, we do not feel the case has been made by the Government for why Clause 9, and deprivation of nationality without prior notice to the individual concerned, are actually necessary. That is what we are talking about: not whether nationality should be removed but whether it should be possible for the Secretary of State to remove it without prior notice.
Currently, under the British Nationality Act 1981, an individual must be notified if they are to be deprived of their citizenship. So what is the problem when, for example, the present rules already allow for citizenship deprivation letters to be delivered to an individual’s last known address, or to a parent, or to a parent’s last known address? I say that against the background that the Government have already said there have been no cases where the requirement to give notice has stopped—prior to the recent High Court decision—a deprivation of citizenship order coming into being. It is also against a background where the number of people deprived of their citizenship has risen considerably over the last 12 years—an upward trend with a peak, I think, in 2017.
One thing we can be sure of is that if the Government have the powers under Clause 9, even with the amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, we will see deprivation of citizenship orders being made without prior notice, because if it is not the Government’s intention to take advantage of the powers to deprive a person of their citizenship without prior notice, why are they seeking them? Against that scenario, we need to be satisfied that there is a real and overriding necessity for this additional power now, when it has not been deemed necessary before, beyond it being perhaps more convenient or helpful on occasions not to have to go through the procedure of giving prior notice to the individual concerned. The lack of a compelling and meaningful government response on that point, and there having been no cases where the requirement to give notice has stopped the deprivation of citizenship order coming into being, is significant.
If a proven national security need does arise for the power not to have to give prior notice of a deprivation of citizenship notice coming into being, the Government can get such necessary legislation through Parliament, as we know, with remarkable speed. In the absence of such a case being made for this power—and the lack of it clearly has not caused a serious difficulty until now—we should be wary of agreeing to Clause 9, even as amended, remaining in the Bill.
I suggest that the situation has not been helped by finding out from information in the Court of Appeal decision that in the D4 case the Home Secretary
“argued that notification had been given to D4 … by simply placing a note on her Home Office file, relying on regulations introduced without parliamentary approval.”
That ought to make us very wary about giving the Secretary of State and the Home Office the additional powers in Clause 9, now that we know how existing statutory powers and requirements on notification have been interpreted and implemented in the D4 case.
The consequences of the clause are likely to be felt most—but certainly not exclusively, as the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, said—by those from ethnic minority backgrounds. It is no surprise that it is in this area that the Bill, particularly Clause 9, has caused most concern about how the new powers might be applied and interpreted and what the evidence is that they are needed now and have not been needed before.
It is unlawful to deprive someone of their citizenship and leave them stateless. Even so, the Home Office is still on record that British citizenship
“is a privilege, not a right”.
Yet without citizenship people do not have rights, and we are talking about significant rights. It has been estimated that nearly 6 million people in England and Wales could be affected, and that under this proposal two in five British citizens from an ethnic minority background are eligible to be deprived of their citizenship without being told, since they have, or may have, other citizenships available to them—I think that was the basis of the comment about two classes of citizenship—compared with one in 20 characterised as white. That is a sobering consideration for the Government, or should be, when looking at the merits or demerits of Clause 9, not least in the light of how the Secretary of State and the Home Office in the D4 case interpreted and implemented the requirement to give prior notice under the law as it exists at present. What would be tried if Clause 9, even as amended by the amendments by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, gave the power not to have to give prior notice?
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford raised the issue of trust, or rather the lack of it, among society groups. The Government ought to reflect very carefully on that in considering whether Clause 9, even as amended, should remain in the Bill. I have to say that as far as we are concerned the case has not been made for Clause 9, even as amended, to remain in the Bill, and we shall certainly be looking for an opportunity to vote against it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate, especially the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, who has tabled these amendments; I am very grateful for his expertise in this matter. I also acknowledge Amendment 20, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and Amendment 22, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
The House will recall that we debated this matter at length in Committee. I say now, as I said then, that inaccurate and irresponsible media reporting continues to fuel fear and concern about how Clause 9 is to operate. I will repeat what I said then, starting with my noble friend Lady Verma: the deprivation power itself is not altered. Clause 9 does not alter the reasons why a person is to be deprived of British citizenship and we are not stripping millions of their citizenship.
To answer the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, and others, Clause 9 does not target dual nationals, those from ethnic minorities or particular faiths, or indeed women and girls; there is no secret decision-making, and law-abiding people have nothing to fear from Clause 9. It is simply about the mechanics of how a deprivation decision are conveyed to the individual concerned.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)
I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke in this debate on a subject that I suspect none of us found particularly easy. I do not want to pre-empt anything, but it is possible, having heard the debate, that my amendments may not be very controversial. My noble friend Lord Carlile was alone in suggesting that these amendments go too far; he always was a little bit tougher than me. The real question for your Lordships might be whether they go far enough—whether, in short, we stick with my amendments or, as the opposition Front Benches maintain, twist by removing the whole clause.
The manuscript amendment shone a spotlight on subsections (5) to (7), which my amendments do not touch. With great respect to the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, it is not right that the effect of those subsections is that pre-commencement deprivation orders would, as she put it, not be subject to scrutiny. Their effect is rather that a pre-commencement deprivation would not be invalid purely because it was served to the file, in accordance with the Immigration Rules then in force.
Subsections (5) to (7) do not prevent a person who becomes aware of the deprivation—as the Minister just confirmed just now, they have only to ask—appealing it on any substantive ground. Indeed, the Minister also just confirmed, in providing the other undertaking that I sought, that the Home Office would not suggest that such appeals were out of time.
As to the suggestion that Clause 9 should be removed in its entirety, when I secured the agreement of the Government to my amendments, noble Lords will understand that it was not with a view to pocketing the gains and then asking for more. Therefore, I cannot in all conscience support that amendment myself, either as a tactical gambit or in the substance. I do, however, support my own amendments and I beg to move.
Lord Anderson of Ipswich
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment removes the subjective element from the condition in paragraph (a) of new subsection (5A)(notice of deprivation of citizenship not required if Secretary of State does not have the requisite information).
“(b) the Secretary of State reasonably considers it necessary, in the interests of—(i) national security,(ii) the investigation or prosecution of organised or serious crime,(iii) preventing or reducing a risk to the safety of any person, or(iv) the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country,that notice under that subsection should not be given.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment limits the grounds on which a deprivation-of-citizenship order may be made without notice to the person concerned, and also strengthens the test, so that one may only be made if the Secretary of State reasonably considers it necessary.
“(5C) Subsection (5D) applies where—(a) the Secretary of State has made an order under subsection (2) and, in reliance on subsection (5A), has not given the notice required by subsection (5), and(b) the person in respect of whom the order was made makes contact with the Secretary of State for the Home Department.(5D) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, give the person written notice specifying—(a) that the Secretary of State has made the order,(b) the reasons for the order, and(c) the person’s right of appeal under section 40A(1) or under section 2B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.(5E) Schedule 4A makes provision for the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to consider a decision of the Secretary of State not to give notice to a person before depriving them of a citizenship status on the grounds mentioned in subsection (2) (deprivation conducive to the public good).” Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts three new subsections into section 40 of the BNA 1981. The first two provide for late notice to be given to a person who has been deprived of their citizenship without notice if they subsequently make contact with the Home Office. The third introduces the new Schedule 4A to the British Nationality Act 1981, which provides for the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to oversee decisions to deprive a person of their citizenship without notice.
“(b) after subsection (2) insert—“(2A) In the case of an order made as described in subsection (1)(b), for the purposes of any rule or other provision limiting the time within which an appeal under this section may be brought, time does not start to run unless and until the person is given notice of the fact that the order has been made (see section 40(5D) and Schedule 4A).”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that in a case where a person is deprived of their citizenship without notice, time for bringing an appeal will not start to run unless and until they are subsequently given notice.
“(3A) After Schedule 4 to the 1981 Act insert the Schedule 4A set out in Schedule 1A.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment inserts the new Schedule 4A into the British Nationality Act 1981.
Baroness D’Souza
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, having listened with great care to a number of Lords speak about Clause 9, I think it is accepted that citizenship of the UK is an enormous privilege, but it is also a right. It seems that, despite the wonderful amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, there remain sufficient loopholes in Clause 9 for it to become, once on the statute book, a hostage to fortune. In view of that, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Judge
“Compliance with the Refugee Convention
Nothing in this Part authorises policies or decisions which do not comply with the United Kingdom’s obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause reflects the Government’s stated intention of compliance with the Refugee Convention and ensures Part 2 provisions are read subject to that international legal obligation.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has asked me to open the batting on this amendment. It is a very short, important and simple amendment that addresses an unnecessary problem. The Minister has told us—no doubt on the basis of legal advice—that the Bill in its present form is compliant with the 1951 convention and the 1967 protocol. In being so, the argument is, it will fulfil the Government’s repeated assertions that this is precisely what the Government intend. Indeed, the Minister said so in terms in answer to my request in Committee, and I apologise to her because at that late time of night I had simply missed what she said, or at least I had not fully absorbed it. She said:
“We are absolutely firm … that nothing in the Bill undermines our convention obligations”.—[Official Report, 10/2/22; col. 1985.]
So what is this all about?
I mean no disrespect to the Minister, of course not, but her statement is no more than mere assertion—an assertion of opinion based on what the department’s legal advisers have told and advised her. Some of us—indeed, many of us—share the Government’s apparently absolute commitment to the convention, but we do not think that the Bill does. We believe that the Government are wrong. In our view, provision after provision in Part 2—the debate will happen later on—contravenes the convention. With many others, I shall support the later amendments that seek to achieve compliance, simply because we believe that the provisions are not compliant. Many of us are lawyers too; we have to address convention issues, but many of us are not lawyers and are simply reading what the proposed legislation actually says. We are convinced that, as things stand, the Bill contravenes the convention, and does so repeatedly.
This is not a lawyerly quibble: even as we speak the problems of refugees are being shown to us in Ukraine. Rather than a lawyerly quibble, what worries me is that the debate has gathered echoes of the Christmas pantomime: “Oh yes,” say the Government, “This Bill is compliant with the convention”, and I reply, on behalf of others, “Oh no it isn’t compliant”, and the Government say, “Oh yes it is”, and we say, “Oh no it isn’t”, and so it goes on. But this is not a pantomime; this is lawmaking. I suspect that I am not the only person here who thinks it is a very strange parliamentary debate in which honest views exchanged in this way overlook that this is a deeply sensitive debate about which there has been much human suffering. The level to which it has plunged in relation to the pantomime is really rather serious.
The only place where this “Oh yes it is, oh no it isn’t” exchange can be resolved is in the legislation itself. If it is accepted, this very simple amendment will achieve both the frequently declared intention of the Government and the objective of those of us who believe that the legislation fails to do so. Let me explain this in a few words.
In future cases, the court will be bound by the provisions of the legislation which we have enacted—by its statutory provisions, not by repeated government declarations of their intentions. Even an advocate of the immense standing of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who sought to rely, in court, on the repeated assertions of the declared intentions of the Government, was met with: “But that’s not what the legislation says”. Maybe the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, would have an answer to this, but even if he produced one, it would not be very effective.
If we are right—and I believe we—then we have this absurdity whereby the expressed intentions of the Government will be defeated by their own legislation. That is rather stark. If the expressions on behalf of the Government are genuine—and, although she is not here, I do not for one moment doubt the Minister’s personal good faith—we really are in cloud-cuckoo-land. The amendment will avoid that absurdity. There will be no uncertainty or equivocation. Any decision or policy in relation to the provisions of Part 2, whatever form they may eventually take, will be subject to the convention and protocol. This is on the unequivocal basis that it is a primary requirement of the legislation that any decision of the Home Office officials responsible, and any decision of the court considering those decisions under Part 2, must comply with them.
There is nothing new about a provision like this. I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, among others, for drawing my attention to Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. We are right here in this very field. Nothing in the Immigration Rules shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the convention. This is all that we are asking for here. Let us have that principle set out in the Bill in the form of this amendment.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, those who heard the Minister outline the position of the Government earlier today with regard to the plight of Ukrainians must have been dismayed by his response. None the less, I make no personal criticism of him at all.
Some of us have in mind the cavalier attitude of Mr Johnson to treaties that he recently signed, such as the Northern Ireland protocol. When I consider many of the suggestions which come out of the Home Office as to how to deter migrants from coming to this country, I have no confidence that this Government will always comply with the letter—far less the spirit—of the convention. I do not suppose that the new clause proposed by Amendment 24 will be a complete remedy. However, it is a very useful statement of an important principle, and I shall vote for it.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Not surprisingly, there is nothing I could add to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, has said. We shall certainly be supporting this amendment if it ends up being put to a vote.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I told the noble and learned Lord that we will be supporting him. He said that that was the right answer.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I signed this amendment for all the reasons that were given by the noble and learned Lord and because it is of vital importance, especially at this time, that the legislature makes it clear that it intends and requires that the Government comply with their international obligations.
The Paliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, for proposing the new clause. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, said that it was a short one; I respectfully agree, and hope that I can be brief in response without any discourtesy to the noble and learned Lord or, indeed, the other proposers of the clause. One point in his speech on which I think the whole House agreed was when he reminded us that, whatever the question, the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, will always be able to think of an answer.
Turning to the subject matter of the amendment and the proposed new clause, I first underline what was said by my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford as to the Government’s commitment to their international legal obligations flowing from the refugee convention. Not only is it our intention to continue to comply with all of the legal obligations under that convention but we consider that this legislation does precisely that.
Our starting point is that the provisions of the Bill are compliant with the refugee convention but, none the less, the new clause is not something that I can support. Let me set out why.
The refugee convention, as I have said before, and effectively by design, leaves certain terms and concepts open to a degree of interpretation. That is an important feature of international instruments such as the refugee convention, allowing it not only to stand the test of time—some might say that it could now usefully be reviewed, but that is a separate point—but, more importantly, to be applied in and across many jurisdictions with differing legal systems. Necessarily, therefore, there is then a need to ascribe meaning to the terms of the convention at a domestic level. That meaning is determined by each signatory to the refugee convention in accordance with the principles of the Vienna convention, taking a good faith interpretation in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the language used in the convention.
Against that background, I suggest that it is absolutely right that Parliament may pass legislation setting out how the UK interprets the refugee convention and the UK’s obligations under it. Having a clear framework of definitions, and setting out unambiguously the key principles, promotes clarity and consistency in how decisions are made; as I have said in previous debates, that is a desirable approach. The mischief that I see in this amendment is that it would risk undermining the clarity and certainty that we are trying to create by effectively giving the courts a chance to look behind the interpretation agreed by Parliament in primary legislation when that interpretation is then applied through policy and subsequent decisions.
On the one hand, we want to give the pen to Parliament, so to speak, to set out a clear understanding and interpretation of the convention; Part 2 of the Bill is very clear as to our intentions in this respect. However, I suggest that this amendment would afford the courts an opportunity to come to a different understanding when looking at the policies and practices which put that system into effect. Of course, I accept that it will be for the courts to interpret the legislation once enacted, and I do not disagree that the courts have a role in overseeing whether policies or decisions comply with the interpretation of the convention as set out in the Bill; that is a given. But it is Parliament’s interpretation that is key here. It is not for the court to set out its own, potentially conflicting interpretation of the refugee convention and the obligations under it.
Therefore, far from creating a certain and consistent approach, this promotes uncertainty with policies and decisions being potentially judged against differing interpretations. If we are content, as I suggest we should be, that Parliament is legislating in compliance with the approach open to all state parties under the Vienna convention—that is, affording a good faith interpretation to the refugee convention—then this clause is not only unnecessary but promotes confusion and uncertainty for all those seeking to apply to, and comply with, the asylum system.
It would also be unusual to put in primary legislation the statement that Parliament, when legislating, is complying with its international obligations. International conventions cover a wide area of legislation, and if we did so here it could create questions as to why we did not do so in other statutes and why other statutes do not provide the same assurances.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, as alerted by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, mentioned Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. That already sets out the primacy of the refugee convention in domestic law. I will repeat what it says:
“Nothing in the immigration rules (within the meaning of the 1971 Act) shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention.”
Accordingly, if the aim of this proposed new clause is that the policies implemented under Part 2 of this Bill through the rules or connected guidance are meant to be compatible, and not incompatible, with the refugee convention, as interpreted by Parliament in this Bill, that can already be challenged by way of Section 2 of the 1993 Act. Our policies and decision-making will continue to be made in accordance with the Immigration Rules or published guidance.
What, therefore, would this proposed new clause add? My concern is that it adds a means for the court to question the interpretation given by Parliament to the refugee convention. I suggest respectfully that this would be contrary to a fundamental purpose of this Bill: for Parliament to define the nature of our obligations under the refugee convention while remaining compliant with those obligations. The proposed new clause potentially leaves the nature of obligations and terms under the convention open to the interpretation of the courts, removing the certainty that we are trying to achieve.
To put it in two sentences, if the aim is to make sure that the Immigration Rules and guidance are compliant with the refugee convention, that is already done under the 1993 Act. If the aim is any more than that, I respectfully suggest that it trespasses on a fundamental purpose of this Bill: that Parliament, and not the courts, should interpret how the UK implements the refugee convention. For those reasons, I respectfully invite the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
Before the noble Lord sits down, do I understand that it is the Minister’s intention that, if this Bill is passed in its present form, in future no court shall look behind its provisions and consider what, under the convention and with the advice of UNHCR, its proper application and interpretation are? Is that the Minister’s intention?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
In so far as the court has been told by Parliament that it can do that in the 1993 Act when it comes to the Immigration Rules, the court can do so. But, with the greatest respect, the courts interpret legislation; they are not there to go behind legislation with an autonomous meaning, so far as the courts are concerned, of what the refugee convention means. What the convention means is a matter for the member states, each interpreting it under the terms of the Vienna convention. With respect, it is not for the courts to second-guess Parliament’s interpretation of the UK’s obligations under the refugee convention.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, faced with the problems to which Part 2 gives rise, we end up, on the basis of the Minister’s response, with the situation in which the court will look at provisions that we say contravene the convention and say, “Ah, Parliament has said that this provision must apply. Although it contravenes the convention, it must still be applied.” The court must do so, notwithstanding that the intention of the Government was that the provision should be compliant.
We are going around in circles. We are back to “Oh, yes, it is” and “Oh, no, it isn’t”, and that is no way for us to be on a measure of such crucial importance to many people suffering from the consequences of persecution, war, famine and so many things that afflict other nations and with which fortunately we are not afflicted. The House really ought to decide this. I ask the House to decide and tell us what its decision is.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment ensures equality of treatment by removing the distinction between Group 1 and Group 2 refugees.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, when I tabled these amendments, I had sought to seek a greater reassurance from my noble friend the Minister than I achieved in Committee. Obviously, I realise, given the result of the last few votes, it may be that Amendment 28, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, and others, will find greater favour with the House. However, I shall take this opportunity to set out my opposition in principle to what the Government are seeking to do here: it is not just the fact that two groups are being created, but the way in which those two groups will be treated differently.
Perhaps the most offensive provision in Clause 11 is subsection (5). The Explanatory Notes refer to it as
“differential treatment of refugees based on their group. Differences may, for example, apply in terms of the duration of their permission to remain in the UK, the availability of routes to settlement, the ability to have recourse to public funds, and the ability of family members to join them in the UK. There is no obligation for these powers to be exercised and discretion may be applied.”
The greatest difficulty that I have is that it is not clear that there will be discretion or, indeed, how that discretion will be applied.
I hate to say it to my noble friend, but I find it offensive that this differential between groups 1 and 2 has been created. In taking the two groups out and substituting the general term “person”, I draw attention to Amendment 27, which asks for “reasonable discretion” to be exercised. I believe that is the key to all the amendments before us. This comes directly from the advice that I have received from the Law Society of Scotland as to how the provision will apply, if the original clause is left unamended. It says:
“We take the view that how a person enters the UK should not impact on family reunion. Safe and legal routes have been reduced since the UK left the European Union with the removal of the Dublin III Regulation. This provision appears to be actually reducing the prospect of families using one of only the two safe and legal routes the Asylum seeker has i.e., refugee family reunion – the other being UNHCR resettlement. Fewer safe and legal routes are likely to result in more unsafe and perilous journeys.”
Given the new situation arising daily in Ukraine, and the dreadful humanitarian crisis that we see there, I hope that the Government will resist the provisions in the clause and look favourably on my amendments and think again—but I fear that perhaps the House will favour the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard. I beg to move.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I welcome the new clause proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, but we need to do a belt-and-braces job here. I am afraid we have to go back to the issue of compatibility and “Oh yes it is; oh no it isn’t.”
In Clause 11, we are introducing something entirely new. This two-class categorisation of refugees—the real refugees who came direct and the class 2 refugees who did not—is not anywhere in the refugee convention. None of that is in the refugee convention. The Government say that it is all perfectly compatible with the convention and assert that it is our right to interpret the convention in this new way, differently from the way that it has been interpreted up to now by our courts, differently from the way that the UNHCR, the custodian of the convention, interprets it in its authoritative judgment on our Bill, and differently from the way in which 146 signatory states interpret it.
We did the “Oh yes it is; oh no it is not” game at length in Committee and the Government stuck to their view, but I think it is fair to say that the Committee found it rather hard to understand the Government’s view. I wondered whether the Minister perhaps let the cat out of the bag when he told us:
“It may … be”—
to be fair, he did put it tentatively—
“that a convention entered into in 1951 is not absolutely suitable for the world of 2022.”—[Official Report, 8/2/22; col. 1463.]
Tonight, we heard the Minister seeming to hint that it might be time to review the convention as if it was in some way out of date. I could not disagree more.
I refute the Minister’s contention in one word: Ukraine. Life itself—zhizn’ sama, as a Russian would say—refutes the Minister’s contention. In the world of 2022, we see these hundreds of thousands of people—now over 500,000, the UNHCR says—abandoning their homes, trudging the motorways, crowding on to the trains, fleeing the tanks and rockets, and streaming into Poland and Hungary, Slovakia, Moldova and Romania. Are they refugees? Yes, of course they are refugees, just like the Hungarians in 1956 and the Czechs in 1968. Are they entitled to refugee convention rights? Yes, of course they are. But if the Bill, including Clause 11, is enacted or had been enacted, any of them who wanted to come to this country could be only group 2 refugees, without full convention rights, because they had not come directly from Ukraine and could have asked for asylum in Poland or Hungary. That is even though there are no direct flights from Ukraine, and even though we say Ukrainians have to have visas to come here—although we do not issue visas to asylum seekers.
The key point for the House tonight is that there is nothing in the convention or, as I understand it, subject to correction from the legal authorities round me, anywhere in international law requiring an asylum seeker to apply in the first safe country they reach. This, the rationale for Clause 11, is a Home Office invention. The convention sets only one test: not how the refugee got here, but why. What was it that drove him to come here? Was it a well-founded fear of persecution back home? That is the question. But if Clause 11 is approved, that question or test becomes redundant and irrelevant because, no matter what horrors he is fleeing from, if a refugee did not come here directly he could be only a group 2 refugee, subject to the harsher regime, detention and offshore processing set out in all the subsequent clauses that we are also going to have to look at closely, in my view. This just will not do.
My concern is with the refugees but also for the reputational damage we do to ourselves, if we go down this road, and the practical consequences for the refugee convention. Suppose our new invention caught on and other countries started following suit. Well over 20 million refugees are in countries contiguous to their homelands—just across the border—and nearly all these countries are developing countries. Suppose the convention were in future to be interpreted by all and sundry to mean that the exiled Syrians and Iraqis must always stay just across the frontier in Lebanon or Jordan, and that the Afghans must always stay in Pakistan, but the developed world can wash its hands of these problems and leave it to the Jordans and Pakistans, because the refugees could never move on and obtain asylum elsewhere. The only places they could obtain asylum were in the Jordans and the Pakistans.
What would the consequences of that be? They would be disastrous for the first host country; there are 1.5 million people in Lebanon from Iraq and Syria, and more than that from Afghanistan in the camps around Peshawar in Pakistan. We would be saying that Pakistan and Jordan are going to be stuck with that for ever, as far as we are concerned. It would be disastrous for the refugees, too.
If this doctrine caught on—if it were the general reading of international law that first hosts had sole responsibility—anyone seeking to flee persecution would find the gates of freedom clanging shut in their face. If we leave Clause 11 in the Bill, we do not just betray our values and trash our reputation, we could kill the refugee convention, sadly, though we need it in the world of 2022 as much as ever. I propose that Clause 11 be deleted.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, we had a long debate on this subject in Committee, so I shall be brief. We ought to remember throughout what the Bill was originally about. It is fundamentally about stopping, or curbing, the channel migrants. Obviously, we hope to do it in a sensible way. If we could have an agreement with the French, the Belgians or the Dutch to deal with this in a bipartisan way, that would be ideal, but none of us is very optimistic, particularly before a general election in France and so on.
We need other options: a plan B, or maybe a plan C. I agree that some of them stretch the credibility of what any Government would want to do, because the problem of the cross-channel migrants is indeed very difficult to deal with. You have to deal with them separately because, however sympathetic one may be with people in the hands of traffickers coming across the channel for whatever reason, it is a difficult way to come across. It is unsafe, they are clearly behaving illegally—it is against the law to enter this country in that way—and they are doing so in a very public way. Every night on television, you can see people coming across the channel and on to the beaches in Kent and so forth. They add to the number of people the Government have agreed to accept by proper routes—the Chinese from Hong Kong, the Afghans and, now, Ukrainians. Like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, I hope we will have a generous scheme to allow Ukrainians who wish to come here to do so, just as I hope that Europe will have a generous scheme. I suspect and hope that they will come here only temporarily.
Coming across the channel is an open-ended and uncontrolled method and, if successful, encourages even more to come. Last year, 29,000 came; the prediction is that 60,000 will come this year. That is more money for the traffickers. The traffickers now make more money out of human beings than they do out of drugs, which will increasingly be the case. If we allow that to carry on uncontrolled, it makes it more difficult for local authorities, which have to deal with these people—housing them, making welfare arrangements, schooling their children and dealing with their families.
They add to the problems in the most disadvantaged parts of the country. It is not the leafy areas of Hampstead where these people end up; it is in places such as Blackpool, Stoke-on-Trent, Middlesbrough and Doncaster. I was talking to a red wall MP from the north-west. Blackpool has five of the eight poorest wards in the country; it has real problems. There is fury on the streets of Blackpool at the way they are being dumped on with people such as the migrants who come across the channel. They do not understand why they have to receive them.
The levelling-up agenda, which is central to this Government, is set at nought when that situation is arising in the areas of this country which need to be levelled up. It makes a proper, organised, rational immigration policy more difficult. As my noble friend Lord Hodgson said in a previous debate, informed consent—the consent of the people—is essential for a rational, substantiated and long-term immigration policy. If we do not have a policy that people are comfortable with, in the long run, we will not sustain it.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, if the names had not been filled on Amendment 28 then I would have added my name to it. I remind the House of my interests as set out in the register, both in RAMP and Reset.
In Committee I laid out the understanding of the two groupings proposed and argued that almost no one will actually qualify as being in group 1. I had no repudiation offered to that argument. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, Ukraine is currently illustrating the problem precisely. I was also concerned in the response to the debate in Committee by some of the language of discretion within the two groupings.
We need a simpler, more efficient asylum system, and I continue to be convinced that what is proposed will provide a more complex, slower process. Fundamentally, I am with all those who oppose the two-group system, as it creates a fundamental injustice for fair treatment of all refugees, regardless of how they arrive.
Today, a letter signed by over 1,000 leaders from all the major faith communities of this country was delivered to the Prime Minister. I quote from that letter:
“Dear Prime Minister, As leaders within faith communities across the UK, we are horrified and appalled about the potential repercussions of the Nationality and Borders Bill. We urge you to reconsider the proposals even at this late stage.”
It goes on later to say:
“Currently, Clause 11 sets out the differential treatment of refugees. This separation of refugees into ‘Group 1’ or ‘Group 2’ undermines the longstanding and widely understood expectation that a person’s asylum application is decided on the individual merits of their case and whether they would face serious threats to their life or freedom if they were not to be granted refugee status. The artificial manufacture of a two-tier system creates two different classes of refugees. This would not be based on needs or merits but would depend on the ability of a person to arrive in the UK via a ‘regular’ route of travel. This is a clear breach of the principles of the Refugee Convention, and we have seen no credible evidence that it will stop irregular migration across the English Channel; it is therefore, policy made without a basis in evidence or morality. Criminalizing and punishing vulnerable asylum seekers who have little choice but to arrive in the UK through ‘irregular routes’, when the majority are subsequently able to prove that they have a legitimate basis for their asylum claim, is a disgraceful and dishonourable policy, and should be abandoned.”
The letter says some more about other clauses, but concludes:
“What we need now, is political leadership which acknowledges and allays the concerns of the public while promoting the importance of compassion, human life and dignity. We remain willing to assist in any way we can to this end, and ask that key representatives on this issue from the government would agree to meet with faith representatives to explore what both we, and the government, can do to help address some of the concerns we have raised.”
Just to be clear, Members on these benches who are engaging in the debates during the progress of the Bill made a conscious decision not to sign that letter because of our privilege of being able to speak here. If we were not here, we would have all signed it. It has over 1000 signatures of those from all major faiths. I doubt the Minister is going to agree to withdraw all of Clause 11, but I sincerely hope that she will ask the Prime Minister to respond positively to the letter and recognise that faith leaders representing faith communities across the land should be heeded and not ignored.
If I may add that, on the Australia example, it is not as simple as the noble Lord, Lord Horam, has suggested. There are many in Australia who will tell you that the system is not working and has not stopped the problems; indeed, I think Novak Djokovic might tell you of his own personal experience of how it is not working because of the people he met in the hotel that he was held in, some of whom have been held for a very long time. There is another simple reason it does not work: geography. The United Kingdom is in a very different geographic setting from Australia. I long that we remove Clause 11.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I very much agree with the right reverend Prelate, and I am totally in support of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and his amendment.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate: all the evidence we have from Australia is that it is not working. I have talked to people in Australia who say that we should not go down this path because it is not sensible and it does not work.
I shall be extremely brief. The idea that, at this stage, we start renegotiating the 1951 Geneva convention—presumably on the basis of clauses such as Clause 11—is a frightening prospect. This is no time to be tearing up one of the most fundamental human rights documents that we have, which protects vulnerable, innocent victims of war and persecution. This is no time to be saying that we will change that. If the Government are not proposing to do it that way, why have this clause?
It seems to me that there are too many examples—whether it is Afghans who have got to neighbouring countries but cannot get any further, or Ukrainians who have got to neighbouring countries—that give the lie to the idea that, somehow, you can get here by the sort of route that the Home Office approves of. It is complete nonsense. It is not workable and it diminishes this country in the eyes of the world.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
I was so annoyed by what the noble Lord, Lord Horam, was saying, because part of it was absolute nonsense. Australia is actually riven with debate on the whole system of asylum that it offers to refugees, and the offshoring is extremely contentious, not to mention inhumane. Plus, of course, what he has described as all the problems that we have with refugees are actually failures of the Government. Why does he not ask his Government to set up safe systems for refugees to arrive in Britain? That is the real problem: we do not have them.
I shall go back to what I want to say: compliance with the refugee convention seems absolutely part of what we should be doing as an honourable country. We should not think in terms of interpreting it in our own way. Just as countries all over Europe are throwing open their doors to Ukrainian refugees and refugees from other countries who have found themselves in Ukraine, we are putting up walls and nailing doors shut, rather than being honourable about the situation. Imagine people from Ukraine being subject to the two-tier refugee system, as the so-called legitimate ways of escaping Putin’s violent invasion are cut off and Ukrainian refugees have to use so-called illegitimate ways of getting to the UK. The Bill harms those refugees.
If people do get here from Ukraine or other countries, are they to be left homeless and begging on the streets because there is no recourse to public funds and they are banned from work? These people are professionals: they are teachers, nurses, skilled engineers and tradespeople with lifetimes of hard work behind them. They are all banned from contributing in this country, and it makes absolutely no economic or social sense. When Ukrainians claim asylum, do we lock up the women and children in detention centres if they are struggling to find the right paperwork?
If this Government were brave, they would go out and celebrate the asylum system and create one that was fit for purpose and champion the UK as a place of refuge. But this Government are not brave: they pander to the far right and use national rhetoric to divide and rule. At this point, the Government ought to reflect on the whole Bill and realise it is not appropriate for the circumstances we are in. It is cruel, it is inhumane, and quite honestly, the invasion of Ukraine should be a turning point for us. The Government should abandon the Bill and perhaps start thinking about a “refugees are welcome” Bill.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, may I just ask my noble friend a question, based on listening to this debate and looking at Clause 11 as it stands? Subsections (5) and (6) say that the Secretary of State “may” treat group 1 and 2 refugees differently. My interpretation is that this clause is introducing an element of discretion to the Home Secretary to deal with a situation in a way that allows some difference of treatment, should she see fit—not a requirement that she must do so.
On the point the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, just made in response to my noble friend Lord Horam, I say that the Government are not seeking not to comply with the refugee convention, but seeking to allow for some flexibility and discretion to deal with some of the changing situations in this context, which are very different now from when the convention was introduced 50 or so years ago.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I entirely endorse and support what the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, has said. I do not want to develop this as a lawyer, because the issues can be very well understood by anybody with any degree of common sense. The starting point is that the English courts have reached a view about the meaning of “directly” in the convention, and the contrary view that has been rejected by the courts is the one found in Clause 36; and Clause 11 is to be read with Clause 36. I take issue with the proposition that the introduction of “may” in some way or other alleviates this problem. It does not. The Government have adopted a view about the meaning of the convention, and the meaning of “directly” that is critical to the division between groups 1 and 2, which has been rejected. Perhaps more importantly even than the fact that it was rejected expressly by the English courts is that it has not been adopted by the UNCHR either, which has followed the English jurisdiction since the expert round-table conference in Geneva in November 2001, set up specifically to discuss and agree Article 31.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I was not intending to speak in this debate but, rather like the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, I was prompted to by some of the interventions from behind the Front Bench, so as a non-politician I will speak briefly about the political context used to justify some of this rather egregious legislation.
I have the privilege of being the only non-political member of the UK delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The Council of Europe is nothing to do with the EU. It is the foremost human rights organisation in our continent, with 47 countries until Friday, when we ejected Russia, so we are now down to 46.
Although I am independent, and I am not a politician, to function there you have to be part of a political grouping, so I sit with what happens to be the political grouping of the Government of the United Kingdom of today: the Conservative Party. The political grouping it is in is called the European Conservatives Group and Democratic Alliance. The group that we—all the Conservative MPs and Peers and I—sit in when we are in Strasbourg contains some of the political parties that the noble Lord, Lord Horam, referred to by name, saying we did not want to go that way.
In Strasbourg, the Conservative Party sits with the AfD, the laughingly named Sweden Democrats, who are effectively neo-fascists, and, from my wife’s native Italy, the Fratelli d’Italia, who are the direct descents of Mussolini, and the Lega Nord, led by the wonderful Mr Salvini, usually seen on the beach. These are not good bedfellows. Some of the comments that I hear from politicians, particularly from another place but also from some members of the Cabinet, are remarkably similar to some of the views I hear in the meeting room in Strasbourg when some of these individuals are speaking—views which most of us would find pretty horrendous but one steels oneself to listen to because, I suspect, they are probably reflecting pretty accurately the views of the people who voted them into office.
I will briefly refer to being in office. My great-grandfather, who was Prime Minister three times, said, “You are not elected into power; you are elected into office. You are elected into office as much to represent those who didn’t vote for you, or who didn’t vote at all, as those who did vote for you”. What we are hearing is a sort of “I’m all right, Jack” view of the world.
My wife’s native country of Italy is a contiguous country, in the way referred to by my noble friend Lord Kerr. Italy’s citizens did not want or vote for a large migration from north Africa to come. They may not like it, but they have accepted it; they really do not have any choice. Part of the reason that they are having a lot of problems and they are quite cross with countries such as ours is that we have completely and utterly refused, as have most other EU countries, to share the burden equally. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and I have been to Jordan, another contiguous country. We went to Zaatari, the largest refugee camp for Syrians, in northern Jordan, where some 80,000 men, women and many children are huddled in reasonable conditions, thanks to the UNHCR. In Lebanon and Turkey no citizen voted for this, but that is what they have ended up with. We are a very long way from being contiguous but we are behaving in a way which, frankly, I find shameful.
The great-grandfather I referred to earlier was involved in raising the equivalent of about £34 million in 1939 after the Kristallnacht in Germany, which enabled a great many Kindertransport children to come to this country—that is what the money was used for. He would be ashamed by what is going on in this Chamber tonight.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I will just say a word in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Horam, said, about public opinion. We have to be careful here. A substantial slice of public opinion is concerned about the scale and nature of the inflow of people claiming to be refugees, and the shambles in the channel at the moment is no help. We need to bear that in mind in all our discussions. I do not think that the policy itself will work, and I do not think that the division into this or the other class of refugee will help. But let us not, for goodness’ sake, get carried away by our own righteousness and forget that there are a lot of people in this country who are not in situations as comfortable as ours who look to us to make sure that, in so far as there is an input of refugees, they are genuine.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I would not want that to be quite the last word. The speech made by my noble friend Lord Kerr was not merely powerful, it was compelling and irrefutable. As a matter of law, I have spoken on this before in Committee. I am not going to repeat all that, but do we really believe that the inhabitants of Blackpool, Doncaster or the deprived towns spoken of by the noble Lord, Lord Horam, and reflected in the contribution of my noble friend Lord Green, are so much less understanding, less sympathetic or less kind than the Poles, who are welcoming these vast hordes of people? We are not going to be asked to take that sort of number.
It is a dismaying thought that we really believe that our fellow countrymen, at this crisis in world events, would turn their backs, which is, in effect, what is being suggested. Are we really going to condemn, as Clause 11 is designed to do, rafts of asylum seekers—genuine refugees—to the loneliness, isolation, desperation, destitution and failure to be able to bring their families that it is suggested we now must to stop people crossing the channel, or to appease those in our deprived areas who do not want vast numbers of more refugees? I fervently suggest not. I would have hoped that, in this ghastly moment of history, the Minister would say, “This is not a moment to promote a Bill like this. We must withdraw it and think again”. No doubt, that is above his pay grade: indeed, considering that he is unpaid, that is not a very high bar. However, I really urge those responsible for this grotesque piece of legislation not to try to persist in it at this juncture.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, if those seeking asylum in the UK are genuine seekers of sanctuary from war and persecution, they are entitled to all the rights afforded to refugees under the refugee convention. Even if they are eventually found not to be genuine refugees, they are entitled to have their claim considered and their welfare safeguarded while it is being considered. A number of noble Lords have talked about public opinion. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, who appears to think that this is all about people crossing the channel, Clause 11 would make Ukrainian refugees who made it to Poland and then flew to the UK second-class refugees. If—I say “if”; I am not saying that this is the case—there is concern in public opinion, it is a concern about immigration, not a concern about refugees.
This is a very generous nation. If you speak to people in the towns and cities that the noble Lord, Lord Horam, has mentioned, the vast majority will say, “Of course we want to help those people fleeing the war in Ukraine”. They are concerned about being overwhelmed by immigrants, but only 6% of immigration in recent years has been by asylum seekers. That is why Clause 11 is not right and not necessary. Once asylum seekers have presented themselves and their claim in the UK, they are entitled to have their claim considered without fear or favour, regardless of where they came from and how they got here. They should not be treated differently on that basis. We should take Clause 11 out of the Bill and, when the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, tests the opinion of the House, we will be voting with him.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, under the rules of Report stage, one is allowed to speak only once during the debate.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, as has been said, Clause 11 is about differential treatment of recognised refugees. There is the distinction that the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, referred to between refugees and immigration generally. We believe that Clause 11 contravenes the 1951 refugee convention: it sets a dangerous precedent by creating a two-tier system—group 1 refugees and group 2 refugees—and, frankly, it is also inhumane.
Under the Bill, the Home Secretary will be given sweeping powers to decide asylum cases based on how someone arrives in this country and their mode of transport, not on the strength of their claim, contrary to the 1951 refugee convention, of which Britain was a founding member. The different ways those two groups could be treated is not limited in any way by the Bill, although Clause 11 provides examples: those who travel via a third country, who do not have documents or who did not claim asylum immediately will routinely be designated as group 2 refugees.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who spoke to these amendments. At the outset, I will dispel one widespread misapprehension about this clause. Under Clause 11, those who meet the terms of the refugee convention will be granted refugee status. There is no question of this clause making it harder to be a refugee or otherwise enabling the Government to refuse refugee protection to those who need it. That is simply not true. What the clause does is enable the Secretary of State to distinguish between refugees based on whether they came directly and claimed without delay, but anyone considered under this policy will be a refugee.
The status of Clause 11, as a deterrent, is closely tied to secondary movements and the first safe country principle. In Committee it was claimed that, for a number of reasons, the UK must allow people to choose to come here from other safe countries to claim asylum, if they wish. This is not sustainable. It has also been posited that requiring refugees to claim asylum in the first safe country would undermine the global humanitarian and co-operative principles on which the refugee system is founded. I categorically reject this. In fact, it would strengthen them, because more countries would have the capacity for resettlement via safe and legal routes. Quite simply, if spontaneous intake falls, our ability to bring over refugees from regions of origin increases.
I will also reiterate at this stage that the first safe country principle is itself internationally recognised. Not only does it underpin the Common European Asylum System but there is a long-standing safe third country agreement between the USA and Canada which means that, barring certain exceptions, anyone arriving at the Canadian border is ineligible to make a claim. As my noble friend Lord Horam might have mentioned, Norwegian legislation similarly sets out that an application for asylum may be refused where a person has travelled to Norway after having stayed in a place where they did not face persecution. Australia—much mentioned this evening—also has those statutory powers to designate countries as safe, with the effect that anyone from that place will be barred from claiming asylum. In Australia, they have almost entirely stopped small boat crossings.
The evidence on which such policies are based is not only the fact that certain safe countries are clearly more popular than others as a destination for asylum seekers but comes from academic analysis. To be clear, I am going to talk about the reasons for secondary movements from one safe country to another, not why people leave their countries of origin in the first place. The two are clearly not the same. Secondary movements were assessed in a comprehensive analysis by Takle and Seeberg in 2015. An important part of their conclusion was that “future possibilities” play a crucial role in explaining secondary movements:
“For the individual migrant, it makes sense to ask: ‘If I make it through the waiting period and if I gain protection in this country—will I have the means to survive here? Will I be able to work, to find adequate housing, to fulfil my family obligations, to complete my education, to find friends, to belong: will I have a life? If not, where might I be better able to build myself a new life?’”
These are entirely sensible and understandable things to ask oneself. However, every last one of those things can be found in France and other safe countries without the need for a dangerous journey to the UK.
Another study concerning secondary movements of Eritreans between Italy and Norway by Brekke and Brochmann in 2014 noted the following:
“National differences in the quality of the reception system, in welfare policies, and in labour market opportunities motivated the secondary migration of asylum seekers and refugees in Italy.”
They also observed:
“The UK, Norway, and Sweden stood out as attractive destinations for the Eritreans. One informant stated: ‘There you get everything if you are accepted: housing, pocket money, education and work.’”
Again, this is totally understandable. The notion, as I have heard repeated in this House, that people are motivated by singular and discrete “pull factors” unrelated to economic considerations is therefore reductive and misleading. In fact, commonly cited pulls, such as language, family, and diaspora links, are not only intrinsically valuable but instrumentally valuable to improving future possibilities, including work and education. I repeat: France offers perfectly good future possibilities. There is no need to take a dangerous journey across the channel to improve future possibilities. We must do everything within our powers to stop this, including putting Clause 11 into law.
Briefly, the “without delay” element of Clause 11 is intended simply to deter other unwanted behaviours that we see in the asylum system. This includes making late claims without reasonable excuse, often in response to a negative immigration decision to delay removal. This is intended primarily to improve operational efficiency, enabling us to focus resources on those most in need and to carry out quick and cost-effective returns of those who have no right to be in the UK.
Distinguishing between different refugees forms part of the refugee convention itself. For example, the entire structure of entitlement under the refugee convention rests on different levels of attachment, with physical presence and lawful presence distinguished for the purposes of various entitlements. Article 31 does not contain a blanket prohibition on the imposition of penalties on refugees who enter or are present illegally. Article 31 prohibits penalties only in respect of refugees who either are coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened or present themselves without delay to the authorities, and who show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.
We think that differentiation is not a penalty, taking into account that the convention does not explicitly define “penalty” and the fact that there is no unanimity on the definition of penalty. In any event, the convention does not prohibit differentiation and the clear implication of Article 31 is that states are entitled to impose penalties on refugees who enter their territory illegally when the three conditions are not satisfied. I have already spoken at length about the broad and flexible nature of the powers under Clause 11, which I have consistently argued enable the Secretary of State to exercise sensitive and compassionate discretion in each and every case.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham stated that nobody would be in group 1. That is not true. Those who could not be reasonably expected to claim in another safe country may well be in group 1 if, for example, they were trafficked. This goes to my noble friend Lady Stowell’s point: despite a number of misleading media and NGO reports, there is a vanishingly low risk that anyone who has, for example, suffered sexual or gender-based violence, is coming to terms with their sexuality or is the victim of trafficking will face differentiated entitlements.
Our definitions of concepts such as “come directly” and “without delay” are drafted in a manner that is responsive to those who may have legitimate reasons for being unable to comply with the standards set out and, as per my noble friend’s amendments, as drafted already enable us to use reasonable discretion when considering imposition of differentiated entitlements—again, a point that my noble friend Lady Stowell made. Indeed, there is no obligation to impose any particular condition on group 2 refugees. There is ample room for people to show that they could not reasonably have been expected to claim asylum in another safe country or that they could not claim as soon as reasonably practicable.
Group 2 refugees will still be protected and receive relevant entitlements in accordance with the refugee convention so that the object and purpose of the convention are upheld. Accordingly, Clause 11 is considered a good faith, compatible interpretation of the refugee convention.
My noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering lamented the diminution of safe and legal routes. We have not diminished such routes; I have set them out and distributed them to noble Lords. Some of those routes are not capped—for example, the BNO and refugee family reunion routes. On that note, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary stated today the ability of Ukrainians to come fee-free via the family reunion route. Potentially 100,000 Ukrainian refugees will come here, and we will be very glad to see them. On the point about visa waivers, I think it is very important that we continue to have the simple security checks that my right honourable friend talks about, because there is evidence that people who would do us harm are masquerading as Ukrainian refugees.
Just to finish, I have a point on Jordan, which I think the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, mentioned. The standards of housing, recourse to public funds, education and healthcare in Jordan are not comparable with the UK. I shall say no more about that, but it is a difficult one to compare the UK with Jordan in terms of the infrastructure and facilities for Jordanians.
I think that every concern from noble Lords thus far has been met with a very clear and reassuring answer. This clause strikes a robust balance between firmness and fairness, with a firm policy response to the evidential picture about secondary movements and upholding the first safe country principle, but fair in its acknowledgement that we absolutely must be sensitive to the vulnerabilities of certain asylum seekers. I hope that, on that note, noble Lords do not press their amendments.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, obviously I am disappointed that my Amendments 25, 26 and 27 have not found favour with the Minister or the House. My noble and very good friend Lord Horam said that he hoped that France and Belgium would take some of the asylum seekers and refugees back. That would indeed have been the case if we had managed to negotiate that we stayed within the Dublin III convention—so that is another source of disappointment.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister stated yesterday in a very holy place that the UK would be very generous with Ukrainian refugees, but I regret to say that I do not hear how that is going to be applied in what I heard from the Front Bench this evening. However, I shall not press my amendments, because I believe that Amendment 28 carries more favour, so I beg leave to withdraw.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, there are two ways in which to break a treaty, and I think that, looking back on it, I rather preferred the Brandon Lewis way—the straightforward, “Yes, we’re breaking a treaty, in a specific and limited way.” This rather weaselly approach, whereby the Government say, “Oh well, we’re perfectly entitled to interpret the treaty as we choose, and no, as a matter of fact we’re not in breach of it”, seems to me unconvincing and undesirable, and rather bad for our international reputation and for refugees.
I have not heard an answer to the key point, which is that, if I were coming from Ukraine, I could not be a group 1 refugee because I cannot come directly. The clause says that the requirement of being a group 1 refugee is that you have come to the United Kingdom directly from the country or territory where your life or freedom were threatened. So nobody from Ukraine can be entitled to full refugee convention rights in this country, if this becomes the law. I do not think that is right, so I think I have to test the opinion of the House.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Monday 28th February 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-R-I(Manuscript) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (28 Feb 2022)
22:53 - Division on Amendment 30 - Ayes: 112 / Noes: 89 - Amendment 30 agreed.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
“(4A) In section 16 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (establishment of centres), at end insert—“(4) For the purposes of this Part, references to “persons” does not include—(a) children;(b) women;(c) individuals with a disability; (d) individuals who have been referred to the National Referral Mechanism;(e) individuals who have a received a positive conclusive grounds decision following a referral to the National Referral Mechanism;(f) survivors of torture;(g) individuals who identify as LGBTQ+; and(h) family members of any individuals referenced in this subsection.(5) For the purposes of this section, “family members” includes—(a) dependent children;(b) partners and spouses;(c) in relation to children—(i) their siblings;(ii) any other individual who is the relevant child’s guardian.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is to restrict the use of accommodation centres for accommodating people seeking asylum so that the stated groups and their family members cannot be accommodated in them.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 29, with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I declare my interests in relation to RAMP and Reset, as set out in the register.
I have tabled this amendment again because in Committee we did not have as satisfactory a response to our questions as we had hoped on the basic details of what these accommodation centres will look like. We do not know how many or where these will be. We do not know how many people will be accommodated in each one. I am not assured that the previously terrible, and now still wanting, conditions provided at Napier will not be repeated. We are being asked to agree to the use of accommodation centres without any information or reassurances of what they will look like, where they will be, and so on. We can only go on what we see as existing provision on MoD sites. That makes me very concerned—I remind the House that I had the privilege of visiting Napier barracks recently—and gives me strong reason to call for their use to be restricted, so that the vulnerable groups set out in this amendment cannot be accommodated in them. I continue to believe that placing people seeking asylum in housing in communities is much better for everyone.
I therefore ask the Minister for her agreement that we are given opportunities to discuss the design of these centres before the relevant regulations are laid in draft and before contracts are offered. We would like some clarity on when the regulations will be laid, a clear commitment that no unaccompanied children will be placed in such centres, and, although we would prefer no families at all in such centres, if there were to be families with children there, that suitable family accommodation and suitable safety arrangements for them would be provided in them. It is not my intention to press this to a vote. We hope that this debate will give an opportunity for the Minister to place some further reassurances on the record about accommodation.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to support this amendment—
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Russell of Liverpool) (CB)
I assume that the right reverend Prelate is moving the amendment.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My apologies; it is getting late.
I am very pleased to support this amendment. When we debated it in Committee with regard to children and families, the Minister said that there were no current plans to place them in accommodation centres but that if a child was destitute and there was a place for the night, she could not say that the child would not be so placed. However, she promised to think further on the points made and I hope that she has been able to do so. I have two reflections which build on what the right reverend Prelate has said.
First, the Minister suggested that a child in a family, who was destitute, might have to be placed in a centre, but given that she told us that such centres were only for people who are destitute anyway, I am not sure how much comfort to take from that. Can she elucidate further please? Can she also confirm that it would only be for a night, or possibly two, that a family would be housed in an accommodation centre as an exception, which was what she implied? Can she give us an assurance that no family with children will be placed in a centre for more than the briefest of time in an emergency?
The Minister also reminded us that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children would not be placed in such centres. As the right reverend Prelate said, it would be good to have absolute assurance to that effect. Can she tell us what will be the position of a child who turns 18? Might they be moved into such a centre at that point? It is impossible to consider this group without also taking into account the fears expressed by many organisations that the age assessment clauses, which we will debate later, could mean many more children wrongly being assessed as adults. Therefore, in practice, unaccompanied children might be housed in such accommodation, which clearly the Government rightly consider unsuitable for unaccompanied children. What safeguards can there be against that? In Committee, I also asked the Minister what assurances she could give us that the use of accommodation centres will be accompanied by more robust screening and protection than exists at present, to ensure that those with particular vulnerabilities are not housed in such centres.
However, no such assurances were given, other than the repeated statement that there will be individual assessment before placement in accommodation centres. None the less, it is clear from various sources of evidence that such an assessment does not exist at present nor is it providing effective screening for those with particular vulnerabilities. Indeed, the APPG on Immigration Detention, of which I am a member, has been told that, despite the June 2021 High Court ruling, there does not appear to be any significant improvement in such assessments. Charities report that people with particular vulnerabilities continue to be accommodated in Napier barracks. Therefore, can the Minister tell us what is being done to improve the assessment process?
Finally, as a fellow insomnia sufferer, the Minister said she would take back the point I raised about the impossibility of sleeping in Napier barracks dormitory-style accommodation because of the constant noise at night. I wondered if she had anything to report on that.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, I do not make light of the difficulty of providing accommodation. Batting the blame between central and local government, as is sometimes done, is not going to advance the issue at all. As the right reverend Prelate has said, the debate in Committee focused on Napier. I thought it rather conflated accommodation of asylum seekers on arrival with long-term accommodation. Only a decade ago, my honourable friend Sarah Teather MP—as she was then—achieved very significant change, as a Minister, in both the law on, and the attitudes towards, the care of children with families in detention and subject to removal. More recently, we have had Stephen Shaw’s report on the impact on vulnerable people, and so on.
I accept that the Minister will say that the accommodation in question is reception and not detention. In a way, that is my point. The objective must be to receive people thoughtfully, humanely and in a welcoming and supportive way. Accommodation centres must not feel like detention. There was some discussion in Committee about whether people would be able to leave them—not for specific appointments, but because they felt like going out for a walk. The way that they are designed, organised and staffed is absolutely essential to their good working. The Explanatory Notes refer to “efficiency”. I do not think that this is incompatible with the approach that I have outlined, but they also refer to “compliance” and that worries me more. I wonder why that merits a separate mention.
This amendment demonstrates the concerns of the sector which arise from experience over a long period. I missed signing it by a couple of minutes on the day it was tabled by the right reverend Prelate. However, on behalf of these Benches, we support it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to offer Green support for this amendment and to address one specific point and one specific question. The right reverend Prelate, in introducing this, set out how little we know about what is proposed of these accommodation centres, and how much we know of their horrors. In Committee, the Minister and I discussed a particular horror with which I had personal contact during the Covid pandemic.
I also note that there is a continuing situation where the High Court ruled that people in hotels and other accommodation are entitled to £8 a week to meet some of their basic needs. This includes being able to afford a bus fare to attend an interview, or to buy some basic hygiene products. Looking at the list of people who the right reverend Prelate has included in this amendment, it is worth a question here. Imagine being a parent of a child and not ever being able to buy any sort of treat for your child. If the child really wanted some little piece of food, the parent would not be able to buy it. Instead, they would get only what is provided in the three meals a day in the canteen.
I know that we are still waiting for a description of what these accommodation centres are like. Can the Minister confirm, following the High Court ruling, that there will be at least a very small basic payment for people in the accommodation centres so that they can have some kind of choice and some kind of life?
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I will certainly wait with interest to hear the response that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham gets to this amendment, because, if I understood him correctly, he said that it is the same amendment he tabled before. I understand that he asked for information and assurances about accommodation centres in Committee, and it is because he did not get them either in Committee or since then—he has had nothing in writing; presumably he asked the questions quite clearly in Committee about what he wanted—that he has had to table this amendment today, and will table it again, seeking to exclude vulnerable groups from the accommodation centres.
I hope that in their response the Government will explain why it has been so difficult to give the right reverend Prelate the answers to the questions he raised last time seeking information and assurances in respect of these accommodation centres. I do not understand what the difficulty can be since, presumably, in putting forward that there will be accommodation centres, the Government have some idea of what they will and will not provide and what they will and will not be like, and are in a position to give assurances when they are sought.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken to this amendment. I just say from the outset that the Bill does not actually create accommodation centres—that was done back in 2005—but when we have more detail on the accommodation centres, I will be very happy to provide it to the right reverend Prelate, including any detail about design.
On the question of how long someone might stay there, the usual time is about six months. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that they have to be humane, welcoming environments.
On the question of who we might accommodate in the centres, as I said before, we will accommodate people only after an individual assessment. There are no current plans to use the centres to house families beyond this. The centres will be used to accommodate only those who require support because they would otherwise be destitute, so those who obtain accommodation with friends or family are not affected by the measure. It is to prevent people becoming destitute.
The provision has nothing to do with unaccompanied minors; it is about adults in the asylum system and their dependants who are accommodated by the Home Office under the powers in the Immigration Act. Unaccompanied minors are not accommodated under these powers.
On the point about certain individuals not being suitable for these centres, there are no plans to accommodate in this type of accommodation asylum seekers and failed asylum seekers who are not destitute. As I have said, those who can obtain accommodation with friends and family will be unaffected. Individuals will have opportunities to disclose information as supporting evidence as to why they should not be housed in accommodation centres, and we do not have current plans to use centres to accommodate those with dependent children.
I may have said this before, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, has just mentioned it: it is not possible to completely rule out placing those with children in accommodation centres in the future, because if there are no available flats or houses to house them in, it might be a better option for them, depending on their situation, and certainly better than using hotels.
On whether they are detention centres, the answer is no. I do not think the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, was asking whether they were detention centres; she was making the point that they are not detention centres, and that is correct: people are free to move about. Individuals applying for support because they are destitute will naturally be expected to live there because they have nowhere else, but, as I have said, they can leave the centres at any time they wish because they have obtained alternative accommodation.
I had just asked a question of the Box about payment, and I am going to double-check whether I have the answer. Here it is: facilities at the accommodation include catering, therefore individuals will not require cash for food during their stay, but cash might be provided for other essential items not provided in kind. I hope that with that, the right reverend Prelate will be happy to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I thank the Minister. I take very seriously the commitment to ongoing conversations, because the important thing is that the sector and people like us can stay engaged in the conversation to ensure this. We will watch as accommodation centres grow in number so that they are places of welcome and so on, but the purpose was to get some more on the record, for which I thank the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Stroud
“Changes to the Immigration Act 1971
(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.(2) After section 3(2) (general provisions for regulation and control) insert—“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) must provide that persons, and adult dependants of persons who are applying for asylum in the United Kingdom are granted permission by the Secretary of State to take up employment if—(a) a decision at first instance has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within six months of the date on which the application was made, or(b) a person makes an application or a further application which raises asylum grounds, and a decision on that new application, or a decision on whether to treat such further asylum grounds as a new application, has not been taken within six months of the date on which the further application was made. (2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), regulations must ensure that permission granted allowing people applying for asylum in the UK, and their adult dependants to take up employment, are on terms no less favourable than the terms granted to a person with recognised refugee status.(2C) This permission is to be valid until the claim is determined and all appeal rights have been exhausted and individuals granted permission to work will be issued with physical proof of the right to work.””
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 30 in my name aims to introduce the right to work for asylum seekers who have been resident in the UK for more than six months. The arguments for the right to work have been well articulated in Committee and earlier, but I will summarise them so that we are clear.
I will begin with the economic arguments. The latest figures show that 125,000 people are waiting for an asylum decision. Every study shows that the net benefit to the state would be tens or hundreds of millions of pounds every year in improved tax-take. The UK economy is recovering after Covid and a lot of jobs have been created, but this has, in turn, created labour shortages. It makes no sense that asylum seekers who can drive HGVs or serve in our NHS are forced to sit around doing nothing for more than a year while they await a decision from the Home Office.
The second argument is one of integration. There is considerable evidence that the right to work has a large, positive impact on the integration of asylum seekers. The Government’s Migration Advisory Committee itself recently underlined that shorter waiting times had a large, positive impact on long-term employment outcomes for asylum seekers. Indeed, discussing refugees’ access to the UK labour market, one leading academic in asylum and refugee policy refers to what she calls the
“inherent contradiction between UK refugee integration strategies that focus on employment, and restrictive government policies that negatively affect access to the labour market.”
There is also the argument of public support for this policy. The policy is overwhelmingly popular with the public: 73% of red wall voters support the right to work, according to recent polling. Business leaders back easing the ban on the right to work, with the Survation poll showing that two-thirds of business leaders back it. It is rare to find a policy that has these three characteristics: economically advantageous, socially advantageous and politically advantageous.
There is one final reason why this is an amendment that the Government should accept. There is also a basic human dignity argument for this policy. We believe that every individual should be able to support themselves and their family. In fact, we would go further and say that, as Conservatives, we believe that every family has a personal responsibility to do so where they can. We have repeatedly, as a party, made the argument that work is the best route out of poverty, so the intention of this amendment is to ensure precisely that. Let people support themselves and create their own pathway from poverty to prosperity while they await a decision. The lack of the right to work makes people vulnerable to exploitation, declining mental health, poverty and modern slavery.
If the human dignity arguments do not convince Ministers, this amendment should also be viewed as purely pragmatic. Reforms to the asylum system proposed through the Nationality and Borders Bill will take time to come fully into effect. In the interim, while asylum cases are being processed, the asylum system continues to be under considerable strain. By offering asylum seekers the right to work, the Government will take pressure off themselves. I anticipate, however, that the Minister and other colleagues might be inclined to dismiss this amendment, using the argument that the right to work could be a so-called pull factor. So, before I finish, I want to address the reasons I believe this is not the case.
First, push factors, such as war and famine, as we are seeing in Ukraine, drive refugee flows far more than pull factors do. Secondly, as I have said before in this House, the real pull factors are our language, our culture, the rule of law, democracy, historical ties through the Commonwealth, family connections and liberty—and we are not about to sacrifice any of these, thank goodness. Thirdly, it is worth noting that the UK is currently an outlier in enforcing a 12-month wait period for work and then placing strong restrictions on which employment can be taken up. No other nation, whether any across Europe, the States, Australia or Canada, has such stringent requirements. It is worth asking why they have not considered the right to work to be a pull factor. Finally, this view is backed up by the experts. The Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee underlined that there is no evidence in academic research that people decide to claim asylum based on these kinds of factors. The Home Office itself commissioned a study that showed little evidence of a link between economic rights and the destination choices of those seeking asylum, and, to my knowledge, it has never produced evidence to the contrary.
All of this is to say that I believe that the Government could quite legitimately, without any nervousness and in line with their own poverty strategy of families working their way out of poverty, adopt this amendment that allows asylum seekers to work after six months of being in the UK. I will be listening carefully to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I strongly support Amendment 30. In Committee, the Minister said that the Government’s opposition to the right to work was based less on the pull factor argument than on the impact on the integrity of the labour market. That is just as well. As the noble Baroness said, we have yet to see convincing evidence of the pull factor any better than the selective and somewhat misleading quote from a study that the Minister offered in Committee. She mentioned an impact assessment on that, which I believe is yet to materialise. When can we expect it?
If we consider the numbers involved, it is difficult to see how labour market integrity will be compromised. Indeed, the combination of the effects of the Bill and the welcome promised speeding up of applications, to which Amendment 53 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker should add some teeth, should reduce the numbers affected significantly. I imagine that the Migration Advisory Committee will have considered the integrity of the labour market before recommending the right to work after six months and in any occupation. Yet the Minister did not even mention the MAC report raised by a number of noble Lords in Committee.
Neither did she mention the MAC’s argument, and one central to the case I made, concerning the impact of the ban on working on integration, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which supposedly remains a government goal. Nor did she acknowledge the statement I read out from MIN Voices, made up of asylum seekers, who said that not being able to work made them feel less than human and corroded their self-respect and dignity—again, echoing what the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said. As the chair of Surrey Heath Conservatives pointed out on ConservativeHome —my new favourite reading—this very much chimes with Conservative values, so that in his view the ban is “fundamentally un-Conservative”.
I conclude by repeating the plea of MIN Voices’ plea to
“see us as human beings not a number. Let us build our life and future and not waste our time and skills”.
I should also mention the article by Sarah O’Connor of the Financial Times, who ended her recent analysis of the labour market implications of the ban by saying that
“if people want to work, we should let them”.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I very strongly support this amendment, to which I have added my name.
In Committee, the Minister referred to the integrity of the labour market as a route being one reason to reject this amendment and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, dealt with that very well, so I will not repeat her comments. The only other real argument against reducing the UK’s exceptional period before asylum seekers can apply for permission to work was, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said, the so-called pull factor encouraging asylum seekers to come to this country. I want to say a bit more about that because it really is very difficult to take seriously under the circumstances. When Germany allows asylum seekers to work after three months, Italy after two months, Portugal after just one week, can our Government really justify the current one-year ban and argue that if we changed it, there would be this serious pull factor problem?
If the Minister accepts this amendment, we will have the same employment restriction as France, Spain, Denmark, Poland, the Netherlands, Ireland and Greece, and we would remain more restrictive than all other western European countries. Ireland was the only other western European outlier until it recently reduced its nine months restriction down to six months in 2021. This amendment would do no more than Ireland did to bring it into line with the list of countries I have already referred to.
The fact is, the UK has a longer employment restriction for asylum seekers than any other comparable country. I just feel ashamed of us, to be honest—I think it is disgraceful. Moreover, it seems the Government have no grounds to argue that enabling asylum seekers to work will, in fact, act as a pull factor. A recent review of 29 academic papers on this subject found that there was no correlation between the right to work and where people seeking asylum chose to seek protection; the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, explained that perfectly clearly so, again, I do not need to repeat her words.
The other very important reform in this amendment is to end the iniquitous limitation on asylum seekers, even after the 12-month ban, to jobs on an extremely limited shortage occupation list—I seem to remember one of them was a ballerina or something. How many asylum seekers can really take up ballet? This renders employment impossible for the vast majority of asylum seekers until their application is finally approved.
The assumption behind this amendment is that asylum seekers would, after six months, become automatically eligible for a work permit, enabling them to become self-employed or to take up any job, to pay taxes and national insurance, and so on. It will be very difficult to justify not accepting this amendment.
In summary, I do not accept the arguments put by the Minister in Committee. I just hope that she and her colleagues have reconsidered their position. On 8 December 2021, I understand that the Home Office said in a Written Statement that it had concluded its review of the current policy. This is surely a perfect moment to introduce reform.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, I join my noble friend Lady Stroud and others in strongly supporting this amendment. The proposition is that asylum seekers who have waited six months for an initial decision should be allowed the right to work.
Clearly, and as has already been said, this measure can provide important safeguards. Not being held up from work assists motivation, attitude of mind and mental health, as it also preserves dignity and protects against the danger of modern slavery. Yet it might be alleged, or wrongly assumed, that such benefits to the applicant come at a high price—even at an unacceptable price—to the host country: that the workforce would thereby become top-heavy causing much national resentment and attracting too many to come here from other countries. Yet, on all these three counts, the truth is the complete opposite.
As my noble friend Lady Stroud pointed out, 125,000 people await an asylum decision. With our current labour shortages these numbers, if allowed to work, would considerably boost our economy; that is also well recognised. Far from fear and resentment, there is wide national approval, with over 70% believing that asylum seekers in the system longer than six months should have the right to work.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the arguments have been put very well and very strongly. I am very pleased to co-sign the excellent amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. Her speech was really excellent. Others have demolished the pull factor argument and I do not wish to say any more on that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said in Committee:
“To relax the policy would be totally to undermine everything that the British people voted for in 2019”.—[Official Report, 3/2/22; col. 1062.]
This has really nothing to do with Brexit, but the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, just quoted a statistic of 70% of people supporting asylum seekers being able to work. That is quite similar to a YouGov poll today which says that 77% of the British public support relaxing visa restrictions on Ukrainian refugees, refuting the idea that the public do not appreciate these arguments, whether it is about refugees or, in this case, asylum seekers.
This is not a partisan proposal; it has been said that it is thoroughly Conservative—I would like to say it is thoroughly Liberal Democrat or Labour as well—but it is not of itself party political. To us, its proponents, it is a win-win. It enables asylum seekers to stand on their own two feet, support their families, pay tax—that is the economic side—and to help them integrate. I cannot remember whether I quoted it in Committee, but I saw a statistic that said that if asylum seekers do not get that sort of flying start—and of course those who do not qualify for refugee status will have to be removed in the normal way, whether they have been working or not—it can take 10 years to recover from a period of initial deterioration. People’s mental and physical health, their self-regard and ability to mesh with their community is so damaged by not being able to work in an initial period that it takes a very long time for them to recover, and that harms the host society.
I do not believe that the Government are on the same page as public opinion on this one. It really it not logical. If the Government were able to meet the target, which they are failing at horribly, to make an initial decision within six months, then this proposed new clause would not come into effect, because the right to work comes into effect after six months. There is nothing to fear if the Government actually put their resources into frontloading the system—as so many of us have argued for ad infinitum.
Accepting this amendment is a no-brainer, and the noble Baroness has got a considerable brain, so she is going to find it quite difficult to refute the truly heavy arguments for this amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I give my strong support to Amendment 30 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. She has eloquently made the case for this amendment, so I do not intend to take a great deal of the House’s time, but I wish to add a few brief remarks in support.
At Second Reading, I raised the question of how different our migration policy might be if we stopped looking at asylum seekers as either victims without agency or criminals seeking to exploit us and instead as future citizens and neighbours. In this light, the right to work for asylum seekers who have waited six months or more for a decision represents an excellent opportunity. It would be good for asylum seekers and for the soul of this nation. Such people are often left without agency or dignity. Their identity becomes limited to a sort of victim status. Being unable to work leaves them dependent on the state or at risk of falling in with illegal labour exportation.
Legal employment represents a chance for people to contribute to their own welfare and that of the common good. It is a way for them to bring their skill and efforts to their new communities, to make friends and to integrate. It provides an opportunity for others to meet and understand these newcomers, and to see them as willing contributors rather than chancers or criminals.
Work is not just a means to a wage or an economic benefit to a business and a community—although, as we have heard, it might be all these things—but innately social. It is activity done with and for others. It is a contribution to common life. That is something we should look to foster and encourage, as it is a means of building stronger ties of fellowship, stronger communities and stronger citizens.
This argument has been advanced before in this place and has been rejected. However, with new recommendations from the Migration Advisory Committee and the sense of momentum we can hear in the House this evening, I hope we might be able to make some progress.
Lord Bethell (Con)
My Lords, I support Amendment 30. My noble friend Lady Stroud has put extremely well the reasons why this was never a good policy. On basic Conservative principles—that the route out of poverty and into prosperity is through work—this measure fails dismally. It was never good even when it was first brought in. I concede that maybe the people who brought it in thought it would give them some kind of credibility in the public eye that they were being tough on migration, and that maybe 20 years ago it looked like we faced the end of history. But both those things are no longer true, and if we look just a little down the line to the future they will be emphatically not true. As a number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, pointed out, the public are strongly with us on this. The sight of Ukrainian refugees coming to Britain looking for sanctuary will only increase that.
We have not seen the end of history. I am afraid we are going into a very turbulent period of history where refuge and asylum will be sought by hundreds of thousands of people around the world. We will we face an enormous debt to our neighbours to try to provide them some form of sanctuary. We already have 125,000 people waiting over six months for a determination. What kind of number do we need to get to before we change the system? I hope the Minister will use this opportunity to review a bad policy, to move on and to develop a better policy that is suited to the future.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Lady Stroud makes some very strong and compelling arguments in favour of her amendment. I certainly take the view that asylum seekers should indeed be allowed to work as soon as possible once a decision has been made about their application. I think the citizens of this country would support that and want that very much. However, a matter that would raise concern for people would be if we introduced a law that allowed asylum seekers to start work before a decision on their appeal—or rather their application for asylum—had been decided.
Rather than support my noble friend’s amendment, I ask my noble friend the Minister what the Home Office is doing to deal with the backlog of applications for asylum currently sat in the system. My noble friend Lady Stroud referred to the number: 125,000. What more resources is the Home Office applying to become much more efficient and effective in processing those applications? To me, that is where we should focus our effort—not on introducing a law that would mean that asylum seekers are automatically allowed to work before a decision has been made on their status in this country.
Lord Marlesford (Con)
My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend Lady Stroud’s amendment for one simple, overriding reason. One of the big problems of handling the big numbers involved—125,000, as we have been told—is morale. One of the crucial elements of morale is hope. If people do not have hope, they really do deteriorate. The loss of hope for a long time is a terrible thing to inflict on anybody.
As to whether their employment can be accommodated, there is one obvious area where there are limitless opportunities to do something that would make people really feel part of the country and would remain for ever: the whole field of conservation. An enormous number of projects could be carried out; they would be exciting to do and very fulfilling. I certainly hope the Government accept my noble friend’s amendment.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I hope the Government accept the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which clearly is supported all around the House. I believe it is supported in the higher ranks of the governing party. I quote from no less an expert than Mr Dominic Raab in the Spectator from 2 October:
“If they learn the language and they can work, they integrate much better and they make a positive contribution.”
Correct.
The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, said it is a win-win. No less an authority than the Adam Smith Institute and Bright Blue said that asylum seekers pay increased tax and national insurance revenue and we pay them a lower asylum support payment, and that it is a win for the Exchequer. These are very Conservative arguments, and they happen to be true. It is a win for them and a win for us. I hope the Government accept the amendment.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendments 30A and 84A, but I also support the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and I will explain why as I introduce these two amendments.
I first thank representatives from the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Helen Bamber Foundation for their support of these amendments. The proposed new clause in Amendment 30A would make provision for the Secretary of State to
“commission a review of the processes and services”
that will be in place and their impact on
“the well-being of refugees and asylum seekers.”
We know a great deal more about the long-term impact of trauma on people’s mental and physical health, their memory and their ability to make sense of their experiences, adjust to a new situation, engage productively in work, advocate for themselves and avoid being retraumatised. The very system designed to protect them, whether by poor design or by poor execution, risks worsening the health of refugees and people seeking asylum, and increasing their vulnerability.
With respect to work, there is evidence that people with mental health problems of any sort who are out of work for more than six months have real difficulty getting back into work—ever. This is a really key, important point. Research by the Royal College of Psychiatrists has evidenced that people with significant mental illness, as well as those with evidence of torture or sexual or gender-based violence, are being detained despite their mental health-related vulnerabilities, and that their mental health is deteriorating further in immigration detention. This remains the case, despite the statutory guidance on adults at risk and associated caseworker guidance introduced by the Government in response to the highly critical Shaw report.
The health needs of refugees and those seeking asylum require close multidisciplinary working, continuity of care and a regular review of these processes to ensure that, unlike what happened in Napier barracks, these systems are working in the way intended. I urge the Minister to commit to a review of the processes and services in place with regard to the well-being of refugees and asylum seekers, carried out by a body with the necessary expertise.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
In following my noble friend Lady Stroud, I shall plough a lonely and, I fear, unpopular furrow by suggesting to the Minister that we ought to reject this amendment. I greatly admire my noble friend Lady Stroud for her commitment and the work that she has done in these areas, but I still think that her amendment should be rejected. As my noble friend Lady Stowell pointed out, of course these are asylum seekers whose cases have not been determined. Some of them will be asylum seekers, and some of them will not find their case, and they will become in effect economic migrants. I absolutely accept that the time that it is taking to determine the cases is very long and debilitating to all parties concerned, but I am concerned because, if we allow people to use the asylum route as a means to move forward faster, it is at the expense of those who wish to come here as economic migrants from the beginning.
Secondly, I do not accept the argument that forum shopping—looking around for the best place to make your future—is not a factor. Of course, it is not in every case, but it is a factor. I will not weary the House at 10.20 pm with the list of things, which run from the diasporas to the respect for individuals, the chance to learn English, flexible labour markets, and so on, but they are undoubtedly factors that encourage people to come here.
Nearly every case that I have heard being made now is based on the economy, and the economic prism is undoubtedly an important one, but there are prisms other than that. The impact of each one of us—whether we have just arrived here, seek to come here or have been here for some time—is not just about our economic performance. We make demands on our society of a house, a school, a hospital and a place for our children to play. We have an impact on the green belt, the availability of open space and our future food and water security in an increasingly uncertain world. We expect, overall, that between now and 2040 there will be another 4 million people in this country.
Members of your Lordships’ House have talked about public opinion and where it stands on the issue, but I can tell your Lordships that 71% of people believe that this country is already too crowded and that the Government do not have any plans to deal with the challenges that that causes. If you reset that polling so that it just asks the minority communities, 61% are still equally concerned about the prospects that lie ahead not for us in this House but for our children and grandchildren, if we do not take steps, wherever we reasonably can, to ensure that the growth of population in this country is limited as far as possible. With the best will in the world—I accept the good intentions of my noble friend—her amendment does not tick that box. It encourages the growth of population; it does not discourage it.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I point out to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, that the whole point of the amendment is to ensure that people who may be making demands on houses, schools and hospitals can also build those houses, staff those schools and provide care in those hospitals. Briefly, I want to add “Green” to the list of of parties mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, that support the right to work for asylum seekers. Indeed, I can date that back to at least 2006, when I joined the Green Party. Pretty well the first event I went to was one hearing from refugee women who expressed their desire for the right to work and were very pleased that that was Green Party policy.
I am well aware that the Minister is far more likely to listen to voices behind her—and I urge her to do so—then she is to me, but I point out that the six-month restriction on the right to work was brought in by the Labour Party in 2002 and strengthened in 2005, so the Government would be reversing a Labour policy.
Finally, as I often seek to do in your Lordships’ House, I reflect the voices of the people most affected, who are calling, as the hashtag goes, to “Lift the Ban”. A man called Mahmoud was recorded by Asylum Matters. He said: “It would make our lives meaningful and useful at the same time if we could work.” Please listen to that voice.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I fully support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and my noble and right reverend friend behind me here supports it as well. I will speak to the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and the two amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, which I fully support.
We may have 125,000 asylum seekers but let me focus on two. This is why I support both amendments. One is an asylum seeker who lives in my area who heard from the Home Office within the first three weeks of arrival then heard nothing for 12 months, in spite of inquiry after inquiry. That is why we need a code of practice. That is why we need better ways of working. It beggars belief what that says to him about how he is seen in our society and by our society. That is, of course, told time and again.
The second case is an Afghan who came out last summer on the planes and whose family is still in hiding in Afghanistan. Last week they were hunted by the Taliban; they escaped. He sent me through last week the letter he had just received from a Home Office official. It is four lines long, giving him the number that he has been allocated, with not one jot of sympathy about what he might be facing.
I accept that the official will not know or be able to verify the story that I have heard but the processes themselves do not treat people as people. They treat them as case numbers. We need the kinds of provisions that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, has proposed and we need to deal with these cases much faster. That means we employ more people and we upskill them. That is why I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. The right to work falls away, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, noted. That is not going to happen in a hurry, so we need the right to work now but we also need the other provisions.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, the argument from the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, seemed to be addressed more to refugees than asylum seekers and I think that almost everyone who has spoken about the right to work of asylum seekers has urged faster decision- making. I want to speak to the two amendments in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, to which I have added my name.
The House has heard many noble Lords stress the importance of a trauma-informed approach and the difficulties of almost every asylum seeker, I would have thought, in telling their story almost as soon as they get here after dreadful experiences. It must be dreadful, even if the journey is quite straightforward, to tell the story coherently and fully. I fear the Home Office has not yet got it.
The Minister wrote to me last week on the interpretation of “without delay” and I thank her for that. She has had an awful lot of letters to write during the course of the Bill. The official who wrote this one said that
“if someone was fearful of acknowledging their homosexuality to the authorities, then it may be reasonably practicable for them to make a claim some time after arrival, as we recognise the extremely difficult process of coming to terms with one’s own sexuality.”
If an asylum seeker has experienced what we know in some countries people experience because of their sexuality, I do not think that “coming to terms with one’s own sexuality” begins to describe it. That is why these amendments are needed.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I will very briefly speak to Amendment 30 and say that I very strongly agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, who I thought said some very valuable things.
I would like to say and make it clear that I am actually in favour of asylum. I believe that it is absolutely right in principle but I find in this debate and more generally that there is something of an assumption that all asylum seekers are genuine and, frankly, they are not. Indeed, the very careful process that they go through finds that nearly half of them are not accepted as asylum seekers.
The risk of moving this to 12 months is that some applicants—those who are not genuine, of course—would have an incentive to spin out their cases until they reach the six-month point, which would not be too difficult, and then they are here and that is it.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, hit the nail on the head. First, what we must avoid is the possibility of work before acceptance as a genuine refugee. Secondly, that points to the need to speed up the process, which is what is causing all this difficulty. If we could get the cases resolved in a reasonable time, those who really deserve it would get it—and good on them—and those who do not would be in a queue to be removed.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
It is good to see the Chamber filling up, despite the fact that it is me speaking.
I speak in support of all the amendments in this group. I am interested in supporting the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud—I am going to be a Conservative—but I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Stowell, and the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, clearly speaking in support of my amendment. It is good to see them supporting a Labour amendment, so it is interesting here.
The really serious point about the amendment was made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I apologise to the Chamber because I really should have put this down in Committee. It is more of an amendment for Committee than for Report, but it goes to the heart of the problem that we are trying to deal with. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Green, on much, but he often makes the point that, until the administration of the asylum system is sorted out, we are trying to knit fog. That is the basic problem. The Government are chasing this, as the previous Labour Government did, and there is a real problem with respect to it.
The example that the right reverend Prelate gave could have been given by most people in this House. As a Member of Parliament, I could have given example after example of people who have come here and claimed asylum and the system has lost them. Then they reappear a few years later, having been to school. It is unbelievable quite how the system has allowed them to operate and work within it, yet officially they are not supposed to be here; their claim is still supposed to be being sorted out.
My Amendment 53 is simply a way of trying to say that, unless we get a grip on this, in the next year there will be another asylum Bill and in two years there will be another. And then the Labour Government will come in with another asylum Bill. The reality is that, while each and every one of us is motivated by the desire to do the best thing by those fleeing persecution, in the way we have seen with refugees, the system simply cannot find a way of dealing humanely and properly with people who seek asylum in our country. You get euphemisms about accommodation centres, et cetera, and people having to report on a regular basis—all those sorts of things. That is why the business of being able to sort out whether people have a legitimate claim and are accepted by the system as asylum seekers or refugees, or not, is so important. That goes to the heart of it.
I apologise to the Minister because, as I say, this is a debate for Committee rather than for Report. I have no intention of voting on it; I just got frustrated with the fact that each and every one of us was chasing our tail trying to deal with a system which, by the Government’s own admission, is broken. They are trying to fix it but in a way which makes many of us say “We understand there are problems, but the way you are trying to fix it won’t work and we will be left with the same situation”. That is why I support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. She very articulately and powerfully argued the point as to why it is important to give the right to work to people who are still awaiting their decision after six months.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham: you could say that, if the Government adopted Amendment 53, it would be a real incentive for them to get their act together, so that they did not have the situation where people had the right to work even though their decision had not been made, in the way that the noble Baroness’s amendment would indicate. I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, who pointed out that country after country has different arrangements with respect to the right to work and does not have the same problems as we do. I very much support that.
I want to highlight one aspect rather than repeat everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, has put so ably—and other Members have supported her amendment. My point is this: the Government will oppose this amendment on the basis of the pull factor; they have no evidence for it, but that is exactly what they will do. The last Labour Government did exactly the same thing in 2002 and 2005 because they were persuaded by the argument that there must be a pull factor—there just must be. As the argument went, asylum seekers will come here, they will be able to work, they will tell all their friends and family and they will all pile over here, as it is easy to get in, they will be able to work and do the jobs and they will be well paid, whereas, actually, they will be in the hidden economy and half the time people will not even know that they are working. That will be the argument. They will put it in much better English, much more articulately, much more in civil servant speak—but that is what they mean.
I do not know what the politically correct term is any more, but the Government set up these false windows, where they put up their hands or palms, and say, “This is what we are having to go through: the Government are having to stand up to a middle-class establishment elite”—as represented by your Lordships, including me—“and we are battling through this because, in doing so, we are representing public opinion as evidenced by the fact that we won the 2019 election. Public opinion is on our side, so this is a necessary pain we have to go through.” That may be right on one or two things, but on this it is fundamentally wrong. That is not where the public are on this.
There is only one thing on which I slightly disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud: I think it is not about integration but, more importantly, about social solidarity. As it has been articulated, it is a belief that when people have been here a certain amount of time, they should work. That is what people think; that is the general view of the public. If the system has not sorted out whether they should be here but they are living in our country and our housing and things are being provided for them, they should work. That is what people think. I do not care whether it is a car mechanic, a brain surgeon, somebody who is out of work, somebody in the north or the west of the country—whoever; that is what they think, and it is what I think.
It is reasonable for people to expect that. People do not say, “I tell you what, they shouldn’t work because there’s a pull factor.” That would be ridiculous—it is just not true—but I do think that people look down their road, or across the road, or in the village next to them, or on the farm or in the supermarket and, when there is a problem, they say, “Why don’t those people who have come from wherever, who are awaiting a decision—why can’t they work? Why can’t they do it?” I have never heard anybody say, “They can’t do it: it’s a pull factor.” It is just nonsense; it beggars belief.
I wanted to highlight that because, for me, it goes to the absolute heart of it. People would expect those people to work. I agree that it is good for asylum seekers themselves and their family to contribute to a country in which they hope to have permanent residency, providing they go through the necessary checks, but the community around them expects that as well; and that social solidarity and human dignity is everything. That is why I support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud. Alongside that, I think that Amendment 53 is important, and the Government will have to get this sorted out. Otherwise, we will be knitting fog again in another year or two.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to this group of amendments. I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Stroud for bringing Amendment 30. The issue has been much debated and it hinges on two issues really: the integrity of our immigration system and pull factors. I want to correct a figure that has been mooted a couple of times this evening: there are actually 81,000 people awaiting an initial decision, not 125,000, but it is a large number nevertheless.
A more relaxed asylum seeker right to work policy creates a back door into our labour market. We have just set up a world-leading economic migration scheme, which provides ample opportunity for people of varying skill and educational levels to apply to come and work in the UK. In fact, this scheme was a core manifesto commitment; it was not about Brexit. However, we cannot afford to turn around and offer people the opportunity to undercut it through simply lodging an asylum claim. Our policy is a constituent part of a whole; it does not operate in isolation. As my noble friend Lady Stowell said, someone who comes to the UK and is found working illegally can claim asylum as a way to prevent removal and then get the right to work. That does not seem logical to me.
I will repeat that, where reasons for coming to the UK include family or economic considerations, applications should be made via the relevant route: either the points-based immigration system or our various family reunion routes. We know that people want to work in the UK. Why would they not? We have a strong economy and labour market. That is why we cannot discount the risk of even more channel crossings if we relaxed our asylum seeker right-to-work policy. This issue has been debated at length in the past. However, I want to be clear that the motivations for fleeing one’s country of origin—of which noble Lords are well aware—and the motivations for moving from one safe country to another are not the same.
According to a 2009 article by Norwegian academics Jan-Paul Brekke and Monica Aarset, there is a hierarchy of considerations which migrants make when choosing a particular country. The first is, of course, that it is safe. The second—more important even than family networks—is the existence of future opportunities, which include:
“the welfare state, education, the jobs market and good conditions for bringing up children.”
These are things which are shared by all northern European countries, including France. This importance of future opportunities is clear through similar academic literature on secondary movements, in which economic considerations, including the ability to work, are consistently cited as a primary factor in choices about moving from one safe country to another. I am afraid that noble Lords continue to conflate reasons for leaving countries of origin with reasons for making those secondary movements, which is misleading and unhelpful for the purposes of this debate.
Noble Lords will be aware that the French cite the ability to work as a pull for those making channel crossings. Whether that is about the availability of work in the shadow economy or not is actually quite irrelevant. The point that we are being told by senior French Ministers is that these people are motivated to move from one safe country to another because they want to work. This was reiterated in a sobering BBC World Service investigation into the tragedy in the channel last November. Through deep research into the lives and families of the victims, the journalists ultimately found that they were all motivated to come to the UK from France for economic reasons. The solution here is to decide cases more quickly, and that is what we are doing through the wider new plan for immigration. I hope that this has been a good explainer of the background.
My noble friend Lady Stroud said that 71% of people think that the right to work is a good idea if people are waiting for a decision for six months or more. I would counter this with a YouGov poll from October of last year which showed that only 45% thought that the right to work was a good idea. This takes the issue completely out of context and ignores the bigger picture concerns. In light of the fact that 73% of people thought that illegal channel crossings were a serious issue, 50% of people thought that the UK does not have a responsibility to protect people—against 35% who thought that they did. In addition, 65% of people thought that Britain should refuse to accept asylum applications, and 55% thought that the current approach of the Government to small boats was too soft. I say that this Government have a clear mandate to ensure that there is no incentive for people to make secondary movements across the channel where academic evidence suggests that many do it for primarily economic reasons.
The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford talked about addressing the integration needs of asylum seekers. Of course, that is absolutely true, but not all of those who seek asylum are found to need international protection. As the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, said, 50% of asylum seekers are refused even after appeal, so that spells that out.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I thank everyone who has contributed to this cross-party debate for their insightful and well-argued remarks. The comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that ConservativeHome is her new favourite reading, was the revelation of the evening. I felt that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on social solidarity hit the nail on the head.
I heard the Minister’s response. She used the twin argument of the integrity of our Immigration Service and pull factors to dismiss Amendment 30. Across the House, I thought we were able to pretty much rebut the right to work being a pull factor. The integrity of our Immigration Service is questionable too, when other European nations, Canada, Australia and all the other nations mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, can maintain the integrity of their immigration services and not reject the right to work for asylum seekers.
Like all of us across the House, I believe that if we are to become the nation I know we are meant to be, with well-managed borders but a respectful and compassionate asylum system, this amendment can contribute much to creating such an environment. As we have heard in the contributions this evening, the right to work for asylum seekers after six months is a policy that is economically, socially and politically advantageous. It confers dignity on those who have sought safety here and, as we have heard, there is little to no evidence that it creates pull factors. It would also help the Home Office with pressure on its claims system.
I believe that there is support in the House for the amendment and that, even at this hour of the night, it would be appropriate to test the will of the House.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Wednesday 2nd March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-R-II(Manuscript) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (2 Mar 2022)
16:17 - Division on Amendment 32 - Ayes: 221 / Noes: 172 - Amendment 32 agreed.
18:05 - Division on Amendment 35 - Ayes: 208 / Noes: 155 - Amendment 35 agreed.
20:21 - Division on Amendment 48 - Ayes: 178 / Noes: 130 - Amendment 48 agreed.
20:35 - Division on Amendment 49 - Ayes: 169 / Noes: 122 - Amendment 49 agreed.
20:48 - Division on Amendment 51 - Ayes: 172 / Noes: 120 - Amendment 51 agreed.
Lord Rosser
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, Clause 15 puts into the Bill an existing immigration law on inadmissibility that makes any asylum claim inadmissible in a number of circumstances, including if the claimant has passed through, or has a connection to, a safe third country. The result of a finding of inadmissibility is that, unless the Secretary of State decides that there are exceptional circumstances, the claimant will be denied access to the UK’s asylum system for a “reasonable period”, currently defined as six months in Home Office policy, while the UK seeks to transfer them to “any other safe country”. With the huge backlog and delay currently in the system, it is impossible to understand how adding another six months to the asylum process will help an already dysfunctional system.
Clause 15 as it stands is neither acceptable nor deliverable in practice. We also have concerns on the definitions of “safe third state” and “connection”, and on the lack of relevant international agreements. Serious concerns have been raised by the UNHCR and the cross-party Joint Committee on Human Rights, among others. There is an absence of adequate safeguards against returning individuals to countries to which they will be denied rights owed to them under the refugee convention.
Safe returns as part of an international asylum system are not new and are accepted under agreed conditions, but this clause does not provide for safe reciprocal return agreements. Even as it stands, the Government do not have returns agreements with EU member states, namely the safe third countries that refugees are most likely to have passed through. Instead, this provides for cases to be stalled and unilaterally declared inadmissible, without a requirement for a relevant returns agreement but on the basis of dubious connections to another state, where a person may or may not be able to enter an asylum system. We are talking here about asylum, not general immigration.
The clause provides that a claim is inadmissible if a person has a connection to a third state. It then clarifies that a connection can be made with a state that a person had never been to. It further clarifies that a person can be removed to a completely different state other than the one that they have been deemed to have a connection with. The UNHCR has described this as
“a significant and highly problematic departure from international practice and UK case law.”
I will endeavour to be brief. I appreciate that this is Report and not a rerun of Committee, but in Committee the Government accepted on more than one occasion that we needed to have returns agreements in place. There was no direct answer given to a question asked by my noble friend Lord Dubs, who sought confirmation that to date we do not have an agreement with any country for the return of the people whom we are now talking about. This is about asylum. The answer no doubt is that we just do not have any such agreements. Despite saying in Committee on more than one occasion that we needed formal returns agreements in place to return people, the Government later went on to claim that we do not necessarily need formal return agreements in place, and that we could have
“formal and informal, diplomatic and otherwise.”—[Official Report, 3/2/22; col. 1106.]
The reality is that we need formal return agreements in a situation where the number of people the Government intend to deem inadmissible will be high. In that situation, you cannot address this through unstated, unclear, ill-defined, informal ad hoc arrangements, as the Government seek to suggest. This clause is clearly based on the presumption that the Government can persuade other countries who already take greater asylum responsibility than the UK to accept people from the UK and agree to relieve us of a substantial part of the modest responsibility we currently take.
The reality of Clause 15 is that no such agreements are likely to materialise in the foreseeable future, as was clear from the debate in Committee. Dublin III has now gone and not been replaced. That is why my Amendment 32 provides the much-needed safeguards that Clause 15 can come into force only if the UK has safe returns agreements with third states and not before. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, Clause 15 allows the Secretary of State to declare an asylum claim inadmissible if the person has a connection with a “safe third state”. Because it is a declaration of inadmissibility, there is no appeal other than judicial review, and there is nothing to stop the Home Secretary from removing the person to another third state with which they have no connection in the meantime, as the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, has explained. A connection to a safe third state includes where a claim for asylum in that country has been refused, a country where they could have claimed asylum but failed to do so, or where the Home Secretary thinks that it would have been reasonable to expect them to have claimed asylum in another country.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, the provisions for an admissible asylum claim, where there is a connection —as defined in new Section 80B, which is to be inserted into the 2002 Act—are quite plainly contrary to the refugee convention and a breach of the UK’s obligations under it. In particular, the conditions in new Section 80C(4), which is where a claim could have been made to a third state—the claimant was present in a state eligible to receive and offer a safe space for him or her—and new Section 80C(5), where the claimant should have made a claim to a safe third state whether or not he or she had ever visited or been associated with it, are both plain breaches of the convention and find no place in its wording.
Condition 4 in new Section 80C is really another way of stating the coming directly from the country of persecution requirement in Clause 11 and Clause 36(1). On Monday this House rejected the Government’s interpretation of Article 31 of the convention in relation to that requirement, by rejecting Clause 11 as part of the Bill. With regard to condition 5 there is nothing whatever in the convention to justify rejecting as inadmissible a claim to asylum by a refugee as defined by the convention in the circumstances specified there. The only explanation, or example, given in the Explanatory Notes, is where the asylum seeker has close family members in the safe third country, whether or not there is another connection of any kind whatever.
Both these conditions are a rewriting of the convention and not a legitimate interpretation of it. The fact that Clause 15 provides, in new Section 80B of the 2002 Act, that a decision that a claim is not admissible because of an asylum seeker’s connection to a safe third state is not subject to a right of appeal, makes Clause 15 an all the more egregious breach of the convention. There is, in effect, no legal redress for the refugee if the Secretary of State has declared the asylum claim inadmissible under the proposed safe third state provisions.
Logically this leads to the conclusion that Clause 15 should be left out of the Bill. I am content, however, to support the alternative approach of the noble Lords, Lord Rosser and Lord Paddick, in Amendment 32, which is to fix a start date for the Clause 15 provisions if a formal returns agreement has been reached between the United Kingdom and a third state to which it is said the asylum seeker has a connection.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their contributions. I say at the outset that the Government have been consistent and clear about their belief that people who require international protection should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, rather than make dangerous and unnecessary journeys to the UK to claim asylum here.
Inadmissibility processes, in particular the first safe country principle, are well established, both in the UK, through long-standing measures in the Immigration Rules, and internationally, including as part of the Common European Asylum System. For example, the procedures directive recognised at recital 22 that
“Member States should not be obliged to assess the substance of an application for international protection where a first country of asylum has granted the applicant refugee status or otherwise sufficient protection and the applicant will be readmitted to that country.”
An overriding objective of these processes is to prevent secondary movements by those who have already reached safety. By definition, that is not about denying safety to those who need it but about having rules which aim to reduce unnecessary travel across borders by those who are already safe.
Amendment 31 seeks to remove third-country inadmissibility powers from primary legislation altogether. It would weaken our ability to deploy inadmissibility processes appropriately and decisively within a strong legal framework, and with that, erode our ability to deter unsafe migration and focus our resources on those most in need of our help.
We are confident that the measures in Clause 15 are fair, appropriate and fully in line with our international obligations. The clause sets out the strict circumstances in which a person’s behaviour or circumstances could lead to inadmissibility action. It requires decision-makers to take account of exceptional mitigating factors that may apply when considering those circumstances. It sets out minimum criteria that must be met by any country before it can be regarded as a safe third country of return, including it being one where a person would not be at risk of persecution, would not experience a breach of Article 3 ECHR rights, and would not be sent to another place where they would be persecuted.
The primary protection afforded refugees under the refugee convention and its protocol is non-refoulement, including no onward refoulement. It is therefore clear that non-refoulement is the primary requirement of “safety”. The same is true for protection afforded under Article 3 of the ECHR. Furthermore, an individual may not meet the definition of refugee under the convention but still require protection. A state may still be safe for them where they will not be refouled, even though they are not a refugee. Therefore, our criteria for determining whether a country is safe, and for subsequently making a claim inadmissible, upholds the UK’s obligations under international law.
Nothing in Clause 15 requires extensive delay in processing inadmissibility decisions. It is right that we consider inadmissibility action and, where appropriate, seek the agreement of the relevant third country, or countries, for the person’s admission there. In some cases, particularly where we are reliant on case-by-case requests to partners, this may take some time, but we have not operated, and will not operate, the inadmissibility system in a way that puts someone in indefinite limbo, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about—able to access neither the asylum system in the country of proposed removal nor the UK system. That would be contrary to the object and purpose of the refugee convention. Our existing processes, which Clause 15 strengthens, are clear that where return cannot be arranged within a reasonable period, the person’s claim would be admitted to the UK asylum system for substantive consideration. That ensures compatibility with the refugee convention.
Individuals will have an opportunity to explain their actions and circumstances prior to claiming asylum in the UK, and that explanation will be carefully considered in deciding whether an inadmissibility decision is appropriate. They will also be able to make representations on why any safe third state is not safe in their particular circumstances. Any decision to declare a claim inadmissible and remove an individual will be subject to the standard principles of public law, including rationality. The inadmissibility provisions are therefore compatible with the refugee convention. For these reasons, I do not agree with the amendment seeking to leave out the clause.
Turning to Amendments 32 and 86, as we have stated on previous occasions, the UK-EU joint political declaration made clear the UK’s intention to engage in bilateral discussions with the most concerned member states to discuss suitable practical arrangements on issues around asylum and illegal migration. We continue to do that with EU member states on these issues. We have been clear that formal agreements, though valuable, are not the only way in which an inadmissible asylum seeker may be accepted for removal by a safe third country. I think it is right to seek removals on a case-by-case basis where appropriate and, with the consent of the relevant country, make that removal. This approach has formed part of our inadmissibility process since the changes to the Immigration Rules in December 2020—and, until the Bill’s provisions come into force, we will continue to rely on the Immigration Rules.
The structure of case-by-case removal arrangements will not be uniform for each country of removal. A wide range of factors will still affect the formality and administration around such removals, not least the diverse organisational structures in place in the third country, the levels of centralised and decentralised decision-making, and other circumstances that may be specific to the individual. These arrangements will inevitably vary, but the framework in which cases are considered, within which third countries are assessed for safety and claimants are progressed to removal, will not. We have a clear and consistent approach to these fundamental and important issues, and we stand by our international obligations.
I do not agree that these provisions are unworkable without formal agreements in place. We aim to make the process work as a whole and to return people where appropriate. Where it becomes clear that an individual cannot be removed to a safe country, either because we do not have formal returns agreements in place or because a case-by-case removal cannot be agreed within a reasonable period, the individual’s asylum claim will be considered in the UK. To go back to the assertion made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I say that this will ensure that we do not keep people in limbo, in accordance with our obligations under the refugee convention. I do not think this amendment is required and ask that it be withdrawn.
Lord Paddick (LD)
Before the Minister sits down, can she clarify? She insists that the Government’s intention is not to put asylum seekers into indefinite limbo; in other words, if the Government attempt to send them back to a safe third country and fail to do so, at the moment there is a six-month time limit on that. Can the Minister confirm that there is nothing in the Bill to prevent an indefinite status of limbo?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Given what I have already stated about an indefinite state of limbo, surely the Minister’s words would have some sort of weight. I have also said that any decision to declare a claim inadmissible and remove an individual will be subject to standard principles of public law, and that we will consider their obligation within a reasonable time.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for their contributions to the debate. I also thank the Minister for her response. I appreciate that there are two amendments down: one takes the clause out and the other seeks to amend the clause to provide for safe return agreements to be put in place. I appreciate that other noble Lords can ask for a vote, but I will not be seeking a vote on taking the clause out. Instead, I intend to seek a vote on the amendment we have put down.
Lord Rosser
“Safe third State: commencement
(1) The Secretary of State may exercise the power in section 83(1) so as to bring section 15 into force only if the condition in subsection (2) is met.(2) The condition in this subsection is that the United Kingdom has agreed formal returns agreements with one or more third States.(3) A “formal returns agreement’’ means an agreement which provides for the safe return of a person making an asylum claim (a “claimant”) to a State which is party to the agreement, where the claimant has a connection to that State.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“(6C) This section also applies to failure by the claimant to produce identifying documents when entering the United Kingdom or when intercepted in the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to move my Amendment 33 and thank my noble friend Lord Green of Deddington for his support. This amendment would add the failure to produce identifying documents as a factor that could be taken into account in an asylum or human rights claim and might damage a claimant’s credibility.
The background to this is my concern that migrants, especially those coming across the channel in boats, are destroying any documents they have because they believe—usually on the advice of the people smugglers— that they will secure better treatment under the asylum system. I fear that the system we operate makes this a reality.
My concern increased when I saw the results of a freedom of information request by Migration Watch UK, which showed that just 2% of the thousands who have made their way to the UK in small boats across the channel are in possession of a passport. Between January 2018 and June 2021, there were 16,500 such arrivals, and only 317 were found to have a passport at the time of being processed in the UK. This figure also dropped from 4% to 1% during that period, so something was happening.
Asylum claimants found to have destroyed their documents can be prosecuted under a 2004 law passed by the then Labour Government, but there were only two prosecutions in 2019—a sharp decline since 2013, when there were 49 prosecutions, 44 of which were successful. The fact is that by destroying their documents, migrants make it harder for the authorities to identify the claimant and assess their claim.
In responding to a similar amendment in Committee, the Minister, my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, emphasised the case-by-case nature of decision-making, which I think was welcome to noble Lords. Clause 18 of the Bill before us adds two new behaviours to Section 8 of the 2004 Act: providing late evidence without good reason and not acting in good faith. He hinted that the destruction of documents would be an example of the behaviour that a deciding authority might think was not in good faith and concluded that my amendment was not necessary. However, when pressed by my noble friend Lord Green, he refused to confirm the documentation example and wished to leave the matter to decision-makers and the courts. This is not always the safest or cheapest approach.
Against the worrying factual background that I have been able to set out today, I believe that this is much too uncertain and likely to lead to a continuation of the current deplorable practice. The lack of clarity is an invitation to the people smugglers to persist with their wicked advice, and their wicked and dangerous trade. My Lords, what are the Government going to do about it?
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
This is a thoroughly nasty amendment. That is all I have to say about it.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I will not be quite as brief as that, but I will try to be brief.
I rise to support Amendment 33 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which I have co-sponsored. It is surely right that the failure to produce identifying documents should be a factor—I put it no stronger than that—in assessing the credibility of a claimant. The destruction of identity documents has long been a means of undermining our asylum system. As I mentioned in Committee, we overcame a similar problem for those arriving by air simply by photographing the documents before they got on the plane, so if they stuck them down the loo, it was not going to help them, and that had been going on for some considerable time.
It is no accident that today, 98% of all cross-channel arrivals, whether by truck or boat, have no documents. Indeed, it is not in dispute that people smugglers instruct them to destroy any documents to reduce the risk of being returned to their home countries. In many cases, the applicants are making fools of us. Surely, the least we can do is to specify in law a requirement to take into consideration the absence of documents as a factor in judging the applicant’s credibility. I can think of no reason why that should not be the case and I strongly support the amendment put down by the noble Baroness.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
I rise briefly to support this amendment. I had an opportunity years ago, when we were part of the European Union, to participate in an inquiry about FRONTEX and to go to Heathrow Airport to see the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Green, has just addressed. We were asked to be there at 8.30 in the morning to see what happened when people arrived at Heathrow on the overnight flights. Issues that have since been cured, largely, were then putting the immigration officers under enormous strain.
For example, on the day that we were there, a young man from Australia arrived who claimed to be British, but he came without any documentation; and a man from Brazil arrived for a holiday but without any money, so he was obviously going to work. Most significantly, a man on a flight from Nigeria claimed that he could not speak any of the languages available through interpreters at terminal 3, which is quite a wide range. I asked the reason for that, and they said that he will not speak until the flights back to Nigeria have left, and then he will start to speak, because otherwise he will be put back on the next flight to Nigeria. This was a prevalent issue, but I think it has now largely been tackled for the reasons given by the noble Lord, Lord Green. It was a huge gap in our ability to provide control. Those measures are not applicable to channel crossings, but we do need to find ways to tackle this issue, just as the noble Lord, Lord Green, described how we tackled it at airports. In the absence of that, we need to make it clear in law that the lack of clarity referred to by my noble friend when she moved the amendment should be taken into account by immigration officials.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, I invite the noble Baroness who moved this amendment and her supporter to consider the actual conditions of refugees who have passed through Europe and managed to get somewhere near our shores. They usually face closed frontiers. They probably live rough over a considerable period, being chased, for example, by the French police and the garde républicaine de sûreté. They are tear gassed, pepper sprayed and so on. Can they always be expected to have retained their correct documentation?
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
My Lords, I have been following this Bill since its inception. I have not spoken up to this point, but I have been increasingly concerned about the effect of this particular legislative initiative and its potential impact on our reputation internationally, which had been very good in this area up to now, largely because of our role as one of the founding signatories of the refugee convention.
The present situation is one about which the Government are clearly not being frank with the public and the House. My noble friend Lord Rosser quoted chapter and verse very effectively just now when he quoted the Minister saying that at one point she was in favour of, and at another point against, having reciprocal return agreements with other countries. If she wants me to give way to her, I am happy to do so. We should know the answer to that. We should know the answers to things we do not know the answer to. For example, in this country, are we committed to not breaking up families? Can we assume it is a guiding and regular principle that we will not break up families? If we do break up families of asylum seekers or otherwise, we shall be acting completely outside the pale of civilised behaviour. That would be extremely worrying to an awful lot of us.
The Government are known, in international rumour, to be in negotiation with a number of African countries—Rwanda, for example—on establishing some sort of camp or facility to take failed asylum seekers from this country, but we do not know what the terms of such an arrangement would be. The Government have not been frank enough to tell us. There are a lot of rumours going around, most of which are very unattractive. I hope the Government might do something about that.
There is a fundamental weakness at the root of what the Government are trying to structure here. People who have come in small boats and hidden in lorries have been accused of coming here illegally. Logically, one can see the reason for that accusation, but there is no way in which they can come legally, as far as I can see. The Government should think about setting up an office in, say, Dunkirk, Calais and Boulogne-sur-Mer so that there will be some direct contact with these potential illegal immigrants. It would not cost that much. They could make some progress in filling out forms and getting an initial reaction from the bureaucracy to their claim. That might be helpful all round.
The fact is that the Government are proceeding in their own way and have not always been very straight- forward with us. I hope that changes. I think all of us remember from our school days the Spartans in ancient Greece. They led a terrible life and were third-class citizens.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, with great respect, is the noble Lord actually referring to the specific amendment under discussion?
Lord Davies of Stamford (Lab)
I am endeavouring to do so but I shall not stand here for very long.
The ancient Spartans were helots. Their problem was that they had no rights—they had a growing population but no rights at all. I am very much afraid that if we take on board illegal immigrants and send them to some place in Africa, they will have no legal rights. It would be very worrying to have a population with no rights at all in a country that believes that that is firmly based on the law.
Lord Paddick (LD)
No. My Lords, this is Report. First, we are allowed to speak only once during a debate. Secondly, even if noble Lords were not here for Second Reading or Committee, they should not be making Second Reading or Committee speeches on Report.
We cannot support this amendment because there is no differentiation between documents that are genuinely lost or stolen. We know that people smugglers control the people they are smuggling, including stealing and taking their documents away from them deliberately, so it may not be the fault of the asylum seeker that they do not have a document. This amendment and the other provisions in the Bill seem to ignore the fact that officials and tribunals are quite capable of deciding, on the basis of the evidence, what weight they place on the evidence that is provided to them and what should be considered in terms of the credibility of the claimant, without what is contained in the Bill or in this amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, on the basis of a freedom of information request, that only 2% of asylum seekers were in possession of a passport. Only four in 10 Americans have a passport. Is it any wonder that those fleeing war in less developed countries, often when normal government services have completely collapsed, do not have passports? If you are fleeing war, if you are being bombed, if you are being persecuted because of your sexuality or your political views, the first thing on your mind is to get out of that country, not to go to the Government and ask for a passport.
This amendment and the related clauses in the Bill that seem to be telling officials and tribunals what interpretation they should put on evidence should not be supported by this House.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, under Clause 18, where an asylum seeker provides late evidence, this should damage their credibility. Amendment 33 in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, would provide that a person’s credibility should also be damaged where that person fails to produce ID documents when they enter the UK or are intercepted at sea. We do not support the clause or believe it should be part of the Bill, so we do not support the addition to it. A person’s credibility should be based, as it always has been, on the full picture and the worth of the evidence that is submitted.
As we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, where people are fleeing the horrors of war and risk to life, they may not bring the right documentation, or it may have been lost or stolen along the route. As we can see from recent horrors around the world, I am not sure that it would be anybody’s first priority to go back to wherever they were to find any documentation they might have—it would be to get out of danger. However, under the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, and the noble Lord, Lord Green, they would be penalised: it would be a failure by the claimant to provide identifying documents. Such a carte blanche failure to produce identifying documents would mean that such people seeking asylum would automatically be excluded from doing so. I do not think that that would be something that the country or, indeed, this Chamber would want.
There are other issues I wish to raise that are more relevant to the next amendment; however, if this amendment is put to a vote, we will vote against it.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Wolfson of Tredegar) (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe for raising the issue and of course I understand the concerns that lie behind it.
Clause 18 adds two new behaviours to the existing credibility provisions in Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004. It introduces the principles that providing late evidence without good reason or not acting in good faith should be damaging to the claimant’s credibility. Where, conversely, there are good reasons for providing evidence late, that would not affect the claimant’s credibility.
The concept that certain conduct should be damaging to credibility is not new. Decision-makers must already consider the claimant’s conduct. It is then open to the Home Office or the courts to decide the extent to which credibility should subsequently be damaged. The focus of Clause 18 is, therefore, the Home Office and then the judicial decision-making process. It is intended to address the issue of late evidence raised in unfounded protection and human rights claims and put beyond doubt that behaviour designed to abuse the system will be taken into account. Clause 18, therefore, is intended to apply to those individuals who have made a protection or human rights claim and have been issued with an evidence notice as per Clause 17. It is not intended to apply, for example, to individuals immediately when intercepted in the territorial waters of the United Kingdom.
Against that background, I suggest that Amendment 33 is unnecessary. The destruction, alteration or disposal of a passport without reasonable explanation, or the failure to produce a passport on request to an immigration officer or to the Secretary of State—again, without reasonable explanation—are behaviours to which Section 8 already applies. The good faith requirement in the Bill is intended to address behaviours such as those mentioned in the amendment, as well as any other behaviours that a deciding authority thinks are not in good faith. Specific instances of a lack of good faith are necessarily caught by the broader provision that refers to good faith: the greater includes the lesser. Therefore, there is no need to single out the behaviours prescribed in this amendment.
As to the detail of the amendment, I say that verification of someone’s identity normally takes place on land. However, should a claimant be in possession of their passport or identity document and fail to provide this when requested by an immigration officer, Section 8 will apply, as I said. Moreover, where evidence is provided late following receipt of an evidence notice in a protection or human rights claim—again, without good reason—this should be taken into account as damaging the claimant’s credibility.
As this amendment refers to specific examples of behaviour designed to abuse the system, and that type of behaviour as a whole is already caught by the provisions of the Bill, I respectfully suggest that the amendment is necessarily unnecessary. For those reasons, I respectfully invite my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe to withdraw it.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank those who have spoken in this brief debate. The very real problems of refugees, noted by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and of course the fact that some people do not have passports are very well understood by me. That is why my proposal is to add an extra factor that needs to be taken into account, not least to reduce the power and profiteering of the traffickers. As has been said, tribunals and officials can then take a fair view.
Having said that, I think that there seems to be a chink of light in some of the comments from my noble friend Lord Wolfson on how this would work. Perhaps we could discuss further before Third Reading what the Government’s approach will be, the associated regulations and so on. I am very conscious that we need time for many votes today, especially as the electronic system seems a bit slow, so for today I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coussins
“(2A) The deciding authority must treat evidence provided late as provided late for good reason where the applicant is a child, or where it is reasonable to attribute its lateness to the applicant's experience of, but not limited to —(a) torture,(b) trafficking or modern slavery, or(c) sex or gender based violence, abuse or exploitation.”
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 34 is in my name, and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her support. I am also extremely grateful to the Minister for meeting me last Friday to discuss this amendment and for agreeing to follow up our discussions with the Home Office. I am hopeful that this is going to lead to a positive outcome.
Clause 25 authorises the deciding authorities to give minimal weight to late evidence submitted by asylum applicants unless there is a good reason for it. My amendment would require the authorities always to assume that there was a good reason for late evidence in certain circumstances: where the applicant is a child or where the reason for lateness could reasonably be attributed to their experience of torture, trafficking or modern slavery, or sex or gender-based violence, abuse or exploitation. I have based that on the evidence to which I referred at Second Reading: that it is widely acknowledged that the trauma associated with sexual violence or trafficking can lead to significant problems with memory and recall, as well as a reluctance to share details which could bring shame, fear or humiliation. Critically, I rely also on existing Home Office guidance, which acknowledges all that and says that an application should not be disadvantaged in those circumstances.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in support of the amendment, which I hope the Minister will be able to respond to positively, given that it has been revised to take account of concerns that he raised in Committee about its wording, as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said.
I want to come back to the question of children. I welcome the publication last week of the factsheet on the Bill’s impact on children—better late than never—although it was only by chance that I found out about it, even though I had raised a number of concerns in Committee about the Bill’s failure to protect children. That point was made strongly by children’s organisations such as the Children’s Society. The factsheet, not surprisingly, echoes what the Minister said in Committee about guidance setting out how decision-makers will exercise their discretion with regard to children and more generally on a case-by-case basis.
However, as the Children’s Society warns:
“Assurances that children will be looked after in guidance are not sufficient. Guidance and case-by-case determinations do not provide the legal protection children desperately need. As highlighted in the recent inspection report of Asylum Casework, guidance is often neither followed nor implemented by Home Office caseworkers. Home Office staff themselves stressed ‘they did not have time to consider each case on its own merits, contrary to the guidance they receive’. Leaving decisions that will have a profound impact on a young person’s life to case-by-case determination can trigger further trauma for young and vulnerable claimants.”
Moreover, when the factsheet states:
“The best interests of the child are a primary consideration in every decision taken in respect of the child”,
forgive me if I am sceptical, given that the Court of Appeal last year ruled that the Home Office had failed to take account of the child’s best interests when setting the fee for citizenship registration—an issue to which we will return on day three.
Therefore, I am afraid that I am not reassured by what has been said about guidance and a case-by-case approach. Can the Minister tell us when that guidance will be published? Will organisations working with children seeking asylum be consulted on it? What opportunity will there be for Parliament to consider and provide views on the guidance? I realise that those questions may need to be referred to the Home Office but, if so, I should be grateful if the Minister would undertake to pass them on and request that the Home Office writes to me with the answers.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we support the amendment as far as it goes, particularly the emphasis on those subjected to sex and gender-based violence, abuse or exploitation. However, there are many others, such as those from sexually and gender-diverse communities, who will hesitate to bring forward all the evidence that they rely on in support of their claim. As I said in the last group, and as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, said, officials and tribunals already weigh evidence and credibility but if, in the Bill, the Government insist on leaning on decision-makers in relation to the weight that they should place on late evidence, then this or an expanded amendment should be included; that should also include children.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I do not want to add much to what the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, and my noble friend Lady Lister said in support of this important amendment. They outlined some of the problems well.
The amendment relates to Clause 25(2), which says:
“Unless there are good reasons why the evidence was provided late”.
It bedevils any Government that as soon as you state, “Unless there are good reasons”, the argument then becomes, “What do you mean by good reasons?” Then you produce a list and people complain that the list does not include everything. So you state that there will be guidance and then the Government do not produce guidance for people to look at to see whether it is worth it or needs to be improved. I appreciate what the noble Baroness and my noble friend said about engagement with the Minister, but these are real issues because people will be excluded from asylum claims on the basis of late provision of the evidence—and we do not know what the good reasons are that will prevent those claimants being excluded as a result of being classified as having given late evidence. It is not satisfactory.
At this stage, on Report, there is this question for the Minister. The list has been produced. The Minister will say, exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said, that by having a list, you will miss people out. That is why the amendment is trying to insert “but not limited to”. This is quite an unsatisfactory situation. Can the Minister not say a little more about what the guidance will say? Can he not give us a little more, in consultation with the Home Office, about whether there could be a draft of some sort, even at this late stage, to give some indication of what the guidance will be on what “good reasons” actually means? I appreciate that this is an ask for the future but the amendment tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Coussins and Lady Lister, is extremely important and goes to the heart of the problem with Clause 25 —notwithstanding the fact that many of us do not agree with the clause anyway. In seeking to improve the parts of the legislation that we do not agree with, what “good reasons” means is absolutely fundamental to our understanding.
As I say, I support the amendment; I appreciate that it seems to be a probing amendment. However, these are important issues and the Minister will need to go further to deal with them, I think.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, for her engagement with me, as the House will have heard, on the amendment, which she has redrafted since Committee, for the reasons she set out in her speech. I am also grateful to the amendment’s co-sponsor, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett.
We have a proud history of providing international protection to those most in need. This is a responsibility that we take seriously, but we need a system that is efficient as well as effective. By introducing a statutory requirement to provide evidence before a specified date, the Bill redresses the current balance. It is right that decision-makers have regard to the principle that minimal weight is given to evidence that is late following the receipt of either an evidence notice or a priority removal notice without good reason. The House will appreciate that Clause 25 is therefore essential to the architecture of this part of the Bill. However, at the same time, it is important not to tip the balance too far. Decision-makers in the Home Office and the judiciary will maintain their discretion as to whether, having considered the principle and in the absence of good reasons for lateness, it is appropriate in all the circumstances of the particular case to apply minimal weight to late evidence, taking into account the claimant’s particular claim and any specific vulnerabilities.
I have been asked to define “good reasons”. This has not been defined in the Bill for, if I may say so, a good reason. We cannot legislate for every case type where someone may have good reasons for providing late information or evidence in relation to their protection claim. To do so would be impractical and would detract from the important principle that decision-makers are best placed to consider an individual’s particular vulnerabilities on a case-by-case basis. I say this because “good reasons” can include both objective factors, such as practical difficulties in obtaining evidence—for example, where the evidence was not previously available—and subjective factors, such as a claimant’s particular vulnerabilities relating to their age, sexual orientation, gender identity or mental and physical health. Decision-makers must be able to respond on a case-by-case basis.
I contrast that with Amendment 34, which would place an obligation on decision-makers not only in the Home Office but in the judiciary to accept that there were good reasons for late evidence in all asylum and human rights cases where either the claimant or the claim type fell into one of the listed categories. I suggest that this would undermine the principle that we want decision-makers and the judiciary to apply their discretion on a case-by-case basis. By setting out a non-exhaustive list—I appreciate that it includes the words “not limited to”—of potential experiences or categories of claimant, it is true that this amendment does not exclude those not listed in the amendment from having good reasons. However, in any non-exhaustive list, there is a risk of focusing attention on the factors in the list, thus putting other applicants with different issues at a relative disadvantage.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
Just before the noble Lord sits down, can he say whether there will be any consultation on the guidance? Can someone write to me on that point?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I do not have the detail at my fingertips, but I can certainly undertake to write to the noble Baroness. I was just about to sit down after inviting the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, to withdraw the amendment for the reasons that I have set out.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and all other noble Lords for their support on this amendment.
I was very happy to hear the Minister’s commitment, having discussed it with the Home Office, that there would be new guidance. Assuming that this new guidance on late evidence is genuinely expanded and strengthened, this has the potential to go a long way towards meeting my objectives. However, I underline the point just made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, that it would be very helpful to be consulted on a draft before the two-month cut-off point when the new guidance would come into force. I would be very grateful if Home Office colleagues could take that on board. Although the noble Lord is an MoJ Minister, can he please keep on this as well, and ensure that the Home Office does not lose sight of this guidance in the greater scheme of things?
Assuming that this will be on track, it amounts to a satisfactory way of meeting my objectives and would give vulnerable and traumatised refugees some of the comfort that they deserve. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Stroud
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is linked to the amendment to leave out paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 3.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lord Kirkhope due to Covid, I will be moving Amendment 35 in his name.
It is disappointing that the concerns expressed by many noble Lords in Committee have gone unheeded and the practical questions that were posed are yet to be answered. My noble friend Lord Kirkhope is a former immigration Minister, who speaks with authority on this matter. Many years ago, after carefully examining this policy of offshoring, he rejected the proposal to offshore asylum seekers on the basis that it was impractical and ineffective. The reasons that he did so still apply today.
There is still too much that we do not know about this policy, even at this late stage. How would the powers given be used by the Government? Whose legal system would be used to assess asylum seekers that we have offshored—Britain’s or the third country’s? Once assessed, would these asylum seekers be returned to the UK? How would the Government exercise their safeguarding responsibility for families thousands of miles out of UK jurisdiction? How much would each case cost? The numbers from Australia suggest up to £2 million per year just to keep one person who is in need out of this country.
All this fails to fit in with our legal and international obligations, let alone our constitutional principles. Today, we see this clearly, more clearly even than when we were discussing it last time, through the events in Ukraine. This tragic and unnecessary unfolding humanitarian crisis will certainly play out through the European continent. Many refugees fleeing Ukraine may well attempt to come to the UK. Last Saturday evening, the Prime Minister clearly stated that we would welcome refugees from Ukraine here. By Sunday, that commitment had become that we would support refugees in neighbouring countries to Ukraine. Today, we can see that the approach has moved again and that the Government are committed to expanding their family visa scheme and introducing a new community sponsorship scheme for Ukrainians, both of which are significant and welcome steps.
However, are we still saying that every other Ukrainian refugee who reaches these shores would fall into tier-2 status, have no recourse to public funds and be subject to potential offshoring? How would this work practically? How are we going to apply an operation that would be, at the best of times, excruciatingly complex to execute on a potentially huge scale? Of course, there is the irony of people seeking safety only to find themselves in a position of renewed vulnerability, potentially held indefinitely in detention abroad. Instead of designing a structure that draws a proper distinction between economic and humanitarian motivations for migrants trying to reach our shores, it seems that the Government are muddying the water and resorting to this extraordinary measure of offshoring.
As we have learned more about the realities of life in the Australian processing centres, many noble Lords have become increasingly concerned by the reports of what children have been forced to endure. The Nauru files—a cache of more than 2,000 leaked incident reports from the detention centre on Nauru—highlight hundreds of reports of neglect, violence and abuse against children in the detention centre, often by guards. I cannot fathom a situation where the UK would tolerate the mistreatment of children, but in the absence of explicit protections and the rule of our own legal system, we have to assume that any scenario is possible.
In conclusion, this proposal is deeply concerning and unworkable on numerous levels. The powers it would grant our Government are on the one hand ill-defined and on the other far-reaching. They are potentially hugely expensive and yet ineffective, exposing vulnerable people to further trauma rather than offering protection.
As great as these concerns are, I have one further concern: what does this policy make us? This is our moment as an independent nation that can demonstrate western liberal values at a moment when they are under attack—values of democracy, rule of law and freedom of speech, yes, but also the value and dignity of every human being. We all believe in taking back control, but if there is one lesson to learn from Australia’s experience, it is this: any country that chooses to outsource its constitutional responsibilities compromises its control. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, in rising to support Amendment 35 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, to which I have added my name, I declare my interests in relation to both RAMP and Reset and set out in the register. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for the way she introduced this amendment, and I fully support all her points.
I set out my reasons for supporting this amendment in Committee. However, a significant concern for me now is that the Minister was not able to give assurance that children in families would be excluded from offshoring, nor that families would not be split up in the process. This is deeply concerning. I appreciate that the policy document of 25 February sets out that exemptions will depend on the country where people are being offshored and tat publicising exemptions will fuel the movement of the most vulnerable not subject to offshoring.
However, I would set out that, for children, onward movement to any country after an often traumatic journey to the UK, in addition to the trauma in their country of origin, is simply never in their best interests. All the concerns I set out in my Committee speech regarding the monitoring of the practice of offshoring processing centres are especially true for children.
The Home Office has processes to confirm identity and actual family relationships, which it uses for a range of visas as well as in the asylum process. It would seem that, if this is the concern, there are ways to avoid children being used in this way. Given the deep harm that offshoring would do to everyone, particularly children, I fail to see why the Minister cannot give this commitment.
I am deeply concerned that throughout the Bill, where we have highlighted the deep harm of policies on the most vulnerable, we are told that guidance and discretion can be applied on a case-by-case basis. I understand the logic of that, but what worries me is that it does not speak of any standardised process where everyone can be confident that there is equal treatment.
I further ask whether an economic assessment of the costs of offshoring has been properly made, and, if so, what the outcome of that assessment has been—and if it has not, why not? I ask these questions while fully supporting the need to remove this clause of the Bill in its entirety.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 35. In Committee, I and a number of other noble Lords asked various questions to which the Minister responded that she promised to write to us. Well, I have not received a letter. I contacted her office this morning, checked with our Whips’ office, and—the right reverend Prelate is also shaking his head—there was no letter.
I was going to raise the question of children, but the right reverend Prelate has already dealt with that very well. The fact sheet came out at the end of last week. My reading of it was that, yes, families with children will potentially be offshored—which is, as the right reverend Prelate said, very troubling.
I simply return to a question I raised at the very end of our debate in Committee, when I said that
“a whole range of noble Lords asked a question, in different ways, about what happens to the asylum seekers if they are granted refugee status in the country to which they have been offshored. Are they allowed back into this country or are they just left there? If they are left there, they have, in effect, been deported.”—[Official Report, 8/2/22; col. 1421.]
That seemed to me a rather basic question, and I was rather surprised that the Minister said that she could not answer it. I took her at her word that she would write to us, and she has not—so could she answer that question today, please?
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I spoke on this subject in Committee, so I will not make any more than a few brief remarks on Report. I cited the Australian example, which now has all-party support in Australia, for dealing with a particular form of offshoring.
The problem of dealing with cross-channel migration is undoubtedly very difficult, but it is not impossible; we have had some success in dealing with the problem of people coming across in lorries, which is one of the reasons they are now coming by sea. But the reason I cannot go along with my noble friend Lady Stroud is that if you are dealing with a very difficult, protracted and visible problem like this, you need to consider all the options available. Some of them will turn out, on closer analysis, to be impractical. It will turn out that you simply do not want to do some of them because of the reasons raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, about some of the ramifications. Some of them may simply be politically impossible to do, but it is an obligation on the Government to explore every avenue to resolve this very difficult problem.
Also, this is clearly an international problem. It is not only Britain that is dealing with this issue; it is Greece, Italy, France, Spain and so on. One thing I am sure noble Lords have said in the past is that, when looking at this, we should not simply confine ourselves to what we think is right. We should look abroad to see how other countries have tackled it. Some countries have had some success, some have had less success, but it would be foolish to ignore what is happening abroad and what methods they are trying.
For all those reasons, it is just common sense to keep the wording of the Bill as it is at the moment to give the Government the opportunity to explore a number of different avenues, some of which, I agree, may not turn out to be very sensible, and some of which may be more productive. To stop this now and to exclude some aspects because there are unanswered questions at this stage, when the Government are clearly in negotiations on this—they are half way or quarter way through the process; I do not know—would be foolish in the interests of looking at the whole picture.
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, often makes the point that this aspect of asylum seekers and refugees coming across the channel is only a small part of a much larger picture of migration; I think he used the figure that asylum seekers make up 6% of those coming over. But we have to get back to the bigger picture of what is happening on migration. By the way, I include Ukraine in that. Obviously, we all hope that no Ukrainian has to find a way across the channel via a smuggler. We hope that this country will be generous enough to deal with all those coming here properly. As I understand it, the Prime Minister said at Question Time today that he had been in discussions with the Poles, for example, about how Britain could help the Polish Government to deal with the massive influx they have had over their borders. That is an entirely separate issue which I hope we can deal with far more generously than so far.
I think this is a distraction, if you like—a difficult and problematic distraction from a very much bigger picture, which I hope we can return to if we really can solve this. But I urge the House not to rule out any particular measure, however difficult it may be and however many questions it may pose, at this stage.
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak rather briefly; it seems to me that brevity has a very wide definition. Let me just say that outsourcing is entirely unacceptable. I would like to see the back of this clause and schedule; they should not be in a Bill dealing with asylum or refugees. As I said in Committee, this will place vulnerable people again at risk. I give the simple example of someone who might be lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender ending up in a country to which they are outsourced where they could be criminalised, persecuted and under real threat. What kind of signal do we send to the rest of the world when we treat vulnerable people in this way? I support all the amendments in this group. I think that is brief enough.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Horam, makes the mistake of thinking that this House trusts the Government. Of course, it does not—or rather, by and large, the majority in this House does not, because the Government have broken their word so many times.
I will speak briefly as well, because I am very concerned that we can vote as much as possible but I do not understand why the Government are trying to move people to other countries. This makes no sense, and it is one of the many ways that the Government are trying to avoid their obligations. Instead of trying to deport people while the Government dither about processing their claims, we should provide them with decent accommodation and work so that they can start to retrieve some of their lives. If there was ever a moment when this Government should come out against the far-right ideology within their own ranks, this is it.
Lord Etherton (CB)
My Lords, I entirely agree with and support what has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman. Offshoring while an asylum seeker is having their claim assessed is wrong in principle, oppressive in practice and, critically, lacking sufficient safeguards under the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, mentioned Australia’s policy of offshoring as a successful process, as he did on Monday. On the contrary, from a humanitarian perspective, Australia’s offshoring shows all the defects and injustices of such a policy.
In Committee, I mentioned the 2013 Amnesty International report This is Breaking People, highlighting a range of serious human rights concerns at the immigration detention centre on Manus Island, Papua New Guinea. I also mentioned and quoted from Amnesty’s follow-up report, which stated that on 16 and 17 February 2014, violence at the detention centre led to the death of one young man and injuries to more than 62 asylum seekers. Indeed, some reports suggested that up to 147 were injured. I quoted more from this report in Committee, but it is not appropriate or necessary to repeat that now.
What is absolutely critical—here I take serious issue with the noble Lord, Lord Horam—is that before any such notion of offshoring can be pursued by the Government under this or any other legislation, certain assurances have to be provided in primary legislation, none of which is addressed in the Bill, the Explanatory Notes or any other guidance by the Government. First, how will asylum seekers have access to legal advisers with knowledge of the law and practice relating to UK asylum claims, which is complex and difficult? Is that going to be done four and half thousand miles away on Ascension Island? Secondly, legal aid and advice is available to refugees in the United Kingdom. Is there anything to suggest that it will be available to refugees in offshoring holding centres? If conditions, as in Australia, in the proposed offshore centre are so bad as to cause physical or mental harm to refugees—whether through physical conditions in the centre or, in the case of single women or LGBTQI people, for example, because of discrimination, harassment, bullying and violence from staff or other asylum seekers—will they be able to have recourse or bring proceedings in the UK, or will they be restricted to such remedies as might be available in the foreign countries?
These are fundamental questions. They cannot be left outstanding while individual arrangements with separate countries are being negotiated or considered. They have to form the legal framework within which any such discussions should take place and be seen on the face of any legislation, including this Bill. Although I raised these points in Committee, the Government have not given any answer on any of those issues and, until they have done so, I suggest that these amendments necessarily have to be carried.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I want to briefly restate what I said in Committee. Not only is the Home Office seeking the power to remove an asylum seeker to any country while their claim is being considered but it is seeking to remove them to a country and then tell that country, “If you think they are a refugee, you take them; they’re not our problem any more”.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has just said, according to Amnesty and Migrant Voice, offshoring by Australia effectively excluded legal, judicial, medical, humanitarian and media scrutiny. It has cost it over half a billion pounds a year, according to the British Red Cross, and failed to stop those seeking asylum, including by boat. Evidence to the Public Bill Committee in the other place from independent academics supports these conclusions. The UNHCR has
“voiced its profound concerns about such practices which have ‘caused extensive, unavoidable suffering for far too long’, left people “languishing in unacceptable circumstances’”
and denied them “common decency”.
I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Horam, says: the Government should be looking at every option, but surely they should be taking into consideration the evidence that I have just cited and considered any counterevidence. Then, having worked out its practicalities and decided whether it is to go ahead, they should bring forward legislation—not bring forward legislation and then decide whether they are going to use it.
Clause 28 and Schedule 3, as drafted, should not be part of the Bill. We support all the amendments in this group that seek to prevent anyone being removed from the UK while their asylum claim is being considered, particularly Amendment 35, to which I have added my name.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
Amendments 35 and 37 would remove the subsections of Clause 28 and Schedule 3 which allow for offshoring. That is, as we know, the power to export offshore any person in the UK who is seeking asylum without first considering their claim. Let us just repeat: we are talking here about asylum, not general immigration policy.
Clause 28 amends the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which states that a person seeking asylum cannot be removed from the UK while their asylum claim is being processed. The Bill withdraws that right by allowing the transfer of any asylum seeker to any country listed by the Government. The Government have been somewhat reticent in telling us about the progress of any negotiations they are having with any other countries on this score. I think that is where we hear the term about the Government not wishing to give a running commentary; in other words, “We’re going to keep you in Parliament in the dark about what is going on”.
The Bill is silent on what, if any, legal obligations the UK would consider itself to have towards asylum seekers once their asylum claims have been dealt with. This issue was raised again by my noble friend Lady Lister of Burtersett and others. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has commented that the provisions of the Bill allow the Government to externalise their obligations towards refugees and asylum seekers to other countries with only minimal human rights safeguards, an issue to which my noble friend Lord Cashman referred. The only thing the Government have said is that the model the Home Office intends to proceed with is
“one where individuals would be processed as part of the asylum system of the country that we had an agreement with, rather than people being offshore and processed as part of our asylum system.”
It is not just offshoring—it is also treating and dealing with people under another country’s asylum system rather than ours.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I thought it might be helpful, although we will be dealing with this in further groups, to start off about Ukraine and our support for our friends and colleagues there. I know that things are moving quite quickly, and noble Lords may not have caught up with the latest, so I thought it might be helpful to outline it.
We are establishing an expansive Ukrainian family scheme that will allow British nationals and settled people in the UK to bring a wide group of family members to the UK, extending eligibility to adult parents, grandparents, children over 18, siblings and their immediate family members. We are committing to establishing a humanitarian sponsorship pathway, which will create a new route to the UK for Ukrainians. These will be fee free; no fee will be required for any of the elements of the packages we are offering.
In terms of other support, we have extended visas for Ukrainian temporary workers in some sectors so that they can now stay until at least 31 December 2022, if they cannot return to Ukraine. We are providing £40 million-worth of humanitarian support to provide Ukrainians with access to basic necessities. This will be on top of the £100 million-worth of ODA funding that has already been pledged for energy, security and reform.
We have deployed a team of UK humanitarian and military logistics experts to the countries neighbouring Ukraine. We have called on Russia to enable humanitarian access and safe passage for civilians to flee the violence. We also have 1,000 troops on standby to support the humanitarian response in the region. We stand ready to further support Ukraine’s economy through £500 million- worth of multilateral development bank guarantees. I think that demonstrates that we are trying to do everything we can to help our Ukrainian friends and colleagues.
Before I turn to the amendments, I will update the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the letter. I will not assert that it was sent at 3 pm, but that is my understanding. Given my record on letters in this place, I know that the noble Baroness will come back to me if she has not received it—
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I say to the Minister that 3 pm today is far too late for this debate, and we have not received it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I do not deny that 3 pm is too late, but that was my understanding. I will chase it, if indeed it did not go. I am glad I did not assert that comment, because I have been proved—
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, it may assist my noble friend to know that I have received the letter.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am so pleased that my noble friend has been able to confirm that to me. I was just trying to be helpful.
In terms of these amendments, I will remind noble Lords from the outset that changes within Clause 28 via the schedule do not enable overseas asylum processing. The final arrangements will depend on our negotiations with like-minded partners. The arrangements will of course be compatible with our domestic and international obligations—this goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. On the face of the Bill, we set out the requirements a state must meet for us to remove a person with a pending asylum claim there.
I turn now to the amendments. Changes within Clause 28 via Schedule 3, which the noble Lords, Lord Paddick and Lord Rosser, and my noble friend Lord Kirkhope propose, relate to two policies. The first is to improve our ability to remove individuals with no right to remain in the UK to safe third countries. The second supports our future objective of enabling asylum processing overseas by making it possible to remove someone overseas while their asylum claim is pending and without having to issue a certificate under the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 in every case. I will now consider each policy in turn.
At the moment, it is too easy for removals of individuals with no right to remain in the UK to be delayed as a result of speculative, and in some cases unfounded, Article 3 human rights claims. The changes we propose will ensure we continue to adhere to our obligations under the ECHR, while preventing unnecessary delays to removal. The introduction of a rebuttable presumption that an individual’s rights under Article 3 will not be breached in certain specific safe countries, upon their removal there, is intended to prevent speculative, unfounded human rights claims from delaying removals—although individuals will be able to present evidence to overturn this presumption to prevent removal. It will also make changes to simplify the current legislative drafting in relation to asylum claim appeals, although the effect remains the same: an individual has no right of appeal against the decision that removal to the specified countries would not breach the UK’s obligations under the refugee convention. I cannot support Amendments 36 and 39 which, perhaps unintentionally, block these important improvements to our ability to swiftly remove individuals who have no basis to remain in the UK.
As I made clear in Committee, we are currently undertaking discussions with like-minded partners which seek to establish overseas asylum processing. This policy is novel and has garnered significant attention as a result. The fact that discussions are ongoing means that I cannot give any particulars on how the process would work or how the costings would pan out. Many of these matters are for the negotiating table. I will reiterate that this policy will only ever be operationalised in accordance with our international obligations. We are committed to ensuring that overseas asylum processing is both humane and safe, taking into account circumstances which may mean that overseas processing is not appropriate for particular individuals.
For far too long, we have allowed people smugglers to decide where and how people cross borders and claim asylum. These uncontrolled and unsafe routes have led to terrible tragedies off our shores—as we have all seen. The key aim of the Government is to destroy the business model of the people smugglers. One facet of achieving this is to reduce demand for smugglers’ services by making it easier to remove individuals who undertake dangerous journeys or otherwise abuse the asylum system. We believe that access to protection in the UK should be based on need and focus primarily on people who remain in regions of conflict.
My noble friend Lady Stroud and the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, talked about Australia to this end, and I will illustrate the point. The Australian high commissioner gave evidence on 23 September 2021 in which he clearly explained that, within 9 months of Operation Sovereign Borders, flow had
“ceased completely. Since then, there has not been a single irregular maritime arrival on Australia’s shores, as far as we can tell.”
The high commissioner stated that the most important thing was to
“drive the people smugglers out of business by depriving them of a product to sell and destroying their cash flow.”—[Official Report, Commons, Nationality and Borders Bill Committee, 23/9/21; cols. 76-78.]
That is a very clear message, and it is precisely what the new plan for immigration is designed to do.
The agreements that we are pursuing will have these principles at their core. They will be based on a shared commitment to finding fair and sustainable solutions to address global migration challenges, and to protect the most vulnerable. We are working to establish an effective, functioning system which provides protection to those in need while simultaneously preventing abuse.
Noble Lords will want to know who will be removed overseas for asylum processing and who will be exempted from this. Some noble Lords have already referred to the fact that, in the other place, my right honourable friend Minister Pursglove made clear that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children would not have their claims processed overseas. This demonstrates our commitment to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children, as expressed in Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. This is one example of how this policy will only be operationalised in accordance with our domestic and international obligations—and, of course, there are other examples.
After a fuller consideration of issues pertaining to vulnerability, we have determined that we should not be drawn further into listing particular exemptions to removal, partly because exemptions depend on the particular circumstances of the countries with which we are working. More importantly, however, being definitive about exemptions from the policy at this stage is likely to hamper its potential to be effective and would incentivise people smugglers to target the most vulnerable in the hopes of keeping their operations viable. It is essential that we do not curtail our efforts to undercut the business model of people smuggling and discourage other dangerous or unwanted behaviours by eroding the policy before it has even begun.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, the letter that she kindly sent us today sets out at greater length what she has just said: she cannot tell us with which countries she is negotiating with, what exactly she is negotiating for or what exemptions would be provided. She admits that the policy is novel and that she is not surprised that the House is asking questions, but she tells us that she can answer none of these questions now. So with this provision she is asking us to sign a blank cheque.
She has answered none of the questions asked by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, of which the biggest, in my view, is how legal assistance on British immigration law is to be provided to these people, in these unknown countries, who are going through a process about which we have been told nothing. I really do not think that we can sign this blank cheque.
Lord Paddick (LD)
On a point of clarification, the Minister said that the Minister in the other place had given an undertaking that children would not be offshored under this scheme. Does that mean that if a family arrives on UK shores the parents of the child could be sent overseas—offshored—while the child remained in the UK, because of that undertaking?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thought that I had made it clear that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children would not be offshored.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
Can we be absolutely clear: the Minister is not saying that children could not be offshored if they are members of a family?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I have gone as far as I am willing to go by confirming that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children would not be subject to offshoring, but on some of the wider vulnerabilities it would be wrong to be drawn at this point.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I have been trying to read the letter on my phone, but it did not arrive until after 4 pm and the Minister’s office did not have the courtesy to reply to my email. If I had had the letter at 3 pm I would have been able to read it. So I may have missed this, but I am not clear—and I apologise if the Minister explained this right at the very end—what happens to an asylum seeker who has been offshored, a horrible term, and is deemed to have refugee status by whatever country they have been sent to. Will they be sent back to the UK, or not?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, it would depend on the circumstances of the case.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, it is clear that a number of very serious outstanding questions about this policy need to be answered before we can give the Government these powers. In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Horam, I agree that it is right to explore every possible policy, and that some of them will turn out to be impractical—or even, as he stated, impossible. But that process is undertaken before you bring in legislation and take powers like this: you do not bring in the legislation and then work out whether it is impractical or impossible. So I believe it is right to test the will of the House on this policy.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 40 to 45 in place of my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, who greatly regrets that she cannot be in her place. She is very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Chakrabarti, for their support, and to Women for Refugee Women for its briefings.
Amendments 40 to 44 relate to Clause 31. They are being brought back at this stage because the Government’s response stopped short of providing the reassurances we hoped for. Some 27 organisations with significant expertise in supporting people seeking asylum support these amendments to Clause 31.
In Committee, the Minister stressed that Clause 31 was necessary to provide clarity and consistency of decision-making, the argument being that proving a status of persecution on the basis of reasonable likelihood is too vague and inconsistently applied. Clause 31 seeks to resolve this apparent lack of clarity by instead inserting the balance of probabilities test and a new fear test. This will raise the standard of proof for gaining refugee status, which will have a disproportionate impact on certain vulnerable groups. For women fleeing gender-based violence and those seeking asylum on the grounds of sexuality, providing this increased proof will be difficult and is likely to be highly traumatising, particularly given what we already know of the Home Office’s culture of disbelief and approach to such victims. For this reason, the UNHCR and, indeed, UK courts have consistently applied the reasonable likelihood test. Clause 31 will put us consciously and deliberately out of step with the way the UNHCR believes that the convention should be interpreted and how our own courts, notably the Supreme Court, have interpreted it.
What is most odd, and the reason for pressing this again, is that the Government believe this change will provide clarity. It is not clear why this should be true. There is already a problem with disbelief in the Home Office, which can be readily shown by the fact that 48% of appeals against the Home Office’s decisions to the First-tier Tribunal are successful, and 32% of judicial reviews are settled or decided in favour of claimants. Clause 31 does not seem to provide any additional clarity. Adding two different limbs to the test with different standards of proof seems a recipe for creating more confusion, making it harder for legitimate victims and so inevitably prompting more appeals. Amendments 40 to 44 therefore look to keep the status quo standard of proof and keep us aligned with the UNHCR and existing UK case law.
I turn briefly to Amendment 45, which relates to Clause 32. This was discussed at length in Committee and I will not go over the old ground, but in short, the interpretation of the convention applied in Clause 32 seems punitive towards women and other victims who use the particular social group reason without any clear or positive purpose. As the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, argued in Committee, if Clause 32 is necessary to clarify the “particular social group” definition, there is no reason it could not be provided by clarifying once and for all that the two conditions are alternatives, not cumulative, as has been the understanding in UK law since Fornah and was recognised by the Upper Tribunal as recently as 2020. This would provide clarity without disadvantaging women and other vulnerable groups.
More than 40 organisations in the ending violence against women and girls and anti-trafficking sectors have supported this amendment to Clause 32. This week, three UN special rapporteurs released a statement on the impact of the Bill, in particular Clause 32, on women. I urge the Minister to listen to their plea. As of 2019, only 26% of asylum applications have come from women. Why would we want to make it harder for legitimate victims of gender-based violence and other gender-related forms of persecution to seek help? Might the Minister say why gender is not mentioned in Clause 32 in the way that sexual orientation is, since it is mentioned in the EU directive on which the Government seek to rely?
Clause 32 not only reverses UK case law but does so against the UNHCR’s standards, following an interpretation of EU law that was rejected by our own Upper Tribunal in 2020. The Home Office did not appeal that decision; nor was that change included in the New Plan for Immigration. It seems to have come from nowhere with little scrutiny or expert oversight. As with Amendments 40 to 44, Amendment 45 is not radical. It simply asks that the Bill continue to operate with the status quo interpretation of the 1951 convention, which is well understood and used by UK courts. The alternative is an unnecessarily punitive barrier being put in front of vulnerable groups. I beg to move.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am rationing my interventions on Report to facilitate the early and many necessary Divisions. I know that other critics of this Bill are doing the same; I am grateful for that.
Given the events in the last century that led to the creation of the refugee convention, it is particularly distasteful that so much of the Bill seeks to rewrite the convention and its jurisprudence against the interests of the refugee. The Government protest otherwise, of course, but all the world’s leading scholars, practitioners and custodians disagree. I am glad to say that your Lordships’ House gave its own view on that general proposition very clearly earlier this week.
Clause 31 is a case in point. I support the right reverend Prelate’s amendments to it, not least because, among other things, they seek to delete the cross-referencing to Clause 34, which absolutely denies refuge to those who do not currently face a well-founded fear of persecution in part of their country. If one looks at the end of Clause 34, there is no discretion there at all. Although we are grateful for the Minister’s earlier comments about Ukraine, convention protection is based on international law, not exceptional executive largesse. If these clauses are not amended, a Ukrainian refugee might well be denied refuge on the basis that they could return to, for example, a part of their country that is not currently occupied or being bombarded by Russia. There is no discretion in Clause 34 at all, despite Ministers waxing lyrical about discretion and case-by-case analysis being so important. This is discretion that works against the refugee, with convolutions and contortions, when it would be for the courts to protect the refugee.
Another trick that has been used in Ministers’ speeches at various times during the passage of this Bill is talking about Parliament having the right to rewrite and interpret the convention—“Parliament this, Parliament that”. However, they use “Parliament” as a euphemism for “the Home Office”, and it is not. I believe I know what your Lordships’ House of Parliament thinks about that.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, although I support all these amendments, I will speak only to Amendment 45, to which I have added my name. Once again, I thank Women for Refugee Women for its support with the amendment.
The right reverend Prelate has made the case for returning to Clause 32. I just want to pick up some points made by the Minister in Committee. He argued that it is difficult to attack the definition in Clause 32 as wrong, yet, in effect, that is what the Upper Tribunal did in the 2020 judgment referred to by the right reverend Prelate, when it confirmed that this approach to membership of a particular social group is contrary to the humanitarian objective of the refugee convention. Moreover, in Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, dismissed this approach as a grave mistake that would cause grave injustice. Was he wrong?
Having listened to his less than convincing justification of the definition in Clause 32, I ask the Minister this: does he accept that Clause 32 means that a woman fleeing gender-based violence with good grounds for being accepted as a refugee is less likely to be accepted, as the UNHCR and myriad civil society groups have warned? His answer in Committee—given loyally, if I may say so—was this:
“What it means is that a woman, like anybody else, who has a proper claim under the refugee convention will find refuge in the UK.”—[Official Report, 8/2/22; col. 1452.]
I will repeat the question and ask the Minister to give us a clear “yes” or “no” answer, given that clarity is supposed to be what this clause is all about. Does he accept that Clause 32 means that a woman fleeing gender-based violence with good grounds for being accepted as a refugee is less likely to be accepted—yes or no?
Lord Cashman (Lab)
My Lords, I shall be brief and summarise the position I took in Committee. I support all the amendments in this group, particularly those relating to Clauses 31 and 32. I do so because the amendments will protect the most vulnerable, including women and girls who have been subjected to gender-based violence and abuse and the long-term harm those cause. They will also protect other vulnerable groups with protected characteristics, and recognise the immense and deep trauma such individuals have suffered but often deny because of a deep sense of shame. The amendments also restore the principle of a civilised and humane approach to asylum and ensure that we conform with the UN refugee convention and our international legal obligations. Finally, I have been deeply moved by the letters and some postcards I have received, particularly from women and other vulnerable groups, who express that they have much to fear from the clauses and the effects that they will have on their lives.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I have two amendments in this group, but they are quite distinct from what has been debated so far and distinct from each other. One is concerned with Clause 32(5) and the other concerns Clause 36(1). Because the amendment to Clause 32(5) is a manuscript amendment tabled only today, if I may, I shall start with that to Clause 36(1), because your Lordships will be familiar with the background to that.
Clause 36(1) seeks to define, for the purposes of the convention, the meaning of coming “directly” to the United Kingdom from a country of persecution. The same definition was relevant to Clause 11, because that cross-refers to the provisions of Clause 36, so we have in Clause 36 as a matter of proposed domestic legislation and as a matter of interpretation of Article 31 of the convention the same definition of arriving “directly”. Your Lordships will recall that the issue was whether, as the Government contend, if an asylum seeker passes through an intermediate state on the way to the United Kingdom from the place of persecution—through a place considered to be somewhere they ought reasonably to have applied for refugee status—they have not come “directly”. In fact, the only way they could come directly, if they are surrounded by other countries—Ukraine is a good example—would be to fly.
The House rejected that definition, because it accepted the amendment to remove Clause 11. It expressly rejected that definition of arriving “directly”. Amendment 46 simply takes out the corresponding provision in Clause 36(1), which was incorporated in Clause 11 but would otherwise simply remain at large but, so far as I can see, would have no relevance whatever to anything else in the Bill. If I am wrong on that and there is some purpose in retaining Clause 36(1), although that interpretation of arriving “directly” was rejected by the House when it approved the removal of Clause 11, the House would want to know what it is being retained for: why it is being retained and in relation to what other provisions in the Bill. My amendment would remove Clause 36(1) from the Bill.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
This is another of those occasions when saying “From these Benches, we support” and not much more must not be taken as any lack of support for all the amendments in this group, nor any dilution of the points made.
I just want to register concern about Clause 32(2). The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, spoke to this and I record our support, particularly for the amendment that deals with what is meant by “a particular social group”: that you do not qualify unless the group in question is perceived as being different by surrounding society. As has been pointed out to noble Lords in briefings, a trafficked woman would need to show not only that her status as a trafficked woman is an innate characteristic but that trafficked women as a group are perceived as having a distinct identity in the country of origin. That is very difficult to show. Judged by the perceptions of the society in her country? It would be very challenging to find objective evidence on that, and on that being a distinct group. It is very dangerous to suggest that one can tell those things by looking—or, rather more accurately, perceiving.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I spoke at some length on the legal aspects of this group of clauses in Committee and, having had the advantage of being able to indicate an overall view of them in the newspapers earlier in the week, I really do not want to try the patience of the House, and I certainly do not want to weaken rather than strengthen the number of compelling arguments that have already been heard on them in the past few minutes.
However, they are such objectionable clauses that I cannot simply remain silent. I do not criticise the Minister for this, I am a great admirer of his, but on Monday, at 5.49 pm, in the middle of the debate, we finally got a seven-page letter that sought to argue—if only I were still a judge and could deal with the arguments conclusively by rejecting them—the Government’s case for redefining the requirements of the convention.
When we come to Clause 31, the Minister, very fairly, recognises that it would overturn 25 years—a quarter of a century—of settled jurisprudence of the clearest authorities in this country. That is how we have been dealing with it for 25 years. He does not say that it was a wrong approach to the convention; all he argues—as I say, I do not accept it—is that what they are doing provides another possible interpretation of the convention. Is this really the moment at which to reject our established jurisprudence and substitute for it what may or may not—I would say not—be an arguable alternative view of the whole of this.
Clause 31 rejects what has been accepted as the holistic approach: you look at fundamental question arising under Article 1(A) of the convention in the round, you take all circumstances into consideration and you apply the standard of proof of reasonable likelihood—because heaven knows that is the standard which you should be using. You do not carve it up and create endless difficulties, and then say, “Well, actually, part of it has got to be on the balance of probabilities”.
I have quoted this before, and I will end with this: Hugo Storey, a recently retired judge of the Upper Tribunal who has spent his life dealing with these sorts of cases and is the immediate past president of the International Association of Refugee and Migration Judges, said that this clause would produce prodigious litigation and endless problems, and that it is not compliant with the way that the UNHCR wants Clause 31 to be applied. I will not go into the arguments on Clauses 32, 34 and 36—they are all objectionable, for the reasons already given. We really must vote down as many of these as we can.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I will be very brief. I wish to say that we agree with the amendments in this group, which seek to address the issue that the Bill is seeking to change existing, long-standing definitions and, frankly, make things worse and harder for many of those who would be involved in, for example, seeking asylum. We support the intention of these amendments, and I will leave it at that.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who propose these amendments: the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Gloucester, speaking through the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I agree of course with the importance of the UK carefully assessing whether asylum seekers have a well-founded fear of persecution, as required under Article 1(A)(2) of the refugee convention. However, we do not agree with these amendments which, when taken together, will effectively maintain the current standard of proof for all elements of the well-founded fear test.
There are other undesirable implications of the amendments which I will set out briefly. The House has heard short speeches supporting a number of these amendments. I have obviously got to reply to all of them, so I hope that the House will indulge me. I will try to address them in a comprehensible order, because some of the points are related and some are discrete.
I come first to the point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who asked how Clause 31 would produce clarity. Clause 31 is drafted to introduce a step-by-step process for decision-makers, considering whether an asylum seeker has a well-founded fear of persecution. The central point I would make is that currently there is no such clearly structured test.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I am afraid that I have been caught rather short on procedure, so I hope the House will indulge me. I did not address Clause 32(5), which is the focus of my manuscript Amendment 45A, but the Minister is now dealing with Clause 32. It would not be appropriate in the circumstances to make a speech on this, but I ask the Minister to respond to two questions.
First, in general terms, what are these acts that are referred to in Clause 32(5) that are criminal and, in some way or other, said to bear upon a quite different issue: sexual orientation, which is an identity? At the moment, it seems as though Clause 32(5) is mixing apples and pears—one on identity, to live a life freely and openly and without fear of persecution, which is what orientation is, and then we have some exclusion or cutting down on acts. I assume that we are not going back 100 years and saying that all those people who are LGBTQI have some inclination to paedophilia: I hope that we are not saying that.
Secondly—
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but I think my noble friend is able to answer the questions that he is posing. Moreover, this is Report, so although noble Lords can rise for small points of clarification, it should be no more than that.
Lord Etherton (CB)
I have one more point of clarification. Could the Minister explain what the position will be for refugee asylum seekers who are under 16 and for whom any sexual relations would be a criminal offence?
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I was coming to each of those points in my speech. I am not going to do so just yet, because I was, it is fair to say, on a different point, but I will come to those points in due course when I deal with the manuscript amendment.
Before the noble and learned Lord’s intervention, I was setting out the definition of “particular social group.” I was making the point that there is no universally agreed definition and no authoritative definition of that phrase. There is, as I have said, conflicting tribunal-level case law. For example, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham referred to the Fornah decision of this House in its former judicial capacity. The point there is that it is obiter. That is really important, because that bit is obiter: it is not part of the ratio of the decision. That really underlines my point that we cannot, with great respect, cherry-pick passages of decisions which are obiter, particularly decisions of the Upper Tribunal. Ultimately, it is for the UK, as a member state and signatory, and, for this Parliament—not the Home Office—to interpret the refugee convention. That is what we have sought to do here.
There are two clear conditions, and let me underline the following point: this is not a change in government policy. These conditions do not change the position—they reflect current government policy. The first condition is that members of the group share either an innate characteristic, a common background test that cannot be changed, or a characteristic or belief that is so fundamental to identity or conscience that a person should not be forced to renounce it.
The second condition is that the group has a distinct identity in the relevant country because it is perceived as being different by the surrounding society. The amendment would mean that a group need meet only one of the characteristics to be considered a particular social group. Obviously, that would significantly widen the scope of people who could qualify as a refugee but, relevantly for this debate, it would erode the concept that people deserve and need protection based on fundamental characteristics that go to the core of who they are, such as their faith or sexuality. It would broaden the definition to cover potentially transient factors such as an individual’s occupation, and that, we say, is incompatible with very purpose of the refugee convention.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I am not sure that one generally takes questions on Report. I am newer than the noble Baroness, and I do not want to be rude; equally, I want to maintain the approach of the House.
Viscount Younger of Leckie (Con)
My noble friend is correct on that. Noble Lords are guided not to speak after the Minister.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I want to respond to the concern expressed in Committee about the impact the clause would have on vulnerable groups—particularly, for example, female claimants fleeing gender-based violence—and to respond to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. Victims of gender-based violence may still be considered to be members of a particular social group for the purposes of making an asylum claim if they meet the conditions in Clause 32(3) and (4). In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, this clause does not therefore mean that women who are victims of gender-based violence are less likely to be accepted as a member of a particular social group: all cases are assessed on a case-by-case basis.
I cannot say, of course, that all women fleeing gender-based violence will always be found to be refugees, if that was the nature of the point that was being put to me. What I can say with certainty is that the structure of the definition does not preclude it. I think I heard, in the way the noble Baroness put the question, that the example was of a woman with “good grounds”. If she is asking, “Will this application be accepted?” good grounds is not the test and therefore, if good grounds is part of the question, I am afraid that that is why I necessarily gave the answer I did. I think if the noble Baroness looks at Hansard, she will see that I have now, again, answered the question directly.
I turn to Amendment 45A from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. It is vital that we provide protection to those in the UK who require it as a result of persecution they would face due to sexual orientation, but I suggest that it goes without saying that protection must not be afforded on the basis of one’s sexual orientation where the acts in question are criminal in the United Kingdom. I shall deal with both his points.
First, I note the explanatory statement on the amendment. For those who have not seen it, I shall summarise it. The obviously well-meaning intention of this amendment is to prevent applicants under the age of consent in the UK being excluded from refugee protection—I hope I have understood that correctly. I reassure the noble and learned Lord and the House that line 9 of Clause 32 does no such thing. That is because, although an asylum applicant may be under the age of consent in the UK, they can still be persecuted as a result of their sexual orientation. For example, a 15 year-old homosexual applicant may still be recognised as a member of a particular social group should they meet the requirements of Clause 32, even though they are not legally able to consent to sexual activity in the UK. I distinguish in this regard—I hope this is helpful to the noble and learned Lord—between sexual orientation and sexual activity. In that context, I come to the other point.
Let me say what should not need to be said—of course this is not the noble and learned Lord’s intention—but we are concerned that, as drafted, the amendment could allow convicted paedophiles and other convicted sex offenders to be granted refugee status in the UK, solely on account of their criminal acts relating to their sexual orientation. Of course, that is not the intention of the amendment: we are concerned that it is an unintended consequence of it. I hope that what I have said already deals with the intention behind the amendment and reassures the noble and learned Lord.
Lastly, I come to Amendment 46. Clause 36 provides the interpretive framework for Clause 11, which sets out Parliament’s position on Article 31(1) of the refugee convention. Clause 36 is still relevant in terms of providing the UK’s interpretation of key terms in Article 31 of the convention, such as immunity from penalties, so it is not just there to serve Clause 11, which was the first point made by the noble and learned Lord. The convention does not define what is meant by coming “directly” or “without delay”. Again, we have taken the opportunity to define those terms. We have taken into account that group 2 refugees will still be protected and not refouled, and will receive relevant entitlements so that the object and purpose of the convention are upheld.
Clause 36 is clear that there is discretion not to grant differentiated entitlements where a person could not reasonably be expected to have claimed in another safe country or where a person made a claim as soon as reasonably practicable. I made points earlier as to discretion and individual assessment. So this does not necessarily rule out the position taken by the House of Lords in R v Asfaw; it will all turn on the particular facts of the case.
Finally, I will prevail on the Home Office, I hope, to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on the point she raised. For these reasons, and with apologies that it has taken a little longer than I anticipated, I respectfully invite the right reverend Prelate to withdraw his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his very full and considered response and all noble Lords for their contributions. The strength of feeling is strong and again I make the point that these clauses are overly punitive towards women and victims of gender-based violence. I fear that that concern was not answered in the very full answer we were given. In particular, I still do not think that the responses given take any awareness of the trauma of so many of the women who come forward. I fear that to talk about “sufficiently detailed interviews”, as the Minister did at one point, would raise hackles on that front.
I have no doubt that my right reverend friend the Bishop of Gloucester will read Hansard very carefully and may well write off the back of that. I thank the Minister for making the promise to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister—I was about to ask him to, but he got in there before us. It is rather regrettable that we have not been able to persuade the Government on these points, and the Bill will not now adequately protect those who are subject to gender-based violence. That is the deep concern. That said, with deep regret, I will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Ludford
“Refugee family reunion
(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the date of the passing of this Act, lay before Parliament a statement of changes in the rules (the “immigration rules”) under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 (general provisions for regulation and control) to make provision for refugee family reunion, in accordance with this section, to come into effect after 21 days. (2) Before a statement of changes is laid under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must consult with persons he or she deems appropriate.(3) The statement laid under subsection (1) must set out rules providing for leave to enter and remain in the United Kingdom for family members of a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection.(4) In this section, “refugee status” and “humanitarian protection” have the same meaning as in the immigration rules.(5) In this section, “family members” include—(a) a person’s parent, including adoptive parent;(b) a person’s spouse, civil partner or unmarried partner;(c) a person’s child, including adopted child, who is either—(i) under the age of 18, or(ii) under the age of 25 but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum;(d) a person’s sibling, including adoptive sibling, who is either—(i) under the age of 18, or(ii) under the age of 25, but was either under the age of 18 or unmarried at the time the person granted asylum left their country of residence to seek asylum; and(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to—(i) the importance of maintaining family unity,(ii) the best interests of a child,(iii) the physical, emotional, psychological or financial dependency between a person granted refugee status or humanitarian protection and another person,(iv) any risk to the physical, emotional or psychological wellbeing of a person who was granted refugee status or humanitarian protection, including from the circumstances in which the person is living in the United Kingdom, or(v) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(6) For the purpose of subsection (5)—(a) “adopted” and “adoptive” refer to a relationship resulting from adoption, including de facto adoption, as set out in the immigration rules;(b) “best interests” of a child must be read in accordance with Article 3 of the 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would make provision for leave to enter or remain in the UK to be granted to the family members of refugees and of people granted humanitarian protection.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, the Ukrainian family scheme drives a welcome coach and horses through the usual Home Office approach to refugee family reunion, which is to oppose anything but a very narrow definition of “family”. The Home Office, in my opinion, seeks to restrict this safe route very considerably. As I understand it, the new scheme would allow children as well as adults to sponsor parents, grandparents, siblings and their immediate families, as well as allowing adults to sponsor their children over 18. It does not go as far as Amendment 48 from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in including, for instance, reunion with an aunt or uncle, and I look forward to him speaking to that amendment.
The Ukrainian family scheme is not the normal, routine Home Office approach. That approach was expressed at Second Reading of my Private Member’s Bill on refugee family reunion, and in Committee in response to my amendment, which was essentially the text of that Private Member’s Bill, as is Amendment 47 today.
In Committee on this Bill, the Minister said that the Home Office recognised
“that in some cases there will be exceptional and compassionate circumstances which warrant a grant of leave”
for the purposes of family reunion and that the guidance on exceptional circumstances would be “published in due course”. Can the Minister tell us what progress has been made in publishing that guidance? Yet again, as so often, the basis of the policy is just the exercise of discretion. It does not give certainty.
The Ukrainian family scheme is of course welcome, but in its recognition that, having fled to safety, refugees need their families, it should be a precedent, not an exception. As to allowing children to bring in family members, the Minister said at Committee stage of this Bill that
“noble Lords will at least grant that I have been consistent in opposing that sort of policy, because of its negative consequences”,
which, she claimed would creative incentives for children to be encouraged and forced
“to leave their family and risk extremely dangerous journeys to the UK in order to sponsor relatives.”—[Official Report, 8/2/22; col. 1474.]
In fact, it is the lack of safe routes such as family reunion that force dangerous journeys. Families Together, the coalition of 90 NGOs, talks about how the existing rules mean
“that those family members who have become separated but are not covered by the rules are left with the invidious choice of staying put in insecure and dangerous places or embarking on treacherous, expensive, unregulated journeys.”
I agree with another NGO, the excellent Safe Passage, that:
“Safe routes save lives, reunite families and support refugees to rebuild their lives … welcomed by our communities.”
I hope that the Government will take the precedent of the Ukrainian family scheme and widen it out to their family reunion policies. I beg to move.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 48 in particular. I say at the outset that I am grateful to the Minister for the trouble she has taken to give me a chance to talk to her and her officials about the clause and the Government’s view of it. Although I do not think that either of us was persuaded by the other as a result of our conversation, nevertheless I am grateful for the trouble she went to.
I want to just say a word or two about the background. Until we left the EU we had the benefit of the Dublin treaty, particularly Dublin III. To summarise, the benefit of that was that a refugee child or a child claiming refugee status could seek to join a relative living in this country. For example, a Syrian boy in France could apply to join an uncle in Birmingham or Manchester. That worked fairly well. The figures show that it was quite successful and it was an important part of reuniting families.
When we were concerned that Brexit would put an end to all this because the Dublin treaty would no longer apply, this House passed an amendment to the 2017 legislation so that the Government would negotiate to continue the family reunion provision after we left the EU. That was passed by this House on a vote, it was eventually accepted by the Government in the Commons and it became the law of the land. Then came the 2019 legislation and the Government took the provision out again, for reasons we never understood. Many of us were alarmed that something that had been passed could just be reversed, as it were, by other legislation.
Partly to conciliate me, I think, the Minister arranged a meeting. I was quite surprised that there were three Government Ministers and seven officials at the meeting, and me: it was sort of 10 to one. The effort was made to persuade me that everything would be all right under the then Immigration Rules. The then Immigration Minister was Brandon Lewis. He looked me in the eye and said, “Don’t you trust me?” I found this quite difficult. I said, first, “There is no guarantee you will stay in your job for very long.” Indeed, within weeks he was promoted to Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Secondly, I said, “I may trust you personally but I don’t trust the Government.” I am afraid that is still my position on this legislation.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, in what he has just said. I was one of the signatories of the original Dubs amendment, as it became known. It is a pleasure to follow him this evening and endorse his remarks, as well as those of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. I also support and have signed Amendment 50, which is being proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. My Amendment 51 is an all-party amendment. I declare my interest as a patron of the Coalition for Genocide Response, and my involvement in various relevant all-party parliamentary groups.
Amendment 51 has its origins in northern Iraq, where on 3 August 2014 ISIS attacked Sinjar, killing thousands of Yazidis, abducting thousands of women and girls, and forcing the rest to flee. This attack on the Yazidis was followed by mass atrocities in the Nineveh Plains, from where people were forced to flee or to die. People who were different, including gay people, were thrown from high buildings, prisoners were burnt in metal cages, women were raped, and homes were looted. These atrocities then intensified in their number and scope.
In 2019, I travelled to northern Iraq and met Yazidi leaders and members of other minorities; I took statements and evidence. It was truly shocking to hear first-hand accounts of the terrors to which human beings had been subjected. To hold to account those responsible for atrocity crimes, the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide lays a duty on us to protect, prevent, punish and—since the Bosnian genocide—act from the moment it is believed that this ultimate crime of crimes is being perpetrated.
In 2016, believing a genocide to be under way, the four signatories of this amendment tonight did precisely that and acted. The noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox—who is currently in northern Nigeria, collecting evidence on atrocity crimes—the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and I jointly tabled an amendment, calling on the Government to provide a safe and legal route for Yazidis and others dying at the hands of their tormentors. We failed to convince the Government to support it.
However, during that debate, and again in Committee on this Bill, we have again argued that our asylum procedures should create a specific category to help those judged to be at immediate risk of genocide. This amendment would leave the adjudication of whether a genocide was under way to a judge of the High Court of England and Wales, a route suggested to me by my noble and learned friend Lord Hope of Craighead. It was supported as a principle during proceedings on the Trade Bill in 2021 by three-figure majorities of your Lordships’ House and only narrowly defeated in the House of Commons, in what I think was the closest vote of the Parliament on a House of Lords amendment.
Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide. Winston Churchill said that the horrific nature of the genocide of the European Jews, the Holocaust, was a crime so unimaginably monstrous that it did not have a name; a Jewish Polish lawyer, who lost over 40 members of his family in the Holocaust, gave it one. Despite the term being named and defined, we nevertheless refused to empower a United Kingdom court to pronounce on it, while knowing that routes to the International Criminal Court are invariably blocked by vetoes.
But the House should note that, as recently as in November 2021, a court—a German one, in Frankfurt—did finally put a name to the crimes committed by ISIS against the Yazidis and others. It convicted a man who had bought a five-year-old Yazidi girl as a slave, and then chained her up in the hot sun where she burnt to death. The court convicted him of genocide. On International Women’s Day next Tuesday, we should recall that little girl and the estimated 5,000 young Yazidi women and girls abducted by ISIS, who suffered horrific and prolific sexual abuse.
Tonight, we have the chance to do something practical, which we have failed to do thus far. Despite all the evidence and a vote in the House of Commons declaring atrocities against the Yazidis to be a genocide, we have still not recognised this as a genocide and we have failed to create a safe or legal route to enable safe passage for those who are so grievously at risk. As I said at Committee:
“Reports suggest that among those resettled to the United Kingdom, there have been no Yazidis whatever and no Christians from northern Iraq—none. I would be most grateful if the Minister could tell us what the numbers are, or, if she does not have them, perhaps she could arrange for us to receive them between now and Report”.—[Official Report, 8/2/22; col. 1484.]
I hope we will be given those figures today.
In January, I asked for a bespoke humanitarian visa scheme for Uighurs and was told:
“While we sympathise with the many people facing difficult situations around the world, we have no plans to introduce a bespoke humanitarian visa scheme for Uyghurs.”
But sympathy alone is not enough. The Foreign Secretary herself has said that there is a genocide under way in Xinjiang; the House of Commons has voted to say there is genocide under way; and American Presidents, present and previous, have said there is a genocide under way. Does that not at least require a bespoke scheme to help some of those affected?
This amendment is modest: it will not be able to help the millions of people caught up in the pestilential nature of persecution, demonisation, scapegoating and hateful prejudice evident in the recent genocides in Iraq and Syria, the razed villages of Rohingyas in Burma/Myanmar, or the concentration camps of Xinjiang. It will not in itself stop the hauntingly cruel elimination of innocent humans being murdered because of their religious, ethnic or other identity. This amendment will also not be able to save every life—but it will save some.
In Committee it was suggested by my noble friend Lord Green that the amendment would potentially open the door to millions of people. The signatories of this amendment have listened to that argument, and we have addressed it. Proposed new subsection (4) in the amendment now gives the Secretary of State the power to use regulations to cap the number of people granted asylum under this scheme in any calendar year. That is not unlike what we are doing over Syrians, Afghans or children. If this amendment had been passed in 2016, it would have saved the lives of some of the Yazidis, Christians, gay people and others who were targeted by ISIS.
In 2016, the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, said:
“I say to my noble friend the Minister: throw away the brief from the Home Office and go back to the department and tell it what has been said this evening. I am certain that, despite the media coverage and the information that is available, people in this country have no idea of the extent of the horrors that are being perpetrated”.—[Official Report, 3/2/16; col. 1894.]
I therefore hope that tonight the House will send this amendment to the House of Commons, so that an injustice can be put right and a safe and legal route opened for small numbers of people, to be determined by the Home Secretary, who are subject to what we declare to be the crime above all crimes, to which we are treaty-bound to do something about. We are also bound to them by laws of common humanity. I hope we can do rather more than simply express our sympathy and sentiment.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, again in the absence of my noble friend Lord Kirkhope, who still has Covid, I wish to speak to Amendment 49, tabled in his name, which introduces a global resettlement target of 10,000 people each year.
We have just heard from the Home Secretary that the Government have committed to expanding their family visa scheme and introducing a new community sponsorship scheme for Ukrainians, both of which are significant and welcome steps. I thank my noble friend the Minister for the further policy details that she gave us earlier. But it is difficult to know exactly what is being proposed and, more critically, exactly how many Ukrainians will be able to access these routes and the timeframe in which they will be able to do so.
Community sponsorship, while effective, is typically not a rapid response option and requires considerable planning, resource and buy-in from local community advocates and groups. I have long been an advocate for this kind of policy but it is a solution that requires people to be able to plan and build the infrastructure to support it, as exists in, say, Canada. However, as we are all too aware, the moment of crisis is now. This is the second time in a few short months that a major global refugee crisis has emerged, with Ukraine swift on the heels of Afghanistan. The reality is that on both occasions we have simply not had the infrastructure in place to care for people properly in terms of both civil society’s response and local authority capacity.
With that in mind, I turn to Amendment 49, which offers the Government an effective, carefully planned and responsive solution for refugees as regards not only the protracted crisis that we expect to develop in Ukraine but those seeking protection on these shores from other conflict zones. There are two important reasons for that amendment. The first is that we would be playing our part as a nation in responding to global crises and resettling 10,000 of the world’s most vulnerable each year. Secondly, it would mean that we could plan and build a basic level of infrastructure at a local community level to be resilient to crises like the one playing out before us right now.
One of the greatest challenges for Afghan arrivals has been the fact that we have not had the capacity to take in such a big influx so quickly. That is largely because we have not had the stable infrastructure in place for welcome and integration. The success of the Canadian approach to refugee resettlement lies in its consistency. There is strong integration infrastructure there, well-resourced civil society groups and genuine expertise in the local authorities. That is why the Government setting a baseline target for the number of refugees who will be resettled by safe and legal routes could help to build the infrastructure required. If the response to Afghanistan proves one thing, it is that we need to guarantee consistency to both the local authorities and civil society groups that do so much to ensure the smooth transitions for asylum seekers.
A predictable but flexible global resettlement model in which the Government retain control over how places are allocated enables the Home Office to react swiftly to international refugee crises and in a co-ordinated fashion with local authorities, to scale provision in line with demand. Without this amendment, we will continue to lurch from one major crisis to the next. The best way to avoid that outcome is to ensure that we can plan and prepare the infrastructure and manage the flow of refugees. Amendment 49 does not prescribe the exact manner in which the Government should meet their target but simply seeks to address the underlying and fundamental issue—that at the moment we are unprepared and are not playing our part fully in the emerging international crisis.
The success of the Syrian programme in no small part was due to the political commitment and leadership associated with the 20,000-person commitment, which produced voluntary buy-in from local government and, in turn, enabled the build of a well-functioning and properly resourced system. The baseline of 10,000 people is an appropriate number for the future.
I conclude by taking a step back. If we fail to enshrine safe and legal routes, I fear that the two-tier system that the Government are creating with this legislation will come back to haunt us. Does the Minister imagine that the British public will endorse this legislation when its consequences become clear and we criminalise or remove public fund provisions for Ukrainian and Afghan women and children, who will inevitably in their desperation seek other avenues to reach our shores? War clarifies public opinion. The British public are hugely supportive of those fleeing Vladimir Putin’s war. I urge the Minister to consider whether, in the heat of the most major war and potential refugee crisis in a generation, it is the right moment to introduce a two-tiered refugee system. Surely it would be better to pause this legislative process to allow for reflection and see where the land lies.
However, if the Minister cannot consider that, I commend Amendment 49 to the House as a pragmatic way in which to ensure that we have the community infrastructure needed to support people for the long haul. It will send a signal both at home and abroad that we are a compassionate and fair nation.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I support all the amendments in this group but particularly Amendment 48, which has my name on it, to which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, spoke. It is a great pity that the Government wound up the Dubs scheme for unaccompanied children, which was doing a great deal of good, and that the Government did not want to stay in Dublin III or try to negotiate on that. We are not part of that agreement, and that removed two safe routes for unaccompanied children.
Under the Immigration Rules, as I understand them, it is not possible for a child to come to stay with a grandparent, sibling—a brother or a sister—uncle or aunt. It has to be a parent. Suppose the parents are lost or the situation is such as that unfolding in Ukraine now. Suppose the child has lost the parents en route. Why can he or she not come and stay with their grandparents in this country? The Immigration Rules seem to be too harsh. I therefore support the language of Amendment 48.
The more worrying point for me is the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, when he cited the Safe Passage numbers. It is alarming that the number of unaccompanied children coming in by a safe route has dropped steeply now that we are no longer in Dublin, the Dubs scheme has gone and these Immigration Rules are being applied. Where are these children going? Safe Passage tells us that in more than 50% of the cases that it is trying to follow, the children just give up, drop out and disappear off the books. Where do they disappear to? I fear that they disappear down to the beach and into the hands of the crooks.
Safe and legal routes really matter, so Amendment 48, which opens up the possibility again of having a safe and legal route for unaccompanied children, matters in my book. It was in this Chamber that the Dubs scheme was first approved by large majorities. For exactly the reasons that we approved it then, we should approve Amendment 48 now in a world that is, if anything, more dangerous, with more children in such a plight than then. I give my strong support to that amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, in rising to speak to Amendment 48 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, to which I have added my name, and Amendment 49 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, I declare my interests in relation to both RAMP and Reset, as set out in the register.
I support Amendment 48 as one of a range of safe routes needed to give people seeking asylum an alternative to using criminal gangs. People will do whatever it takes to reach family. I simply endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, the case for family reunion made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr. I urge the Minister to consider this proposal as a pragmatic response to the need to find durable solutions to desperate people dying on our borders in order to reach their family. This route will prevent some from ending in the traffickers’ hands.
I now turn to Amendment 49. I support it because we need a target for the global resettlement scheme, to ensure that it is operational to a level which provides a real alternative to people forced to use criminal gangs, and that it reaches countries such as Iran, Eritrea and Sudan, from which the majority of those arriving on small boats originate. We had the annual target of 5,000 for the Syrian resettlement scheme, and that is indeed the number who came, in a controlled, predictable and prepared way. We currently do not have a target for the global resettlement scheme, and just 1,587 came in 2021.
A target enables local authorities, charities, faith communities and the wider community, including businesses, to create and maintain the infrastructure needed to provide good welcome and ongoing support. This infrastructure also makes emergency response easier, as we have needed with Afghanistan and now Ukraine. It becomes less a crisis-to-crisis response and rather a strong infrastructure that can scale up when needed.
I note for the Minister that community sponsorship is deliberately not named in subsection (2) of the new clause proposed by this amendment, as there has been an earlier commitment made by Her Majesty’s Government that those coming through community sponsorship should be seen as additional to those in any set target. However, it is named in subsection (3). The Minister has previously spoken of her strong support for community sponsorship, so I hope that she will take this opportunity also to reaffirm Her Majesty’s Government’s commitment to the growth and development of community sponsorship widely, as well as the welcome announcement for it with Ukraine. Further details around that would also be welcomed, particularly by Reset.
It is welcome to see the Home Secretary committing to the humanitarian pathway for Ukrainians. We wait to learn the detail of this and the expected capacity. The point is that over five years, the number coming through on community sponsorship is 700, for the reasons that were named. It takes time. That capacity is growing and building strongly, but it will not answer the Ukrainian question quickly.
Returning to the need for a clear resettlement target, I conclude that without one, I fear that the global resettlement programme will be sidelined, and refugees will have no alternative but to use criminal gangs as what they perceive as their route to safety.
The Earl of Dundee (Con)
My Lords, since post Brexit, the EU’s Dublin III regulation no longer protects the rights of unaccompanied children. Therefore, along with many of your Lordships, I strongly support this measure, proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, who has very simply and eloquently indicated that it is a matter of honour that an equivalent to the Dublin regulations should now by us be put in place.
Any ambiguity would thereby be removed and instead we would make sure, as the Dublin regulations used to, that unaccompanied children and certain other people in Europe are able to come here for asylum if a close family member should already be in the United Kingdom.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
My Lords, I support all the amendments in this group. I particularly want to mention the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Dubs, and spoken to powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, about the importance of reunion of families.
As some noble Lords will know, I have recently been involved in the evacuation of women judges from Afghanistan. The first flight that I was involved in getting the women out on had 30 women on it. Unfortunately, I was woken at 5 am by a call from our point man at Mazar-i-Sharif airport, who said that the husband of one of the women judges had an out-of-date passport. It was not long out of date, but it was out of date, so he would not be allowed on the plane. I spoke to the woman judge, who I had got to know through her desperate communications with me. She was weeping, and I could hear her children weeping. I told her to get on the plane with her children and that I would do everything I in my power to get her husband to join her.
Lord Hylton (CB)
My Lords, we have heard some very moving speeches. Because I have consistently spoken over the years in favour of family reunion, I will say something about Amendments 47 and 48, which I support. I urge the Government to take them away and combine the best points from both of them into something workable, practical and possible to implement.
It is most important that children and young people who are already here should be able to sponsor their close relatives, and, conversely, older people here should be able to sponsor their younger next of kin.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I offer just a sentence on some of these amendments.
On Amendment 48, we need to bear in mind the risk that if we set up what is now proposed, children who are not yet in Europe will feel obliged to take quite serious risks to get into Europe to take advantage of it. With regard to Amendment 49, Syria is a good example. We decided that something needed to be done. We chose a target that, if you like, was doable—5,000 a year—and we did it. I take some encouragement from that. However, we need to be careful about the numbers, because we are already taking 40,000 a year, and if the Channel gets any worse that could be 70,000. We need to be careful not to lose the public’s support, which underlies all this.
Lastly, on Amendment 51, I have a good deal of sympathy with the comments of my noble friend Lord Alton on the Yazidis and others in Iraq. It may be that we should aim to do something similar to what was done over Syria, but again with a cap, in case the numbers run out of control. That has, indeed, been included in subsection (4) of the amendment, I think.
I mentioned public opinion, which changes from time to time. There is certainly very strong opposition to what is happening in the Channel; there is widespread public feeling that the Government, having promised to reduce immigration, have in fact lost control of the Channel. That, indeed, is the case. We cannot really expect the public to distinguish very clearly between asylum and other kinds of immigration. They are very uneasy, and in taking policy forward we need to keep that well in mind.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, as we have heard, in addition to the family reunion amendments so ably explained by the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and my noble friend Lady Ludford, this group includes amendments on setting an annual target for the acceptance of asylum seekers into the UK and the acceptance of refugees in specific circumstances—such as those faced by female judges in Afghanistan, the victims of genocide and those fleeing the appalling situation in Ukraine. If the noble Baroness does not take up the challenge set by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, to combine the best parts of the two family reunion amendments, we will vote for Amendment 48, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Dubs.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, explained, the Government need to build capacity in this country to enable us to take in at least 10,000 refugees a year—a number that is seen almost universally as the UK’s annual fair share of global refugees. Without a target to aim for, the necessary arrangements—the infrastructure and capacity in local services—will not be in place to cope with situations, such as Ukraine, that can arise, as we have seen, with relatively little notice. It is no excuse for the Government to say, “We are unprepared”. We must be prepared, and Amendment 49 seeks to ensure that we are.
I reiterate what I said late on Monday: the British people want to help genuine refugees, like those fleeing the conflict in Ukraine. What they worry about, rightly or wrongly, is being overwhelmed by immigrants. I repeat: in recent years only six in every hundred people coming to the UK to live have been asylum seekers. The British people have nothing to fear from this amendment. On the contrary, if it was explained to them, I am sure that they would support it overwhelmingly.
We support Amendment 50—so powerfully spoken to, and in the name of, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws—which makes special emergency provision for people at particular risk, such as human rights defenders, including journalists, and minorities. We also support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, to make special provision for victims of genocide.
To put beyond doubt the mixed messages from the Government about what they will do to support refugees from Ukraine, Amendment 54A in my name, and signed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, puts into primary legislation the requirement to support, by whatever means necessary, Ukrainian refugees who need to come to the UK. We passionately support all the amendments in this group.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, what a powerful debate we have just had on what is one of the most important parts of the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, spoke about wishing that we could inform the public. I sometimes wish—I do not know how you would do it, unless you put it on live television—that the public could hear more of the speeches made in places like this. That would inform the debate and take it forward in a way that allowed people to make their own mind up. It is disappointing that it does not happen.
It is important, in this context, to remind ourselves that we are all wrestling with how we deal with refugees, family reunion and resettlement schemes. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, needs to be repeated time and again: this is not about immigration, it is about refugees fleeing persecution and about asylum. That is extremely important.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, was also right, with his Amendment 51, to remind us of some of the people who need support.
In speaking to her Amendment 50, my noble friend Lady Kennedy referred movingly to her work to support the judges in Afghanistan. She has dedicated her life to trying to do something for people in such situations.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all the noble Lords who spoke in this debate. To take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I sometimes wish that people would listen to the points I make, but sometimes, because it is politics, they choose not to.
On Amendment 47, which relates to refugee family reunion, we have a comprehensive framework to manage cases that fall outside our rules. For example, refugees can sponsor children aged under 18—including siblings, nieces and nephews—to come here where there are serious and compelling circumstances, and there is further discretion to consider any other familial relationship as necessary. As part of the 2021 safe and legal routes review, we sought to clarify in our Immigration Rules which exceptional circumstances may be engaged for children whose applications are being considered outside the rules. This will bring further consistency and transparency to our policy.
Regarding allowing child refugees to sponsor family members under this new clause, I cannot stress enough the objectionable consequences this could create. It risks incentivising more children to be encouraged, or even forced, to leave their family and risk hazardous journeys to the UK, playing into the hands of criminal gangs who exploit vulnerable people, which goes against our safeguarding responsibilities. I know that noble Lords would not want to see that outcome.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for tabling Amendment 48, which is about safe routes for those seeking to claim asylum in the UK, including unaccompanied children, to travel from countries in Europe to join family in the UK. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, also support this proposed new clause, but I cannot. It tries to create a scheme similar to the EU’s Dublin regulation in UK law with respect to those who are in a European country but have family members in the UK. However, unlike the Dublin regulation, where the asylum claim is initially made in the EU country they are in, this new clause attempts to introduce a route for those who are in safe European countries to come to the UK to claim asylum.
On the Dubs scheme, we did not end it; we completed what we set out to do, which was to take 480 children under the Dubs scheme. On family reunion under Dublin, noble Lords will see in the table I sent the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, and which I distributed to all Members of your Lordships’ House, that Dublin had about a tenth of the number of our refugee family reunion scheme over a similar period. The noble Lord also talked about the Safe Passage cases. I understand that the Home Office asked him to send details of them. We would be very happy to receive them should he see fit to send them.
In response to the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, noble Lords will be aware that the UK sought to negotiate on these matters, specifically for unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, but it was not possible to reach an agreement with the EU on family reunion. When the UK was seeking to raise these matters with the EU, our proposals had very clear safeguards for children. This new clause has none and fails to consider the individual needs of children, which raises significant issues. While the noble Lords who tabled the new clause might have good intentions, it is not drafted with a child’s interests as paramount. It creates entitlements to come to the UK to claim asylum if the individual has the specified UK relatives but does not consider whether this is in the unaccompanied child’s best interests. That is a really important fact. Neither does it consider whether the UK relative can actually take care of the child, nor does it involve any consideration of whether the child would be better placed with a relative, potentially an even closer relative, in another European state.
I cannot ignore the fact that this new clause would encourage asylum seekers, including vulnerable unaccompanied children, to make dangerous journeys to Europe to benefit from its provisions. By the same token, it would discourage asylum seekers, when in Europe, who wish to travel to the UK to interact with the care and support mechanisms or the asylum systems of those safe European countries which should provide them with the safety and protection they are entitled to under the same international legal obligations that the UK abides by.
I have been very clear that we will not consider a more favourable approach to family reunion in the Immigration Rules for those in the EU, including unaccompanied children, as opposed to those in the rest of the world who want to join family here in the UK. A single global approach to family reunion—as taken by our current refugee family reunion policy—is fair and does not encourage what are often dangerous journeys into Europe, facilitated by smugglers and traffickers. As I have said many times, European member states are safe countries with international obligations towards protecting asylum seekers and children, as we do here in the UK, affording all asylum seekers in Europe an opportunity to access the rights to which they are entitled.
The right reverend Prelate talked about community sponsorship and my articulated support for it. That does not diminish; I would like to see far more schemes develop here in the UK. He also linked it to the Ukraine humanitarian pathway. The two are not the same. I am sure we will get more detail on the latter in due course, but I think it is a really good idea.
I thank my noble friend Lady Stroud, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate, for speaking to Amendment 49. The Government have time and again demonstrated their commitment to helping people in need of international protection. To date, our resettlement schemes have been non-legislative, operating outside of the Immigration Rules and on a discretionary basis. Operating in this way has effectively enabled us to respond to both protracted and emerging humanitarian crises and has seen us resettle over 27,000 vulnerable people since 2015. The noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, outlined why that was so workable in the Syrian context.
Last summer, the UK undertook the biggest and fastest emergency evacuation in recent history, helping over 15,000 people to safety from Afghanistan. The Government have recently opened, on 6 January, the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, which will provide up to 20,000 women, children and others at risk with a safe and legal route to resettle in the UK. This scheme is in addition to the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, which has already seen over 8,000 people relocated to the UK, with an estimated additional 11,000 likely to be eligible to be relocated under this route. ARAP is neither time limited nor capped, which is a good thing.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to the Minister. I still hope that some lessons will be learned from the Ukrainian family scheme, about which we will probably have some exchanges shortly. I hope for wider reform in future. I heard everything the Minister said but I still think that there needs to be fundamental reform of the family reunion rules for all the good reasons expressed in this debate. However, I am not going to make any further progress so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Immigration Rules: entry to seek asylum and join family
(1) The rules laid down by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 1(4) and section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 for regulating the entry into and stay in the United Kingdom of persons not having the right of abode must include provision for admitting persons coming for the purpose of seeking asylum.(2) These rules must make provision, for the purpose of seeking asylum, for persons in Europe who have a family member in the United Kingdom who is ordinarily and lawfully resident in the United Kingdom.(3) For the purposes of this section, a “family member” means – (a) when the person in Europe is an unaccompanied minor:(i) a parent, including adoptive parent;(ii) aunt or uncle;(iii) grandparent; or(iv) sibling, including adoptive siblings;(b) spouse, civil partner, unmarried partner of the person in Europe; and(c) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having regard to(i) the importance of maintaining family unity;(ii) any dependency between the family members;(iii) the best interests of a child; and(iv) any compelling circumstances.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Government to make provision within the Immigration Rules for unaccompanied children, and certain other people in Europe, to be admitted to the UK for the purposes of seeking asylum where they have a close family member in the UK.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, now is not the time for a long speech. I am disappointed in the Minister’s response. I believe that family reunion for Ukrainians is highly desirable, but she has just rejected family reunion for other people because the system is not working well enough. I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Stroud
“Refugee resettlement schemes
(1) The Secretary of State must arrange for the resettlement in the United Kingdom of at least 10,000 refugees each year.(2) The target under this section includes the numbers of people resettled under—(a) dedicated schemes for the evacuation of people from a geographical locality, such as a specific third State,(b) a general UK resettlement scheme,(c) the mandate resettlement scheme or equivalent replacements, and(d) other routes as appropriate. (3) The Secretary of State must be guided by the capacity of local authorities and community sponsorship groups in delivering the target under subsection (1).”Member’s explanatory statement
This reflects the Prime Minister’s commitment to make the dedicated Afghan resettlement scheme of 5,000 refugees a year additional to the longer standing Government commitment to resettle 5,000 vulnerable refugees per year from elsewhere in the world.
“Emergency visas
(1) The Secretary of State must, within a period of six months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed, amend the immigration rules in order to ensure that persons at particular risk are entitled to enter the United Kingdom and be provided with temporary abode.(2) For the purposes of this section, “persons at particular risk” include—(a) a human rights defender who is at an imminent risk to his or her life;(b) a person who is targeted because of their protected characteristic and is at an imminent risk to his or her life.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would allow persons at particular risk to be able to be provided with safety in the UK, in line with the Government’s commitments from 2019.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
Having heard the response of the noble Baroness, I would ask that she might indicate whether she would be happy to meet with me to discuss the delay in the operation of this, because I understood from what she said that Covid had got in the way of perfecting this emergency visa arrangement with the UNHCR. I would like to know how expeditious that can be, and it may be by sitting with the noble Baroness and having a conversation we can resolve that. So I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
I am sorry, but the noble Baroness has spoken to the amendment. I must now put the Question.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws (Lab)
I was just asking for an indication from the Minister; I am with withdrawing my amendment.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness will be able to withdraw her amendment after the Question has been put.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
That is correct. It is now in the hands of the noble Baroness: does she wish to seek leave to withdraw?
Lord Alton of Liverpool
“Conditions for grant of asylum: cases of genocide
(1) A person seeking asylum in the United Kingdom who belongs to a national, ethnical, racial or religious group which meets the criteria, in the place from which that person originates, set out in Article II of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide made in Paris on 9 December 1948, must be presumed to meet the conditions for asylum in the United Kingdom following an application to the Court from a non-governmental organisation (registered as a charity in the United Kingdom) representing such a person or group of persons belonging to a national, ethnical, racial or religious group.(2) The adjudication of whether the group to which the person seeking asylum belongs meets the description specified in subsection (1) must be determined by a judge of the High Court of England and Wales after consideration of the available facts.(3) Applicants for asylum in the United Kingdom from groups designated under this section may submit their applications and have them assessed at British missions overseas.(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations place a cap on the number of people granted asylum under subsection (1) in any given calendar year.”
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Wednesday 2nd March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-R-II(Manuscript) Amendment for Report (Supplementary to the Marshalled List) - (2 Mar 2022)
22:30 - Division on Amendment 55 - Ayes: 101 / Noes: 96 - Amendment 55 agreed.
22:55 - Remote Division on Amendment 59 - Ayes: 86 / Noes: 84 - Amendment 59 agreed.
23:09 - Division on Amendment 62 - Ayes: 83 / Noes: 76 - Amendment 62 agreed.
Lord Paddick
“Refugees and people smuggling
(1) Within three months of this Act being passed, and every three months thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before Parliament regarding discussions with the governments and authorities of other countries, including those bordering the English Channel and the North Sea, concerning the steps taken to— (a) increase security cooperation between the United Kingdom and one or more third States to prevent criminal activity in assisting or purporting to assist refugees in travelling to the United Kingdom,(b) increase domestic and international rates of prosecution for those engaged in assisting or purporting to assist refugees in travelling to the United Kingdom,(c) prevent or deter a person from—(i) charging refugees for assistance or purported assistance in travelling to or entering the United Kingdom;(ii) endangering the safety of refugees travelling to the United Kingdom.(2) The statement must focus on steps other than the provisions of this Act.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to update Parliament on the actions that are being taken to tackle exploitation of refugees by people smugglers.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, it is me again. Amendment 52 is in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. As he said on Monday night, the Bill almost exclusively targets victims: victims of war, oppression and modern slavery, and victims of people traffickers. We need to focus the Government on those who are exploiting suffering while profiting from the failure of the Government to provide safe and legal routes. In fact, the more difficult the Government make it for genuine refugees to get to the UK, the more that people will have to rely on people smugglers and the more profit that people smugglers will make.
Amendment 52 would require the Government to keep Parliament informed every three months on the progress they are making to increase security co-operation to prevent people smuggling, increase prosecutions of people smugglers both in the UK and overseas, and the steps they are taking to prevent or deter people from charging refugees to help or purporting to help them to get to the UK and endangering their safety. No doubt the Government will say they do not want to give details of the actions they are taking, as this may give the people smugglers an advantage, but we need to hold the Government to account to keep the pressure on them to do all they can to stop this evil exploitation of the vulnerable.
Amendment 61, which we also support, would make it an offence for people smugglers to advertise their services. Also in this group are measures to protect rescuers. Amendment 59 would ensure that those genuinely helping an asylum seeker, such as someone sailing a yacht in the channel who comes across a sinking dinghy full of asylum seekers, cannot be prosecuted by maintaining the status quo where such a prosecution could take place only if the person was helping asylum seekers for gain.
The Bill seeks to limit sea rescue to those co-ordinated by HM Coastguard or the equivalent, but they may not always be involved, especially in what could be the vital initial stages of a rescue. Amendment 60 would extend this immunity from prosecution to situations where the rescuer reasonably believed that the coastguard would have co-ordinated the rescue if it had known about it. The Bill should focus on people smugglers, and not place good Samaritans at risk of prosecution.
Finally, Amendments 62 and 63 try to ensure that lives are not put at risk from those involved in law enforcement pushing back refugee boats. My noble friend Lady Jolly will say more on that. The Government and the Bill should target the people smugglers while doing everything they can to protect the lives of the vulnerable. I beg to move Amendment 52.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I also support Amendment 52, which the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has just moved. As I said in Committee, it is a particularly important amendment. It is one where the Government will agree with the principle if not the practicalities of actually doing it. We all want to tackle the traffickers and the people smugglers but the Bill lacks any reference to that, a lot of the time. It is almost that it is a given. There is a lot of emphasis on changes to the law with respect to refugees and asylum seekers but not much in respect of traffickers. I think that is what Amendment 52 seeks to do.
The focus also is on security co-operation around the channel, increasing international and domestic prosecutions of people smugglers and interrupting the smugglers’ business model by preventing their crimes. On security and international co-operation, again the Government will say that they are seeking to do that but clearly, if we are to deal with the problem of channel migration and the crossings, there will have to be closer co-operation between France and the UK and between others in Europe and the UK. Amendment 52 seeks to push to the Government to say more about this.
Requiring the Home Secretary to come with updates every three months on what is actually being done to prevent these dangerous crossings and tackle the perpetrators would be of interest to us all. Something clearly needs to be done because, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Green, mentioned earlier, the situation, whatever the rights and wrongs of it, has gone from “a few” to “quite a few” to “a significant number” of people making the crossing. Whatever the Government are doing, it is clearly not working.
I have retabled Amendment 61. I am not going to push it to a vote, but the Government said a lot about it, saying, “Of course we agree with it, of course there shouldn’t be a situation where people traffickers and smugglers can actually advertise on social media to attract people to come to them in order to traffic them across the channel or wherever”. It is clearly ridiculous. I want to push the Government again to say what more they are thinking of doing to tackle that issue, which is clearly unacceptable to us all. Something needs to be done about it.
The Government have got themselves into something of a mess on the issue of “for gain”. We are having to debate whether a vessel that goes to save lives at sea needs a defence because, officially, it would be committing an offence. The words “for gain” target the offence on people smugglers and criminal gangs who do this on a regular and dangerous model, not on the captain of a ship who goes to the assistance of people at risk of drowning. We believe that “for gain” should remain part of the offence. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister how that has been clarified to protect anybody at sea who seeks to prevent life being endangered at sea. Something should be done about that and there needs to be clarification from the Government to provide certainty.
Amendment 62 seeks to ensure that nothing can be done in a way in which lives at sea are endangered. That is why we have tabled that amendment. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, for her work and support on that. Schedule 6 is where clarification is needed, because quite extensive powers have been given, including the power to stop, board, divert and detain. All of us would like more clarification on how that will take place. What does diversion mean and how is it going to happen?
In her response—I tried to ask this in Committee—can the Minister explain the difference between the MoD and the Home Office on this? The Home Secretary said that pushback was still government policy, although she did not call it that, but James Heappey MP as Defence Minister said it was not government policy and that the MoD would not do it. We all need to know: if we are giving these powers, who is in control? The MoD is supposed to have operational control, as I understand it, but it is obviously not going to ram or push anyone around with a huge naval ship. Presumably smaller coastguard vessels will be used to do that. Can the MoD order a person to do so? How is that going to work and who do they report to—the MoD or the Home Office? Which has the ultimate sanction?
So what we are seeking to do with Amendment 62, although we oppose that part of the Bill in total, is put something in the Bill that simply says that you cannot act against or divert a vessel in a way that would endanger life. Putting that into the Bill is both necessary and sensible. With that, I support Amendment 52 in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and myself.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have spoken. I start with Amendment 52, from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, on the issue of people smuggling. I am glad to be able to talk about this topic, because it is at the heart of the many problems in this area.
The UK takes smuggling and irregular migration seriously and is absolutely committed to tackling organised immigration crime in all its forms. We work closely with near-neighbour countries such as France, Belgium and the Netherlands, and key international partners beyond Europe, to address this exploitative crime and tackle smuggling networks. To tackle the threat, we have in place a multi-agency organised immigration crime task force that brings together law enforcement, border guards, immigration officials and prosecutors, to tackle organised crime groups involved in people smuggling. The task force is currently working with partners in some 17 source and transit countries.
Additionally, there are already agreements in place in order to tackle smuggling and irregular migration. For example, in November last year the Prime Minister signed an agreement with Belgium reaffirming the two countries’ close partnership and commitment to tackling shared threats such as serious and organised crime, including human smuggling. The two countries are committed to strengthening the legal framework for co-operation on our law enforcement agenda with a co-operation agreement and a focus on information exchange.
We are committed to working with France to maintain the security of our shared border, and to tackle illegal migration, and this relationship is long-standing, supported by the Sandhurst Treaty. Most recently, last year a bilateral agreement was reached between the UK and France. The UK pledged to make a further financial investment of approximately £54 million in 2021-22 to tackle illegal migration in small boats, and last year’s investment saw the French doubling the number of officers patrolling the beaches.
In and beyond Europe, we are working to exchange existing capability and co-operation internationally to disrupt organised criminal gangs and dangerous people smuggling routes. The joint political declaration between the EU and the UK, agreed in December 2020, noted the importance of good management of migratory flows, and the UK’s intention to engage in bilateral discussions with the most concerned member states to discuss suitable practical arrangements, including on asylum and illegal migration.
We maintain frequent contact with law enforcement partners both in the UK and abroad as part of our investigations into people smugglers, and these are often highly sensitive and complex. It would not be appropriate to provide commentary on cases, or place information in the public domain that might compromise operations or alert the would-be perpetrators to initiatives designed to thwart their criminal enterprises. I am sure that noble Lords understand that.
Addressing the organised crime groups that facilitate illegal migration remains a UK priority. In July 2020, the Home Secretary and the French Minister of the Interior signed an agreement to create a joint intelligence cell with the aim of cracking down on people-smuggling gangs. Last year, over 23,000 crossing attempts were prevented by French law enforcement and, since the UK-France JIC has been established, we have with France dismantled 19 small-boat organised criminal groups and secured over 400 arrests—quite often the things that people do not hear about.
I would like to stress again that the UK already has a number of safe and legal routes in place, and those in need of protection should claim asylum in the first safe country that they reach, rather than paying those smugglers for dangerous journeys with risk to life. All countries have a moral responsibility to tackle the issue of illegal migration and it is fundamental that our international partners engage with us to enhance our current co-operation. We continue to highlight the importance of having effective returns agreements to deter people from making unsafe crossings.
The agreements currently in place with near neighbours reflect this, and the amendment will not help the Government’s continued efforts to tackle these crimes. In fact, it might hinder or stall the fruitful and open dialogue on these issues between the UK and its international partners, many of whom would not agree to their discussions and domestic activity aimed at reducing people smuggling being published to a domestic audience.
In summary, I cannot support the amendment, because it is not appropriate to provide a running commentary on the actions that are being taken to tackle people smugglers, and I am sure that the noble Lord knows that. Much of it is sensitive activity, operational and based on intelligence sharing, with the aim of protecting vulnerable people.
Turning now to Amendment 59, our purpose in removing mandatory proof of gain from this offence is to more readily target people smugglers, where organised crime gangs will conceal their tracks and make it as difficult as possible to prove that they are getting financial gain to the standard required for a successful prosecution.
Let me provide an example. A suspected facilitator was detected at Heathrow Airport with passports concealed on his person and in his baggage. A short time later, an undocumented female of the same nationality and coming off the same flight claimed asylum. Her appearance matched that of the image on one of the concealed passports. The suspected facilitator had £1,400 on his person, which was seized under PoCA 2002. A search of his home address resulted in many additional travel documents being found, along with approximately £3,500. The facilitator refused to answer questions. Despite the strong circumstantial evidence, it could not be established that the money was directly linked to the female asylum seeker’s facilitation and so, without being able to prove “for gain”, the prosecution could not proceed.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Before the Minister sits down, can I say two things? First, I thank her for her reply about the MoD and the Home Office working together; we look forward to seeing how that works out. Secondly, she gave a very helpful answer on Amendment 61, but can she ensure that all the laws she laid out are enforced?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
Yes. There is no point in making them otherwise.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
Is the Minister sure that it is undesirable to include Amendments 62 and 63? Her arguments were all about whether it was necessary or not. The French say that if something goes without saying, it is always better said. It seems to me that Amendments 62 and 63, in the Minister’s view, are unnecessary. She is probably right, because I cannot see the Border Force or the Royal Navy behaving in a rash way. But would it not be better—would it not be desirable—to have it on the statute book that we will respect maritime law and will not risk lives at sea?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I have just explained why not.
Can I say something at this point? The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the Whip have pointed this out. Generally, after the Minister has spoken, the person who moved the amendment can ask questions of elucidation, but it is not generally the case that people who have not spoken in the debate then stand up and start adding to it. I know the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is going to be cross with me yet again, but this has been quite a long and arduous process, and it would be helpful for the House if the Companion were to be followed.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, to follow up on that point, my understanding is that anybody is entitled to ask a question of clarification on something that the Minister has said but not to engage in debate, which is allowed in Committee but not on Report.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for his support and the Minister for her comprehensive response on these amendments. As I anticipated, the Government want to hide behind tipping off people smugglers as to what the Government are doing to tackle the problem. But how do we hold the Government to account if we do not know what is happening, as far as Amendment 59 is concerned, on the issue of “for gain”?
I understand the example the Minister gave of the chap who had money in his wallet, and so forth. One understands that prosecutions are not always possible, and at least the money was recovered. But there is a defence once charged in the Bill; there is not immunity from prosecution. So, somebody who comes across a sinking dinghy in the channel and rescues the asylum seekers could be subject to a prolonged investigation. The Minister talked about a full examination of the circumstances. It does not prevent the person being arrested, potentially, and being held either on police bail or under investigation for a long period to examine the circumstances. The defence in the Bill is only once charged.
Lord Coaker
Member’s explanatory statement
This would prevent ‘arrival’ in the UK being an offence, rather than ‘entry’ into the UK.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
If Amendment 55 is agreed, I cannot call Amendment 56 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief, because we had a long debate on this issue in Committee. It is, however, an issue that goes to the heart of the Bill—changing the definition of the offence to one of arrival rather than entry. I am, therefore, very pleased to move Amendment 55 and to speak to Amendment 58 in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and my noble friend Lord Blunkett. This is a fundamental change to immigration law that many of us are worried will criminalise asylum, full stop. One can only imagine what effect a similar law would have in Poland now, with people fleeing across the border. No doubt the Minister will say that it does not apply in those circumstances, and so on. The fact is, however, that the Bill changes the offence from entering to arriving, which raises serious issues and has serious consequences for us all.
For example, aside from those seeking asylum, would this provision apply to a person who arrives in the UK with the wrong paperwork? They have arrived and they have broken the rules: would that be a criminal offence under the Bill? The Home Secretary has presided over this situation for a number of days but has just recently announced that people can safely bring elderly relatives and parents from Ukraine into this country. On the basis of this clause, would those elderly parents be considered criminals if they arrived here without the right paperwork? The Government’s proposed legislative changes have real consequences for real people, as highlighted by the recent horrific events in Ukraine.
This clause should be removed from the Bill on both principled and practical grounds. I have guidance that the CPS has announced, in consultation with the National Crime Agency, the Home Office and the police, which says that those seeking asylum should not be prosecuted under existing offences of entering the UK illegally. That is in recognition of the fact that it is not in the public interest, and that asylum seekers
“often have no choice in how they travel and face exploitation by organised crime groups”.
That is in a press statement from the CPS. The Government are asking us to widen the offence to include arrival when the CPS and Border Force do not believe that the existing offence should even be used. Similarly, the Government’s answer has been that the powers will be used in only exceptional and limited circumstances, such as where a person has breached a deportation order—in which case, we should pass a power for those circumstances.
It is not right to ask the House to pass these powers —on the basis that the Government’s own agencies say that they will not use them—or to criminalise a person who arrives in the UK to ask for asylum from war and persecution. It is late, but this change in the offence will have serious consequences for the way our asylum and refugee system works. I beg to move.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, this is more important than it looks. Frankly, it is rather absurd that people can turn up in their tens of thousands on our beaches and there will have been no offence. That is not to say that they should be charged, but there must surely be some legal impediment to people just turning up.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, the Bill does two things. It criminalises and treats genuine refugees as second class if they arrive via a so-called safe third country. Also, this clause potentially criminalises everyone who arrives in the UK to claim asylum even when they have flown directly to the UK. It effectively criminalises all asylum seekers arriving in the UK unless they have been resettled through a government scheme—resettlement schemes that range from few and far between to non-existent.
From what the Minister said in Committee, I understand that the idea of the clause was to ensure that migrants crossing the channel in small boats who were rescued and brought to the UK could still be prosecuted, even though they had arrived legally. She said that the new offence would cover all claimants
“who arrive without the necessary entry clearance.”—[Official Report, 8/2/22; col. 1512.]
Someone who secures a visitor visa, for example, flies non-stop to the UK and claims asylum at the UK border would be guilty of an offence because their entry clearance was only to visit, not to claim asylum and stay permanently.
The Minister tried to reassure the House that this was not the Government’s intention, that the offence was intended to be prosecuted in only the most egregious cases and that the Government would be talking to the CPS. There are two issues with this. First, as the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said in Committee, this is the very definition of an overbroad criminal offence that relies on the offence being prosecuted in only a subset of cases. The second issue is the potential for government interference with the independent Crown Prosecution Service. The next thing will be the Government telling the CPS to prosecute some political activists and not others. This is a very dangerous road to go down.
Amendment 55, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Blunkett, to which I have added my name, would remove the offence of arriving in the UK without valid entry clearance from the Bill. We will vote with the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, when he divides the House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank both noble Lords for speaking to these amendments. I have listened carefully to the arguments raised by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Paddick, and I appreciate the reasoning behind the amendments in their names, but I remain convinced that we must have offences which apply to arrival in the UK in addition to those of entry.
I cannot overstate that the differences between the terms “entry” and “arrival” are fundamental to how offences are identified and prosecuted. The definition in Section 11 of the Immigration Act 1971 concerning entry is based on assumptions that no longer address the methods that have emerged for migrants to evade our border controls.
It might help if I explained the effect of the amendment and the consequence of not getting it right. I remind the House that the Court of Appeal has held that an asylum seeker who merely attempts to arrive at the frontiers of the United Kingdom to make a claim is not entering or attempting to enter the country unlawfully in accordance with the definition of “entry” in Section 11. This means that individuals who step foot in the UK because their small boat was rescued by Border Force do not “enter” the UK in the technical sense. They simply “arrive”. Where there is no unlawful entry or attempt at entry, the unscrupulous people smugglers sending people across the channel in unseaworthy vessels that require rescue cannot be held to account for facilitating a breach of immigration law.
Amending these offences to refer to “enters” rather than “arrives in” renders them unworkable. It is wrong that an individual and those facilitating their journey should be able to evade sanction by allowing themselves to be intercepted and brought to shore. It encourages individuals to unnecessarily endanger themselves and others by travelling in small craft wholly unsuitable for the crossing.
If there is no offence of illegal arrival and if, as proposed in Amendment 58, this is not added as a breach of immigration law for the facilitation offence, then we will have practically eroded our ability to prosecute any people smugglers who are involved in risking migrants’ lives by putting them into small inadequate boats.
It is right that we should ensure that the tools exist to deter and prevent these actions for the good of all. We must provide the CPS with the ability to prosecute appropriate cases when in the public interest, so Clause 39 must refer to both those who enter the UK and those who arrive in the UK. I appreciate the concerns raised but am convinced that the proposed amendments, if accepted, would give only comfort to those who exploit and persuade people to make the perilous and unnecessary journey across the English Channel.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made a point about interference with the CPS. That is not the case. An MOU between immigration and the CPS has been updated and will be published. With those words, I hope that noble Lords will be happy not to press their amendments.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her reply. It was interesting in that reply, with respect to Amendment 55, that the whole raison d’être for the change to established immigration and asylum practice in this country is that the Government have lost control of migration across the channel. Panic has broken out, measure after measure has been tried, yet the numbers keep going up, and the public pressure to do something about it keeps going up. The Prime Minister has complained to the Home Secretary about it, so they have come up with a new measure which drives a coach and horses through the established procedures we have, has far wider implications than the channel, and affects every potential asylum seeker who enters the UK at the moment. That is why it is completely unsatisfactory to change things on the basis of what is happening, so I wish to test the opinion of the House.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Fookes) (Con)
As Amendment 55 has been agreed, I cannot call Amendment 56 by reason of pre-emption.
Lord Coaker
“Secure reporting for victims of crime
(1) The Secretary of State must, in regulations, make provisions for the prohibition of automatic sharing of personal data of a victim or witness of crime for immigration purposes.(2) In section 20 of the Immigration Act 1999, after subsection (2B) insert—“(2C) This section does not apply to information held about a person as a result of the person reporting criminal behaviour which they are a victim of or a witness to.””Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would prevent immigration data being shared about a victim or witness of crime who reports an offence. This is to ensure victims are able to approach the authorities for assistance without fear of immigration repercussions as a result of that contact or resultant data sharing with immigration enforcement.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 58A, in my name and those of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, would require the Secretary of State to prohibit the automatic sharing of the personal data of a victim of or witness to crime for immigration purposes.
This is a familiar issue to the House. It was a key issue raised in the Domestic Abuse Bill, when your Lordships voted to provide safe reporting for migrant victims of domestic abuse. In this Bill, this issue has been raised in particular due to the offence of arriving into the UK proposed in Clause 39.
The question I asked in Committee was: if a person is trafficked into the UK, is it the first duty of the police to recognise them as a victim of trafficking or as a criminal under Clause 39? I welcome that your Lordships’ House has just voted to remove the offence in question under Clause 39, but the issue of safe reporting continues to be of great concern.
A lack of safe reporting is damaging for victims, public safety and law enforcement because it prevents us tracking down and prosecuting dangerous people. This is not just the belief of Members of this House, it was the conclusion of the 2018 super-complaint. For victims of modern slavery, a mistrust of authority is a huge problem in encouraging people to come forward and identify themselves as a victim. What is practically being done to build that trust?
Rather than full safe reporting, the Government have opted for an immigration enforcement victims protocol, which they state will prevent enforcement action against victims while criminal investigations and proceedings are ongoing, and while the victim is being supported.
Organisations working on the ground with victims have raised that the protocol will not make victims feel safe to report offences, so it fails that first hurdle. Can the Minister address these concerns? In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, asked the Government to check whether it remains the case that one in two victims does not report crimes to the police for fear of disbelief and deportation. Does the Minister agree with that? What assessment have the Government made of the scale of the problem?
Safe reporting is a very real problem, which the amendment in my name seeks to address. I beg to move.
The Lord Bishop of London
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 58A. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, for introducing this new amendment. In Committee, I tabled an amendment looking to create a data firewall for survivors of domestic abuse. This amendment, however, is helpful in that it is broader in its scope and gets to the critical underlying principle: namely, that victims and witnesses of crime should not need to fear coming forward on account of their migration status. I and my colleagues on this Bench, including the right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Gloucester and Bristol, have highlighted these concerns, notably during the passage of the Domestic Abuse Bill.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, we support this amendment—I have added my name to it. The only question I have in addition to what the Minister has been asked so far is whether it is right that somebody who has been raped and who comes forward to the police as a victim, although she may not be subject to immigration control while a prosecution is ongoing, as soon the case is finished, she could be deported from the country because the police, at the end of the case, will share that victim’s immigration status? Can the noble Baroness not understand that victims are not going to come forward and report dangerous criminals who have raped them if that is the threat?
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I understand the sentiment behind this amendment, which is to ensure that migrant victims of crime come forward to report that crime to the police and are not deterred from doing so because of concerns that immigration enforcement action might be taken against them. Our overriding priority is to protect the public and all victims of crime, regardless of their immigration status. Guidance issued by the NPCC, updated in 2020, makes it clear that victims of crime should be treated as victims first and foremost.
The NPCC guidance provides that police officers will not routinely search police databases for the purpose of establishing the immigration status of a victim or witness, or routinely seek proof of their entitlement to reside in the UK. Also, police officers must have grounds to suspect that a person does not have legal immigration status and must give careful consideration, on a case-by-case basis, to what information to share with the Home Office and when. The reasons for sharing information must be recorded and the victim advised what has been shared and why.
There can be benefits to sharing information as it can help to prevent perpetrators of crime from coercing and controlling their victims because of their insecure immigration status. Providing the victims with accurate information about their immigration status and bringing them into the immigration system can only benefit them. This amendment would prevent that.
It might help noble Lords if I gave one example of the negative effect of the amendment. The referral of information about a migrant victim or witness enables the Home Office to provide information on Home Office systems to assist the police and other authorities to establish vulnerabilities and safeguarding needs and to assess whether the migrant might be eligible to qualify for leave under the Immigration Rules or bespoke routes. Securing immigration status may allow eligible migrants access to a range of benefits, including health and housing provisions. There are several bespoke routes available to migrant victims and witnesses of crime which enable eligible individuals to regularise their status.
Under this amendment, the Home Office could not lawfully process any applications or requests for relief from enforcement action where details of the crime reported are relevant to those applications or requests, because the applicant’s personal data cannot be used for an immigration control purpose. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, talked about rape, and examples would include applications or requests made for the destitute domestic violence concession, the foreign witness policy or the immigration enforcement migrant victim protocol, which is due to be introduced later this year.
I know that is not what the sponsors of the amendment had in mind, but, were it to be added to the Bill, that would be one of the effects. More broadly, noble Lords will understand that the Government are duty bound to maintain an effective immigration system to protect our public services and safeguard the most vulnerable from exploitation because of their insecure immigration status.
I have previously said that we need to focus on ensuring that victims with insecure immigration status can access the support they need, and that is the priority. Despite the best intentions, this amendment does not achieve the outcome it seeks. The question of leave to remain is inextricably linked to the conditions attached to that leave, so it is impossible to waive the no recourse to public funds condition in isolation from consideration being given to a person’s immigration status. What is more, it has been a long-standing feature of the immigration framework operated by successive Governments that only those with settled status should have access to public funds.
The public rightly expects that individuals in this country should be subject to our laws, and it is right that those with irregular immigration status are identified and that they should be supported to come under our immigration system and, where possible, to regularise their stay. We regularly help migrant victims by signposting them to legal advice to help regularise their stay.
This is the wrong amendment at the wrong time. If adopted, it would prevent victims obtaining the support they need, whether under the DDVC or other routes such as seeking asylum. I hope, on the point from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about listening, that the noble Lords have listened and reflected carefully on the unintended consequences of their amendment and will agree to withdraw it.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
Having listened carefully to the Minister, particularly about it being the wrong amendment at the wrong time, I will withdraw the amendment. But just let me very quickly say that, whatever the rights and wrongs of the amendment, and whatever the rights of the wrongs of what the Minister has just said, there is a very real problem out there of people who are victims of crime who are terrified of going to the police or the authorities because of fear of their immigration status. Whether that is right or wrong, that is the reality of the situation. I know the noble Baroness knows that. There is a problem that needs fixing. If the amendment is not the right way of doing it, we need to find another way of building that trust so that we do not have victims who are frightened to come forward to the authorities. With those few remarks, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Coaker
Member’s explanatory statement
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to maintain the current position that the offence of helping an asylum seeker to enter the United Kingdom can only be committed if it is carried out “for gain”.
Lord Coaker
“(1A) The powers set out in this Part of this Schedule must not be used in a manner or in circumstances that could endanger life at sea.”Member’s explanatory statement
This would give effect to the recommendation of the Joint Committee on Human Rights to ensure the maritime enforcement powers cannot be used in a manner that would endanger lives at sea.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Tuesday 8th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 82-R-III Third marshalled list for Report - (4 Mar 2022)
17:23 - Division on Amendment 64A - Ayes: 232 / Noes: 162 - Amendment 64A agreed.
19:03 - Division on Amendment 66 - Ayes: 213 / Noes: 142 - Amendment 66 agreed.
19:16 - Division on Amendment 68A - Ayes: 210 / Noes: 128 - Amendment 68A agreed.
19:29 - Division on Amendment 70 - Ayes: 207 / Noes: 123 - Amendment 70 agreed.
19:41 - Division on Amendment 70ZA - Ayes: 194 / Noes: 128 - Amendment 70ZA agreed.
21:40 - Division on Amendment 71 - Ayes: 141 / Noes: 107 - Amendment 71 agreed.
22:12 - Division on Amendment 75 - Ayes: 96 / Noes: 101 - Amendment 75 disagreed.
22:54 - Division on Amendment 77 - Ayes: 80 / Noes: 88 - Amendment 77 disagreed.
23:45 - Division on Amendment 79 - Ayes: 61 / Noes: 83 - Amendment 79 disagreed.
01:11 - Division on Amendment 83 - Ayes: 25 / Noes: 69 - Amendment 83 disagreed.
Lord Green of Deddington
“Age assessments for age-disputed persons: initial assessments of undetermined age
(1) An age-disputed person must be treated as an adult where their physical appearance and demeanour strongly suggest that they are over the age of 18.(2) Where the age-disputed person’s physical appearance and demeanour do not meet that threshold, and doubt remains as to their claim to be a child, the person must be treated as being of undetermined age until a further age assessment is carried out.(3) Those of undetermined age must not be placed alongside minors in schools or accommodation.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would place in primary legislation a rule for tighter initial age assessments for asylum seekers and would ensure that, where doubts about the person’s age are raised by initial assessors, applicants will not be placed alongside children in schools or accommodation.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I have retabled my amendment in the light of the Minister’s reply in Committee. Judging by Hansard, there was a very good discussion, albeit at three in the morning. We need to be clear about what we are trying to achieve here. Surely it is, first, that adults should not easily claim to be children and get away with it, and, secondly, that where doubts about age remain, the claimants concerned should be kept separate from those who are clearly children.
One aspect which was not covered in Committee was the very considerable increase in claims from those who were falsely claiming to be children. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said that, in 2019, those found to be adults amounted to less than half the cases. I have in my pocket the Home Office table showing the outcome of these claims since 2006. The year which the noble Lord chose, 2019, was the lowest percentage in the last 10 years. We now have the percentage for adults in the last two years, and they were 43% and 66%, respectively. I will not provide more statistics, except to say that what is really important is the number of cases to which these percentages refer. In 2019, there were only 304 age-disputed cases; in 2021, there were 1,500—I repeat: 1,500. The whole scale is much greater and justifies the tightening of the criteria for which I am calling.
As to the test applied, the Minister said that our current threshold is that a person claiming asylum is declared to be an adult when
“their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that they are significantly over 18”.—[Official Report, 8/2/22; col. 1568.]
That is a pretty tight restriction. My amendment would adjust that to when
“their physical appearance and demeanour strongly suggest that they are over the age of 18.”
The change is to “strongly suggest”. I believe that this falls well within the Supreme Court judgment to which the Minister referred in his speech: BF (Eritrea). That judgment found that claimants could be treated as adults if two Home Office officials considered that the person looked significantly over 18. My amendment tightens the criteria, but that is what we need to do in the face of the significant exploitation of the present scheme.
My last point concerns the important and related issue of safeguarding those who are found to be children. Surely it is common prudence that doubtful applicants should, until their cases are resolved, be kept separate from those known to be genuine children. I look forward to an assurance from the Minister that arrangements are now envisaged which will achieve this result. I beg to move.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests as chair of University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and of Whittington Health NHS Trust, and as chair of the Schwab & Westheimer Trust, charitable trusts set up to provide education for young asylum seekers.
I am speaking to Amendment 64A. When we last debated age assessments for young asylum seekers, in Committee, it was in the small hours of the morning, and the issues to which we should have given real attention did not get enough scrutiny. The issue had had precious little scrutiny in another place, because these provisions were brought in so late by the Government in the passage of the Bill. I am very grateful to the Government for the amount of information which they have provided recently, but there is still more to tease out. I hope, therefore, that noble Lords will understand why I and my colleagues—the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Hamwee, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham—are putting forward this detailed amendment at Report. I am grateful to the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, the British Dental Association, the British Red Cross, the UNHCR, the ADSS, the British Association of Social Workers and many others for their briefings and help.
There is widespread concern about age assessments among all the various voluntary and statutory agencies concerned with young asylum seekers, and among many medical, dental and scientific bodies. Because of the small family charity which I chair, I spend time with asylum-seeking young people who are desperate to get their lives back on track by getting an education. Most of those I meet are older than the children and young people presently under discussion and whose age might be disputed, but by no means all. From what they tell us, I know how traumatised they can be, and have been, not only by their experiences in their home countries and on their incredibly difficult journeys but by the processes they have been forced to go through once they have arrived in the UK, and the way in which they are often not believed—almost as if there is an assumption that they will not be telling the truth.
The fact that they might be asked for consent before they undergo an age- assessment process is neither here nor there. Refusing consent would undoubtedly be a black mark against them in a system which they already perceive as doubting their word. Many of them will not have paper evidence of their date of birth, precisely because of what they have been through. The idea that the Home Office will control these procedures, and insist on them, fills many of us with distinct unease as it almost certainly means that already traumatised young people who have been through terrible experiences to reach the UK will be forced to endure yet more traumatising experiences, possibly including intimate examinations which are hard, if not impossible, to justify.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 64A, to which I have added my name. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, has made the case powerfully for the amendment, which aims to introduce protections designed to alleviate the main concerns raised by myriad organisations, as she said, as detailed in Committee.
I shall build on what the noble Baroness said by picking up some arguments that were not adequately addressed by the Minister in Committee. First, he repeatedly tried to justify the use of dental X-rays in age assessment on the ground that they are already
“used as a diagnostic tool in ordinary dentistry”.—[Official Report, 8/2/22; col. 1566.]
He completely ignored my response that age assessment is not about diagnosing something that is wrong with a child—that is, there is no clinical justification for its use in this context. That he did not appear to get the distinction was described as a “cause of great concern” by the British Dental Association, which, as has been said, is totally opposed to the use of dental X-rays for the purpose of determining age.
Secondly, there is the related argument, put forward by the BDA and others, including the British Medical Association, that to use such methods in a non-clinical context is unethical. When I pressed the Minister on this point, he said that he would be going on to deal with the point I raised—but he did not. Nowhere in his response did he address the fundamental question of the unethical nature of such methods in this context. I know it was nearly three in the morning, but nevertheless I would have expected this most important point to have been considered. I am afraid that the subsequent defence of such methods in the factsheet published a couple of weeks ago did not do much to reassure me—nor did its suggestion that
“the UK is one of very few European countries that does not currently employ scientific methods of age assessment—such as X rays”.
A survey by the BDA of European sister organisations found that two-fifths—a significant minority including Germany and the Netherlands—did not use any X-rays for age checks, and my understanding is that some of the others are looking to move away from this method.
Given this, and given the arguments from the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, about consent, can the Minister give us an assurance that refusal to undergo such scientific methods should not affect the credibility of a child seeking asylum? If not, according to the British Association of Social Workers, it will amount to what they describe as “grotesque coercion”. Can he assure us that only methods specified in regulations should be used in age assessments? I urge him once again to close the loophole offered by Clause 51(9), which allows methods deemed either unethical or inaccurate by scientific advice nevertheless to be used for age-assessment practices.
I was also disappointed by the Minister’s response to my request that the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee should include all the relevant dental, medical and scientific national bodies. He simply said that the committee would include a broad range of experts, but he did not include in his list the bodies that oversee the ethical use of the kind of scientific methods that the Government say that they want to use.
One of the arguments used to justify this part of the Bill is the harm that will be done if adults are able to pass themselves off as children. However, according to the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, in light of the supervision provided in children’s placements, this creates a much lower risk than when children are incorrectly treated as adults. The latter might be placed in detention or alone in accommodation with adults, with no safeguarding measures and the risk of abuse. Indeed, BASW warns in opposition to Amendment 64 that by treating age-disputed persons as adults there is a large risk that we have endangered children.
I read a heart-breaking example of what can happen in such circumstances just recently in the Guardian. It was a piece about four young asylum seekers from Eritrea who killed themselves after fleeing to the UK. The inquest of one of them, Alex, concluded that he had been wrongly assessed as an adult and that, consequently, instead of being sent to live with a foster family, he was moved to accommodation for adults, where he was violently assaulted and began drinking heavily. Although the mistake was rectified, the inquest noted that it contributed to the “destructive spiral” that lead to his death.
Any reform of age assessment must make such a tragedy less, rather than more, likely. Ideally, I would like to delete this whole part of the Bill but that is not possible. Therefore, this amendment represents a crucial piece of damage limitation. I hope that the Minister will accept it or, failing that, it will receive the support of the House.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, as the mover of the lead amendment in the middle of the night on 9 February, I will speak only briefly to support Amendment 64 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Green. I do not support Amendment 64A, however well intentioned, because I worry about its perverse effects and the huge costs involved.
The background to my concern is that I have been utterly appalled by the number of asylum seekers pretending to be children—1,100 migrants in the 12 months to September 2021, as reported in the Daily Mail. I do not apologise for the fact that it first drew my attention to this dreadful situation. The numbers are growing as the numbers crossing the channel in boats grow, allowing for seasonal variations, although the Home Office is trying to reduce the focus on this by scrapping regular figures. This is the subject of my later amendment.
The incentives to cheating on age are substantial in terms of treatment, housing and support. I am worried about the wider implications: mature boys put alongside vulnerable girls in school can wreck their progress and even lead to abuse. Mixed ages in social care are a recipe for disaster and it can be worse than that: remember the Parsons Green bomber pretending to be 16 when he was much older?
The Government are right, therefore, to introduce new processes for conducting age assessments and to set up a system in support in the Bill. There seems to be agreement on this but, as has been said, much is left for regulation.
I was very glad that my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton acknowledged on 9 February —in the middle of the night—that we had raised a valid safeguarding issue. I thank him for that. I was pleased to hear that the Government are planning to monitor and evaluate the impacts of the policy and to develop the evidence base further. Unfortunately, that does not solve the problem the House of Commons amendments sought to address. We will have missed the boat for clarifying the law and introducing the certainty that authorities need to run a fair and safe system.
I am clear that we must have an effective and rigorous system of age assessment, not one that gives the benefit of the doubt to those saying, without documentation, that they are minors and encouraging the traffickers. The noble Lord, Lord Green, has exposed the problems with the system proposed and I feel that we need a better response.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I recognise the concerns that adults should not be able to be treated as children—that is a serious matter. None the less, I support not Amendment 64 but Amendment 64A for the following reason, in addition to what the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Lister, said.
Thanks to Safe Passage I had the opportunity to visit one of its children’s homes, where there were a number of young asylum seekers from Afghanistan. I talked to a group of half a dozen of them. All of them, aged 16, had moustaches, and several had incipient beards. To anyone who did not know that those from other countries are more advanced physically than those from this country, who are much less likely to have moustaches or beards at 16, they would automatically look like adults and would be treated as such. Safe Passage was absolutely certain that they were only 16 and it had a lot of evidence to support that. I am extremely concerned that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Green, together with the existing clause in the Bill, will in fact treat young people like those Afghan 16 year-olds as though they are adults.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I support Amendment 64A, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, to which I have added my name. I declare my interests in relation to both RAMP and Reset as set out in the register. I am very grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Lister, and the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for outlining all the arguments for why this amendment is the right route to take. On Amendment 64, I hear the words about safeguarding but it is a dangerous route to take.
The needs of children have been starkly left unaddressed in so many areas of the Bill. The policies proposed to determine the age of the child are particularly concerning. The child and their best interests, rather than deterrence, must be the starting point in designing these policies. I support the amendment because it is imperative that such assessments are up to standard and based on scientific evidence. We should be seeing help for local authorities to improve their practice through multiagency working so that social workers conduct these assessments and that they are better supported with appropriate funding and training. Making the process stricter will lead to more children being treated as adults. This is extremely concerning given that they will then be placed alone in adult accommodation, with no support or safeguarding.
We have been assured that they will have the recourse of appeal at the tribunal. However, as we are hearing in other debates, the focus of the Home Office must be to get decisions right correctly at the first instance in a timely manner. We should not be introducing policies which will add to backlogs and lead to lengthy appeals. Our tribunal system does not need this, and neither do the children. I simply support this amendment, which sets out what an expert and fair age assessment should look like from the expertise of a coalition of more than 60 organisations, all of them professional, in this field.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I veer between Amendments 64 and—unhelpfully—64A on age verification but what is important is that we have a trustworthy system. That is crucial; otherwise, we are in danger of fuelling cynicism and doubt about the whole system of refugee status.
We heard during Questions about the overwhelming generosity of UK citizens welcoming people from Ukraine. The broad public enthusiasm has been well noted, but I am afraid that the Home Office’s seeming ability to act speedily and with urgency is rather doubted. People are frustrated when they hear about things such as visa offices in Warsaw shutting up shop at 5 pm and closing over the weekend as though this is a kind of normal situation. There is a broad concern that, potentially, behind the scenes we do not trust the processes or the bureaucracy, and I think that includes age checks just as much as it includes allowing people to come to the UK, such as in the Ukraine situation.
One of the things that worries me is the sources of cynicism about the whole refugee process. The public feel that there is no control, and that if people declare themselves to be refugees when they arrive by boat, or declare that they are children, this will be accepted at face value and in good faith. The public do not want to feel that they are being taken for a mug. Age assessment is valid. Of course, doing so cruelly or insensitively is not welcome and would be terrible. If it is not the case that dentistry is the right scientific method, fine, but the principle surely is that we check the age of those who say that they are children. That is an important principle. Use whatever scientific method you want and be as kind as you want, but do not just say to the British public that anybody who challenges this is being cruel to children, because that is unfair. The unintended consequence of creating an impression that the process is not fair is a backlash whereby people start saying that they do not trust any of it. We know that the age issue is of some concern.
This is not a blame game, by the way. I realise that if I was a 21-year-old Syrian lad trying to get into the UK, I would say that I was 16. I do not blame anyone for that, and I understand it. Why wouldn’t you? I say good luck to them, in some ways, for trying. It is just that we as legislators are meant to be coming up with a system that the British public feel they can trust and that controls the borders. The inference that anyone who wants to tighten up the system does not care about children or does not care about people suffering in war zones is unfair and a misrepresentation.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, I rise to speak in favour of Amendment 64A, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, in relation to the testing of children who may or may not be of the correct age. I think that everybody is united in believing that illegitimate people holding themselves up as children is wrong. However, how that gets assessed needs careful consideration. Can the Government think again as to whether the correct people for doing this investigation and the methods that they use, so movingly put, should be deployed by the Home Office, when local authorities have the equipment and the expertise to do this in a sensitive way which protects both parties? It is not okay for a minor to undergo treatment that adds to trauma, any more than it is right for an adult child to abuse a minor.
We ought to find a system that is fair and age-appropriate, and which gives people the benefit of the doubt until it is proved. Without the proper expertise, more harm can be done than problems solved.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I rise to support Amendment 64A. Any way that we can make our systems fairer is something we must aim for. The Home Secretary said yesterday in the other place that we have a “unique scheme” for accepting refugees. Yes, it is a unique scheme. It is uniquely complicated. It is mean spirited. It is slow compared with those of every other country in Europe. It is not something to brag about. Quite honestly, sometimes I hear things said in the other place and in this Chamber, and I am ashamed to be British.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, my name, on behalf on these Benches, has been added to Amendment 64A. The House will be glad to have heard some very compassionate and rigorous speeches.
The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, talked about trust. Of course, that is hugely important. It may be the circles that I move in, but what young asylum seekers say—what many asylum seekers say—is not taken at face value; quite the contrary.
The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, talked of the young Afghanis whom she met. Amendment 64 refers to “demeanour”—I know that is not the term of the noble Lord, Lord Green, but it made me reflect on the fact that, as regards demeanour and appearance, we must be very careful how we regard people of a different culture from our own.
On Amendment 64A, so much of age assessment, as the Government present it, is about science. In Committee, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, acknowledged that there is no silver bullet, but the Bill itself and the Government’s argument rely very heavily on scientific assessment, although the scientific methods specified in the Bill are only physical examination and measurement and analysis of saliva, cell, DNA and other samples. So, it is particularly worrying that the relevant professional bodies are so loudly and clearly opposed to these provisions on the basis of ethics and because of concerns about the accuracy of tests and measurements.
A lot of factors are—or should be—in play in assessing age, using a range of professional skills. The Home Office fact sheet also acknowledges that there is no single method, scientific or not, that can determine age with precision, but then makes a particular point of referring to the Home Office chief scientific adviser. I ask the Minister: what disciplines will be covered, and will it involve professionals in the psychiatry and psychology parts of the scientific/medical world with qualifications, expertise and experience in assessing and treating young people who have gone through the experiences that young asylum seekers have frequently gone through? They must also have experience in dealing with asylum seekers and others who have undergone traumatic experience, dealing with them in a trauma-informed way and avoiding retraumatising them. I refer noble Lords to my Amendment 84C, which will be the very last to be discussed in this debate, probably some time tomorrow morning.
Clause 51(7) provides that the decision-maker must
“take into account, as damaging the age-disputed person’s credibility … the decision not to consent to the use of the specified scientific method.”
Clause 52(1)(f) provides for regulations about
“the consequences of a lack of co-operation with the assessment by the age-disputed person, which may include damage to the person’s credibility.”
I leave it to noble Lords to assess for themselves where that is leading or where the Government would direct us. How all that works, with the standard proof being the balance of probabilities, I am really not expert enough to be sure, but, taken together, it all worries me. I commend the rounded approach of Amendment 64A.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, given that misrepresentation of age is a matter of concern, it is very important that the determination of age should be conducted in a way that is robust, certain in application, equitable and reliable. In my view, Amendment 64A, in the name of my noble friend Lady Neuberger, absolutely fulfils those criteria; indeed, it is a template for such criteria. I strongly support the amendment and adopt everything she said.
Age assessment techniques must be proportionate and fair. If any intrusive measures are to be taken—including dental X-rays, for example—that must be based on proven evidence of scientific reliability, not vague opinions that it might add something. It must be done in a service setting that is suitable for dealing with children, who are the vast majority of the customers under consideration in the cohort we are discussing. I commend proposed new subsection (5) to your Lordships, because it sets out the principles behind my noble friend’s amendment concisely and correctly, in a way that I am sure is the envy of some parliamentary draftsmen who have tried to draft something along similar lines before.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I will add 60 seconds’ worth on Amendment 64. I am a trustee of the Refugee Council, which provides legal advice in a number of age assessment cases. The overwhelming majority of the cases we take on are won: the initial assessment has been wrong and the child is a child. The effect of this amendment, if carried, would be to put these children in harm’s way.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased to support Amendment 64A in the names of the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger and Lady Hamwee, my noble friend Lady Lister and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I will not repeat all the concerns, but clearly there are safeguarding issues that a number of noble Lords have raised. I give one quote from the British Association of Social Workers, which warns that
“any age assessment proposals must recognise that although there is a risk when adults are wrongly assessed and treated as a child, there is a much greater risk when a child has been wrongly assessed and treated as an adult. It is predominately children who are wrongly sent and dispersed as adults, sometimes to unsafe accommodation and detention”.
As a last comment on Amendment 64A, it does not seem to me that there is any dispute about the need for age assessment, but the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, has set out that, if we are to have age assessment, which is clearly needed at times, let us do it on the basis of science and not of subjective judgments, whoever is making them.
I quickly mention the amendment I put down, Amendment 84D, which has not been mentioned yet. It would provide that the age assessment provisions apply to England only, and is clearly a probing amendment. The Minister will know that, while we would rather these provisions did not apply anywhere, this amendment is to reflect the concerns raised by the Welsh and Scottish Governments that clauses in Part 4 require legislative consent.
Welsh Ministers and three separate cross-party Senedd committees have advised that the age assessment provisions are within the legislative competence of the Senedd. When put to a vote, the Senedd voted to withhold consent from the UK Government’s intention to legislate on these matters. Its concerns were that the Bill creates a method of assessing age that is in “direct opposition” to existing practice in Wales; that the Bill
“does not recognise the devolved context of Wales”
and provides the Secretary of State with powers to impose conditions on Welsh local authorities; and, finally, that all unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are recognised as looked-after children in Wales. This will leave local authorities trying to navigate two “statutory but conflicting” approaches.
This is an important probing amendment about what engagement the Government have had with the devolved Administrations and the grounds on which they are disputing that legislative consent is necessary. What are the Government saying to the Welsh and Scottish Governments about this?
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, I thank all contributors to this important debate. I acknowledge at the outset the feeling around the House as to the importance of these matters, so powerfully put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, just a moment ago.
The first amendment that your Lordships have had to consider is Amendment 64, so I will start with that. It is important to note that immigration officials already conduct initial age assessment on individuals whose age is doubted. This amendment seeks to lower the current threshold so that a more straightforward assessment of whether someone is under or over 18 is made, based on appearance. I will return to the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, as to the different rates at which people age, depending on their ethnicity and the social factors to which they have been exposed. We must acknowledge the difficulty in assessing age through a visual assessment of physical appearance and demeanour. Clear safeguarding issues arise if a child is treated inadvertently as an adult, but equally if an adult is wrongly accepted as a child.
Our current threshold, specifically deeming an individual to be adult where their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that they are significantly over 18, strikes the right balance. It has been tested in the Supreme Court in the case of BF (Eritrea), to which the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, made reference, and has been found comprehensively to be lawful. Given that judgment, and the fact that immigration officials already execute this function under guidance, the value of legislating to bring this into primary legislation is unclear. That said, I acknowledge the value of the work that the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, has carried out, to which my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe referred, into the ingathering of data in such a way as to provide a basis on which our deliberations can proceed. However, in the light of what I said, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
I turn now to Amendment 64A. Again, I thank the noble Baronesses, Lady Neuberger, Lady Lister of Burtersett and Lady Hamwee, for their amendment. I make it clear to the House that there is no appetite to start conducting comprehensive age assessments of all, most or even many people who come before the system, because in most cases it will be possible to resolve doubts as to someone’s claimed age without any such investigation. Indeed, the courts have made it clear that they are against any judicialisation of the procedure, and have overturned judicial reviews based on the idea that age assessments were carried out wrongly in circumstances where two social workers conducting the Merton assessment—which these measures seek only to augment, not replace—considered persons patently above the age of 18 who claimed to have been younger. The courts have supported the social workers in those assessments. To provide that there should be wider use of scientific age assessments would serve no purpose and take away significant resource from the main task of seeking to establish the age of those individuals whose age is in doubt.
Subsections (2), (3) and (4) of Amendment 64A are unnecessary additions. Our intention is that the statutory national age assessment board will consist predominantly of qualified social workers, who will be expected to follow existing case law in carrying out these holistic age assessments. The matter of scientific age assessment has quite properly concerned your Lordships. Clause 51 already contains safeguards for those who are asked to undergo a scientific method of age assessment, and in answer to the specific point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, I say that where a good reason emerges for declining to participate in age assessment there will be no adverse impact on credibility.
I reiterate the point made at the earlier stage. It is not considered that any of these scientific methods should replace the tried and tested method of assessment by social workers, known as the Merton assessment. The intention is merely to broaden the availability of evidence that might assist to provide more data, on which these professionals can carry out these exceptionally important tasks.
Decisions on this issue also have broad implications for the exercise of immigration functions and the provision of children’s services to unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. Decision-making as to where and how such scientific methods should be used must, we say, remain within government, taking into account independent scientific advice. I reiterate that this measure does not provide that these scientific methods of age assessment will take place. It provides that the Government will be able to consult an expert board on what is suitable. The intention is not to undermine the role of social workers in carrying out these assessments, merely to provide additional data with which they might work.
We agree that the independent professionalism that such persons bring to bear is of the utmost importance. However, we question whether the amendment has value when it provides that scientific age assessments may take place only where their ethical approach and accuracy has been established beyond reasonable doubt: first, because that is to import the highest test of assessment of evidence from the criminal courts into an inappropriate category; and secondly, because we fully appreciate that these assessments are not of themselves accurate, as I sought to make clear at the earlier stage. They are intended not to replace but merely to augment, where thought desirable, the data available to social workers carrying out these assessments.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in this matter in the register. In the event of the Government’s having advice that they proceed with this, whom do they envisage will carry out these dental X-rays? If they are doing so without the consent of the person concerned, will that be a breach of the ethical guidelines? If they are being carried out by non-qualified people, is that not also an offence for those carrying out those X-rays?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
If I may, I will revert to the noble Lord’s point in the course of my submission; the specific questions that he raised will need some detail, which I do not have to hand but hope to be supplied with before I sit down.
I was talking about the use of ionising radiation in these matters. As I have said previously, the use of ionising radiation in the United Kingdom is highly regulated, and we will ensure that methods used comply with all regulatory requirements and standards. The Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee will have been asked to advise on the ethical considerations for the use of medical imaging techniques. As I have said, the Home Office is exploring a number of potential methods that do not involve ionising radiation, but these may require further research and development to support their technical and commercial viability in assessing the ages of age-disputed persons.
It is important to recognise that techniques develop. In the forensic context, for example, it has been the practice when considering child pornography to employ professional persons—paediatricians and others—to make an assessment of the appearance of the unfortunate people recorded in these images, and to assess from appearance alone what age they were, for forensic purposes, in order that the appropriate criminal charges might be brought.
Also in the forensic context, we recognise that scientific techniques move on. When I was called to the Bar and started to look at criminal work, there was no DNA analysis. Blood testing was available, as was blood group analysis, to assist in drawing certain conclusions. It was not nearly as accurate as DNA testing, but it was available and could in some circumstances exclude a person from suspicion or bring a person into suspicion. Thus, although it did not purport to be able to answer questions with the degree of precision and accuracy that DNA analysis has, it was none the less a valuable technique. It may perhaps be useful for your Lordships to look at what the Government propose ultimately in that context, not as something that will provide a comprehensive answer to exclude all others but, rather, as an additional source of information, which might—I repeat, might—assist, or might be considered to have no value.
Amendment 64A calls for the establishment of a committee independent of the Home Office to consider these matters. It is, however, standard practice for the Home Office to convene its own scientific advisory committees as a forum for policy-making. The Home Office has announced the direct appointment of an interim committee of nine independent members, including the chair, to review the scientific methods of age assessment. The interim chair and committee members were appointed by the Home Office’s chief scientific adviser for a period of not more than 12 months. I return to this point—it may be that I will not need to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, but the current interim committee includes experts involved in medical statistics, children’s social work, anthropology, psychiatry, paediatrics and radiology. The intention is that, from this broad range of disciplines, a holistic view of the issues involved in age assessment can be arrived at.
A submission was made, I think by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, about the different appearances of persons coming for assessment. We acknowledge the contributing factors of ethnicity, diet and life experience that may have an effect on things like bone development, and therefore on the results of a scientific age assessment. We will be in a position to take into account all these factors, and I stress once again that the intention is not to present these scientific age assessments as a means of determining the question once and for all but rather, potentially, as available evidence, depending on the views of a committee.
It was my noble friend Lady Shackleton, I think, who questioned the fitness of the Home Office to assess such claims. The figures that I have been given are that the Home Office grants refugee status on humanitarian or humanitarian protection grounds in 90% of cases of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
The Government are embarking on this process so that more data is available to assist in what is, necessarily, a difficult area, and one where—as I pointed out to the House on a previous occasion—the Merton assessments undertaken by skilled and experienced social workers may throw up radically different conclusions from examinations of the very same persons. Anything that can be done to assist in that process, by providing additional data, ought to be welcome.
I turn briefly but gratefully to—
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I am sorry: by “briefly” I did not intend to suggest that I was about to sit down, however welcome that may be to the House. I am, however, grateful to noble Lords for assisting me on the matter of the time allowed.
I am reminded that the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Durham, raised points about the manner in which assessments are carried out, and I again emphasise that the persons carrying them out are trained social workers, and it is not anticipated that that will change.
Amendment 84D, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, deals with the manner in which these matters will be considered across the United Kingdom. The noble Lord wanted to know why it was being done on a national basis as opposed to within the devolved Administrations. We cannot do that, because these matters are reserved to the United Kingdom Government and apply across the UK. These age assessment measures will apply exclusively to those subject to immigration control, and immigration is a reserved matter. The overriding objective of the age assessment measures in the Bill is to ensure that there are appropriate arrangements in place to determine the ages of people coming to this country without evidence—usually in documentary form—of their claimed age. That is why it is the Government’s view that these measures relate entirely to immigration and are therefore reserved to the UK Parliament.
The comprehensive reforms we are making to the age assessment system are designed to help and support the local authorities that will carry out these tasks. For example, the new age assessment board will carry out an age assessment where a local authority makes a referral. It is not quite all-imposing upon the local authorities, but rather, makes available something to assist should they consider it desirable.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I propose to conclude by merely echoing the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, opposite. She says that it is above all important that there should be confidence in the means by which these decisions are taken, and it is to augment that confidence that we propose these measures. On that basis, I respectfully invite the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, given the hour and the address by the President of Ukraine, I beg to move that the debate on Amendment 65 be now adjourned, and that further consideration on Report be adjourned until 5.15 pm.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, there may well be a Division on the second of the amendments in the group. In which case, can we take it that the House will not resume until we have had the opportunity to come back to your Lordships’ House, even if it is a bit after 5.15 pm?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, there was no attempt on my part to forestall any Division, and I apologise if ignorance of procedure perhaps led to the suggestion otherwise. [Interruption.] I am grateful to my noble friend for indicating that that was not his position.
The Lord Speaker (Lord McFall of Alcluith)
I can assure noble Lords that it is about the timing of the address by President Zelensky, rather than anything else. All business continues.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, we had a long debate and the House will be glad to know that I shall be extremely brief. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, for her very powerful contribution to my case. To sum up: we need the support of professionals in this matter, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, said, but also the support of the public, a point raised rightly by the noble Baroness, Lady Fox. Very briefly, we face having asylum seekers arriving by the tens of thousands, as I mentioned. They are clearly briefed to destroy their documents—only 2% of them have them—and the number of those who claimed to be children but were found to be adults was 1,500 last year. That was five times any previous year, so there is a case there.
The Government are right to get on the case and I hope they will have a useful negotiation with those who think otherwise. This is clearly a difficult policy area, but I leave it to the Government to take matters further. Meanwhile, I beg to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Neuberger
“Age assessments: restrictions
(1) Age assessments under section 49 or 50 must only be undertaken if there is significant reason to doubt the age of the age-disputed person.(2) A person conducting age assessments under section 49 or 50 must be a local authority social worker.(3) Age assessments must be undertaken in accordance with the Association of Directors of Children’s Services Age Assessment Guidance or equivalent guidance in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.(4) When an age assessment is conducted, a process must be used that allows for an impartial multi-agency approach, drawing on a range of expertise, including from—(a) health professionals,(b) psychologists,(c) teachers,(d) foster parents,(e) youth workers,(f) advocates,(g) guardians, and(h) social workers.(5) When making regulations under section 51, the Secretary of State must not specify scientific methods unless the Secretary of State receives written approval from the relevant medical, dental and scientific professional bodies that the method is both ethical and accurate beyond reasonable doubt for assessing a person’s age.(6) Any organisation developed to oversee age assessments must be independent of the Home Office.(7) The standard of proof for an age assessment is reasonable degree of likelihood.”
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, we did not get reassurance on several issues. I wish to test the opinion of the House because we need to know more about the ethical response, which we did not get from the Minister.
Lord Coaker
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I start by declaring my interests in the register and my work in the Rights Lab at the University of Nottingham and as an unpaid trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation. It is a privilege to follow what was a historic event. I think we all watched President Zelensky in one place or another and will wish him well in combating the illegal invasion of Ukraine.
If noble Lords will allow me, I will also take one minute to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on her elevation to the Privy Council. This is the first chance I have had to do so with the noble Baroness present. I think there is universal acclaim for that. Everybody across the House is pleased to see somebody who is decent and honest and has integrity—even if we sometimes clash on views and opinions—receive that honour.
Now back to normal. In speaking to Amendments 65 and 66 and agreeing with all the various amendments in this really important group on modern slavery, I will repeat a couple of general points and then move to something that has come to light since the debate in Committee. I know it is a great disappointment to everyone that this modern slavery part of the Bill is in an immigration Bill. That sets a really unhelpful context and inevitably conflates immigration and slavery in a way that even probably the Government, and certainly the Front Bench here, would not want to. That is to be regretted.
It is very helpful that the Government have produced a set of statistics that are relevant to the whole debate on this group. Sometimes the Government say they do not agree with figures that are used, but these are the Government’s own figures, produced by the Home Office on 3 March—a few days ago. The document is titled Modern Slavery: National Referral Mechanism and Duty to Notify Statistics UK, End of Year Summary, 2021 and is really helpful to our debate.
I do not want to make a Second Reading or Committee speech, but these statistics have been introduced between our last debate and this Report stage, and they are of particular relevance. I do not understand one of the things the Government have done when there is a flagship Conservative government achievement—something of which we are all proud. I am a Labour politician, and I think the Modern Slavery Act that the Government passed was marvellous, so I do not understand why they are proceeding with Part 5, which undermines many of the principles on which the Act was established.
These statistics are so relevant to my Amendments 65 and 66, and indeed Amendment 69, which would leave out Clause 62, which other noble Lords have signed. They drive a coach and horses through the Government’s reason for doing this. The Government are persuaded to pursue the measures in these clauses because they say that people being referred to the national referral mechanism are using it as a way of circumventing immigration law and as a backdoor way of getting into the UK and overcoming different regulations.
I point out for the Government—the Minister will no doubt want to point this out—that referrals to the national referral mechanism have increased by 20% in the last year. There has been a 20% rise in referrals—let us get that out there. If I were the Government—and you never know—I would, instead of saying that it is a problem, say that it is a sign of the Government’s success in identifying more victims of modern slavery, bringing them forward to the system and offering them support. I would defend it and say, “Isn’t it great that we are uncovering more examples of this?” Of course, if people are circumventing the system, you would expect the system to pick it up and deal with them in the appropriate way. But the Government have chosen, through Clauses 57, 58, 62 and other clauses that other noble Lords will speak to, to drive a coach and horses through that. Anyway, let us bear in mind that that is one of the statistics.
One of the big arguments against Clauses 57, 58 and 62 is that they fail to recognise the fear and intimidation that victims of modern slavery—even the ones that the state finds—feel. How do I know that? I will use the Government’s own figures to prove the point. In the same figures from which I quoted what the Government will quote about the increase in referrals, let us also look at the fact that duty to notify—that is, the process by which adults do not consent to be referred to the mechanism but the first responders have a duty to tell the national referral mechanism that they have people and suspect slavery—has gone up by 47%. In other words, there is already a huge increase in the numbers before the implementation of Part 5 of the Bill. Before the implementation of Clauses 57, 58 and 62, we are already seeing a huge rise in the number of people who are too frightened and will not consent to being referred to the national referral mechanism.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register as a trustee of the Arise Foundation, a charity that works for victims of modern slavery and against human trafficking. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and to endorse everything he said about this group of amendments. As he said, in my name are Amendments 67 and 68, and I have signed Amendment 70, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I should say at the outset that my noble friend Lady Prashar is unwell, and we all wish her a speedy recovery to her usual place. I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans for also being a signatory to these amendments.
Before I turn specifically to the amendments, I endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on her elevation to the Privy Council; the whole House would agree with him. Also, what an extraordinary backdrop to today’s debate and to this Bill it was for us all to have been privileged to sit in the Gallery and listen to President Zelensky. The UNHCR suggests that as many as 3 million people will be displaced and become refugees, joining the 82 million people who are displaced or are refugees worldwide at this time. What a backdrop to our consideration of how we can deal with people in a civilised and humane way, but also our consideration of the fundamental and root causes of this massive displacement of people, which we so regularly fail to address.
The points made so well by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about the national referral mechanism and the way we treat children are especially close to my heart. Without wishing to repeat either the points I made in Committee or anything said by the noble Lord, I will try to summarise the arguments relatively briefly.
The NRM is a vital mechanism for the recovery and safety of survivors of modern slavery. Since its introduction, with the work of successive Governments, including the introduction of the vitally important Modern Slavery Act by a past Conservative Government, as we have heard—described by the noble Lord as “flagship” policy—the UK has become a global leader in countering the evils of trafficking and modern slavery. It will be a lasting legacy to the right honourable Theresa May, who pioneered this when she was Home Secretary, with support from all quarters: it was bipartisan and bicameral legislation.
Many of us sitting on these Benches participated in those proceedings and helped to improve that legislation, which was not driven through in a pell-mell rush but given proper consideration with pre-legislative scrutiny at every stage. People were engaged and involved in these sensitive and complex issues. That contrasts somewhat with the speed with which we are driving forward quite a lot of legislation at the moment. It reminds me of the old saying: legislate at speed and repent at leisure. I feel that we may well end up doing that.
The NRM, like so many things, is not perfect, but I, along with many across the House, I am sure, would draw parallels between the NRM and the succour it offers to vulnerable people and the campaigns in another age, of people such as William Wilberforce. Both are drawn from a strength of will and compassion that makes our country unique, and we should not squander that. Although I do not believe that any of us here today would wish to diminish the achievements of all those who sat here in both Houses and strived to support some of the most vulnerable, we have to look at the practical application of what it is that we are being invited to do. Clause 59 will do that—it will diminish what we have set our hands to. With this clause, we would close the door for many to the safety of the NRM. The clause will, in effect, raise the bar that these people must meet to obtain a positive reasonable grounds decision and the safety and support of the national referral mechanism, leaving them with a stark choice between returning to their chains or etching out some half-existence.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interests, which include being a vice-chairman of the Human Trafficking Foundation.
I would like first to thank the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, for including me in the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Randall. Very unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Randall, has just tested positive for Covid, as a result of which I shall move Amendment 68A at the appropriate point on his behalf, as my name is down.
I would like to start by asking two questions of the Government. First, why do the Government, as they have for years and years, always see victims of modern slavery through the lens of immigration? It is extremely sad. In the years I have been in this House, I have fought against this, as many other noble Lords have, with absolutely no success. It remains not only in the Home Office but absolutely wedded to issues of immigration. No more stark an example of that could be seen than Part 5 of this Bill.
Secondly, why not listen to the whole modern slavery sector, opposed to the whole of Part 5, including, as we have already heard, the Salvation Army, the anti-slavery commissioner, the United Nations rapporteur and, perhaps most interestingly, Caroline Haughey QC, who has been advising the Government for many years on issues of modern slavery? The Government seem unable or unwilling to listen to a sector that knows what it is talking about. It really is extremely sad. The sector has been telling the Government this from the moment that the Bill came on the stocks.
I am also very concerned about the impact of Clauses 58 and 62, particularly in relation to the statutory guidance issued on modern slavery last month—in Committee, I read passages, which of course I will not do on Report. Throughout that statutory guidance, it is clear that those who will be dealing with potential victims of modern slavery will have to bear in mind the trauma of what they have gone through. Very careful advice is given, and particularly helpful parts are at pages 102 and 106, under Annex D, that set out the difficulties that victims of trauma have in giving appropriate and truthful answers at the very beginning. Then, for goodness’ sake, one looks at Clauses 58 and 62 and sees that, if information is not given quickly, you are seen as someone who is not reliable and likely not to be a genuine victim. It is utterly contrary to the Home Office’s own statutory guidance.
I find this absolutely astonishing, because, as all of us who have any interest in or knowledge of this area will know, it is very difficult for victims of trauma, in whatever situation, including modern slavery and human trafficking, to come clean about what really happened to them at an early stage. My goodness, Members of your Lordships’ House have now heard about this over a number of years on various Acts of Parliament. This part of Part 5 will do irreparable damage to those sort of people, who are the majority.
I turn now to children. I vividly remember talking to a Minister in this Chamber—it was probably the noble Baroness, Lady Williams—when I suggested that it was wrong for children to go through the NRM. The Minister agreed that children should not go through the NRM. Part III of the Children Act 1989 places an obligation on local authorities to take children into voluntary care when they come to their area and need help. Most children generally go through this process. The local authorities look after these children and the Modern Slavery Act has provided what we now informally call “guardians”. That is the right process.
Amendment 70ZA should not be necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, quite rightly tabled it because the Government refuse to exclude children from Clauses 58 and 62, but they should not be in Part 5 at all because children, from whichever country, should be dealt with through the care service. I find it very sad that the Minister did not say in Committee, or indeed in the letter to the noble Lord, Lord Randall, which I have been able to read, that these children will not go through the NRM. He assumes that they will and they will have to be dealt with like adults. Other noble Lords have spoken about that, so I will not repeat it.
Amendment 68A is intended to do what Clause 62 requires but without being as vicious. It would ameliorate the clause and it certainly deserves to be supported, but I also support the other amendments in the group.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I have written a short speech but I will not deliver it in view of the time pressure. I have put my name to Amendments 65 and 66. I feel very strongly that Clauses 57 and 58 show a complete lack of any understanding about the impact of trauma. Three members of my family went through a terrible trauma 10 years ago. It is only now, 10 years later, in the safe context of trauma therapy, that each of them has been able to talk at length about what they went through. The idea that traumatised people—children or adults—are expected to talk to a complete stranger early on in the process about what they have been through is terrifying. They will not be able to do it. I ask the Minister to please listen in particular to the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who really understands these things—I understand it on a personal level—the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and others, and remove the whole of Part 5. I support all the amendments in the group. Noble Lords will be glad to know that I will certainly not talk to them, but I leave that request pleading, if you like, with the Minister.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, I support the amendments in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to remove Clauses 57, 58 and 62 from the Bill, to which I have added my name. I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, on her appointment and give thanks for all the work she does, even when we do not always entirely agree across these Benches.
As we have heard, Clauses 57 and 58 would make it appreciably more difficult for people to be recognised as victims of modern slavery and receive support. In Committee, the Minister responded to my concerns about these clauses by saying that, far from deterring victims, this will
“encourage genuine victims to come forward”.—[Official Report, 10/2/22; col. 1843.]
I query how that can be the case. More referrals are being made—I am grateful for the statistics from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker—but we know that is only a very small fraction of the likely number of victims to come forward and be identified. The Global Slavery Index 2018 estimated that there could be as many as 136,000 victims in the UK at the moment.
I therefore cannot fathom how raising the burden of evidence, making it harder to get a reasonable grounds decision, can possibly do anything other than further put people off, further delay the already lengthy backlog in making conclusive grounds decisions and end up excluding some genuine victims from support. Could the Minister say, after hearing some evidence earlier on, what evidence and planning suggest that these measures will make genuine victims more likely to come forward? Could he share that evidence with us? It seems markedly at odds with the evidence presented by the front-line agencies.
In his response in Committee, the Minister argued that these clauses were necessary to prevent misuse of the migration system. We have heard some suggestions of that already. Could Ministers share that evidence, as it again seems markedly at odds with the evidence presented to us by agencies? I find it a troubling approach, cutting across support for genuine victims. We already have a system that requires an assessment of potential victims. It is capable of identifying fraudulent or inappropriate claims, and I believe that it does so. Given this, it is not clear to me that the Government have produced an adequate rationale for this reform.
Finally and briefly on Clause 62, I have heard the Minister’s reassurances, but I remain unclear about and uncomfortable with what could or would be classified as acting in “bad faith”, and where the line is to be drawn on serious or minor criminality. I remain concerned that Clause 62 is a gift to those who force victims into illegal activity to entrap them. I have heard the Minister promise that future modern slavery legislation is a priority. As the Bishop with lead responsibility for combating modern slavery, I truly welcome this and look forward to engaging on that legislation when it arrives.
I am not entirely clear what this legislation will address. I echo a question from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in Committee: if future positive legislation is in the pipeline, why are we being asked to push through Part 5, as others are saying, as an add-on to the Bill, which otherwise focuses overwhelmingly on the asylum system? For all those reasons, I remain of the view that these clauses would best be removed from the Bill and that the Government would do better to return with a new Bill that focuses squarely on modern slavery.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, the Ukraine crisis adds urgency to improve this legislation. Refugees fleeing Ukraine will create conditions ripe for exploitation by traffickers. In the coming months we should expect an increase in the number of victims of modern slavery in the United Kingdom. I will speak to Amendment 70, but I note the important issues raised by other amendments in the group to ensure that victims are not excluded from the support they need in the first place.
Amendment 70 would provide genuine victims with sufficient certainty to underpin their recovery, prevent their retrafficking and ensure that they have the security from which to engage with the police and prosecutors to bring the perpetrators to justice. These objectives alone would be reason enough to support Amendment 70, which has cross-party support—I thank the noble Lords, Lord Alton, Lord Paddick and Lord Coaker.
I make it clear that Amendment 70 would provide support and leave to remain only to individuals identified as genuine victims by the Government, through their own processes. These are not bad apples seeking to abuse modern slavery protection; they are confirmed victims—I cannot stress that enough. There are victims for whom the Government have recognised the need for ongoing support for at least 12 months. If, as the Minister said, the Government do not intend to wriggle out of this commitment, why have they not tabled their own amendment?
In Committee, the Minister responded with this extraordinary statement:
“We appreciate the push to put this into legislation at the earliest opportunity, but we do not agree that this Bill, with its focus on immigration is the most appropriate place to do so.”—[Official Report, 10/2/22; col. 1890.]
It was the Government who put modern slavery into an immigration Bill in the first place, and it is they who have already proposed adding a new section to the Modern Slavery Act, through Clause 63, providing statutory support during the national referral mechanism. Amendment 70 would complement Clause 63 and enhance the support provided to victims after the NRM by adding a second, new, section to the 2015 Act.
Statutory support for at least 12 months has been consistently recommended by organisations as essential for victims. Of course, support and leave to remain go hand in hand: victims who are not British nationals need leave to access that support. Victims also need leave to give them the security to engage with the police. The prosecution rate is unacceptable: prosecution figures are complicated, I agree, but, since 2015, only 88 offenders have been convicted for modern slavery as the principal offence. That tells enough of the story. Why is the prosecution rate so low? It is not the fault of the prosecutors; it is because the victims do not have the security to come forward. Many victims’ loved ones are threatened with death at the hands of the traffickers. The Government say that they want the Bill to increase prosecutions, and Amendment 70 will help them to do just that. I quote again the Zulu exhortation: “Vukuzenzele”—just get on and do it.
I intend to test the will of the House, and I ask your Lordships to vote for Amendment 70 to get on with it, to provide confirmed victims with the support and leave to remain needed to give both current and future victims hope for the future.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I will make a brief contribution to this debate—when I say “brief”, I mean it. I commend those who have already spoken for their powerful speeches, and I trust that they will be enough to convince the Government that they should in fact adopt these amendments.
I started my speech in Committee by saying:
“For victims of modern slavery, escaping from their exploitation is only the beginning of their journey towards recovery.”—[Official Report, 10/2/22; col. 1885.]
The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has known this for a long time and has consistently brought this message to your Lordships’ House. I of course will support Amendment 70 today, and I trust that it will be pushed to a vote.
The Northern Ireland Assembly has also been debating longer-term support for victims, and, just yesterday, it agreed that it should be available for up to 12 months, or longer, if needed. But that recognition makes the inclusion of leave to remain for victims who get that support acutely relevant to victims in Northern Ireland. If they do not have the ability to remain in the UK, the option of support is just illusionary. We are snatching away hope for recovery and a different type of future, free from exploitation.
We need the Government to be an enabler of recovery for victims across the UK and to provide, through temporary leave to remain, an environment where victims can co-operate with prosecutors. We need to be clear that the UK is a very hostile place for traffickers. Amendment 70 builds on the success of the modern slavery legislation across the United Kingdom jurisdictions and puts the needs of genuine victims on the statute book. The UK has prided itself on being at the forefront of providing for victims of modern slavery; let us continue that tradition by voting in favour of Amendment 70, which I commend to your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this is another occasion when, from and on behalf of these Benches, I can say that we agree and can edit my remarks down—although not completely. Between us, my noble friend Lord Paddick and I have put our names to all of the amendments, save that of the noble Lord, Lord Alton—nothing was meant by that except that it slipped past us—and we support them all.
The noble and learned Baroness referred to the combination of seeing victims of trafficking through the lens of immigration, as if this is all a single issue, ignoring the trauma and exploitation they have suffered as victims. I add that, of course, not all victims are immigrants. In fact, the minority are, so far as we know —there is a lot that we do not know yet. The Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner has commented that the Bill creates
“a distinction between victims who are deserving of support and those who are not”,
like deserving and undeserving refugees.
I will go back to trauma, which was referred to by the noble and learned Baroness. There seems to be an assumption that, if a story varies, even in a small detail, from one day to the next, the whole must be a lie. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, mentioned legislating in haste; I say that it is not us who repent at leisure but the victims who suffer hard at leisure.
I am no great fan of using domestic legislation to construe and apply an international treaty—I support Amendment 68A, but I simply pre-empt the point being made against me, referring back to previous amendments. It is a very neat way of not disqualifying victims from protection, other than in very limited circumstances. It is very difficult to see how the Government could oppose the amendment on the best interests of the child, if we are truly concerned about child victims. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, said in Committee that the Government do not consider that Clause 62 would prevent victims coming forward because of the “discretionary approach”. He said:
“All of us ... want victims of modern slavery to continue to come forward for identification and support, irrespective of their personal circumstances or the circumstances in which they came to be exploited.”—[Official Report, 10/2/22; col. 1877.]
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 67 and 68 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Alton. I spoke to these amendments in Committee because I was concerned that Clause 59 was effectively raising the reasonable grounds threshold for identifying a victim of modern slavery. With respect to the Government, I confess that I remain unconvinced by their desire to alter reasonable grounds thresholds, and was not adequately assuaged in my fears that this could erect an unnecessary barrier to victims accessing the national referral mechanism.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, made the argument in Committee that reasonable grounds decisions on the standard of “suspect but cannot prove” would allow the Modern Slavery Act to be more in line with ECAT. I am not a legal expert so this may well be the case. However, I made the point that since we currently use “maybe” as it exists within the Modern Slavery Act, as opposed to “is” or “are” as proposed by the Government —indeed, rather than “has been” as appears in ECAT—in supposedly bringing ourselves in line with ECAT we would effectively raise the threshold for access to the NRM.
There are then two possibilities here. Either by opting not to have a “suspect but cannot prove” reasonable grounds, we are moving away from ECAT, or we are essentially raising our reasonable grounds threshold away from a standard of “suspect but cannot prove” to be in line with ECAT. If it is the former, the amendments presented by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, would better achieve the Government’s stated aim. If it is the latter, it begs the question as to what the benefits are of aligning ourselves to ECAT if we are in effect raising the threshold and making it more difficult for victims to access the NRM.
I recognise that we have obligations under ECAT but, as the noble Lord, Lord Deben, previously pointed out, we do not break our international obligations by going further than them, and by seeking alignment via Clause 59 we would effectively withdraw to an obligation that is weaker than our existing legislation. It is slightly bizarre that Her Majesty’s Government seem happy to diverge from Europe when it comes to regulation and standards, as was recently announced with regard to the prospective Brexit freedoms Bill, but when it comes to reducing a threshold for the victims of modern slavery it appears that they are rushing for alignment.
As far as I am aware, there is no evidence that the NRM is being abused. In 2020, the single competent authority made 10,608 reasonable grounds referrals, of which 92% were later confirmed as victims, and 81% of reconsidered claims were later positive. There is an obvious fear that, through this higher standard, a number of victims may not even enter the system at all and, furthermore, that exploiters and slavers will be able to lean on this increased threshold to further manipulate and control their victims and deter them from seeking help. Surely this cannot be the Government’s intention.
I will listen with great interest and care to the Minister’s response. I hope that rather than just talk about the need for legal clarity in relation to both the statutory guidance and ECAT, which I recognise is important, he will address the pressing problem about whether this increased reasonable grounds threshold would have a negative effect on people using the NRM or indeed on referrals being made. I believe that this is the central concern that many of us have in this whole group of amendments, which I support.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, forgive us for having two Bishops in a row. We do not normally do this—it is the way the groupings have fallen out. I support Amendment 70ZA tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, to which I have added my name with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and I declare my interests in relation to both RAMP and Reset. My interest comes from my ongoing engagement in the House with issues concerning children and their well-being and safety, and ensuring that their best interests are central to legislation.
I am deeply concerned that the protection of children identified as victims of modern slavery or human trafficking is not of primary concern in the Bill. I note again that not all children who are in modern slavery or human trafficking are brought into this country from outside. Some are born and raised here but find themselves held in slavery. This is a safeguarding matter, not an immigration matter, and the legislation should recognise that children require special protection. They are covered by the Children Act 1989, as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, pointed out earlier. Why on earth is there no specific provision for the greater protection of children despite all our international and domestic obligations? As with many other parts of the Bill, it is simply not satisfactory for a Minister to rely on unscrutinised guidance at a later date, applied on a case-by-case basis. Safeguards must be built into legislation so there is no doubt that children receive the protection they deserve and that this is not left to chance. Can the Minister say when the guidance will be produced so that it can be properly scrutinised, and how can he reassure us that children are properly protected?
Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)
My Lords, I will make a few comments to amplify the remarks of my noble friend Lady Meacher. I have just been reading a most remarkable book by a doctor, who as an eight or nine year-old child escaped from Afghanistan to try to realise his vision of becoming a doctor and thus being able to support his family back in Afghanistan. In trying to secure a voyage here, the bureaucracy of our immigration system, which I am afraid is outrageously being demonstrated in Calais, meant that this child fell into the hands of traffickers. He arrived here with a forged passport, so was sent to Feltham young offender institution. My point is that unless we improve our ability to admit refugees—particularly at a time like this, as we have heard today—we will play into the hands of these people. Like that child, so many of these refugees are just desperate for a better life; he wanted to support his family.
That child had experienced post-traumatic stress disorder of the most awful sort, having seen friends and relatives bombed and shelled and having walked among mutilated bodies. He had nightmares and flashbacks, but he did not know that he had post-traumatic stress disorder and could not understand why he was finding it so difficult to explain to the authorities that he had come from this troubled background. It was only years later, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, mentioned, that he realised that it must be because of post-traumatic stress disorder.
This extraordinary person started the most wonderful foundation, Arian Teleheal, saluted by the Government, which does telemed work with children and victims all over the world. He is a wonderful example of everything which is great in this country and everything that we need to make better. He knew that if he could get here and get training as a doctor, he could change the circumstances of those he had left behind in Afghanistan —and my goodness, he did. However, we must make it easier for people such as him to come here and benefit from our education, and then do wonderful work, such as what he wanted to do, as a doctor.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
My Lords, the debate has shown that the House is unanimous on two points. The first is that my noble friend Lady Williams of Trafford should be congratulated, and the second is that the House did not much like the Government’s Bill. I associate myself wholly with the former, and I will seek to set out the Government’s position on the latter. Let me go through the amendments in turn.
Amendments 65 and 66 seek to remove Clauses 57 and 58 from the Bill entirely. The effect would be to remove modern slavery from the one-stop process and would mean that modern slavery claims would be dealt with separately from the one-stop process that addresses human rights and protection claims. That does not make much sense, for either the victims or the national referral mechanism, for at least two reasons. First, treating the two types of claims as distinct means that a victim might have to describe the same traumatic events repeatedly, which nobody wants to see. Secondly, decisions would be made about their future and their right to protection and support in isolation from, and perhaps in ignorance of, the full facts, which might mean that people who would otherwise get protection are denied it.
Those amendments, and Amendment 70ZA, do not make sense from the point of view of making the NRM an efficient, transparent and fair process. They display a lack of understanding about how the NRM works, where, in line with the low threshold for referral—I will come back to the thresholds later—we simply require relevant information at an early stage, even of a limited nature, to enable key issues to be identified from the outset. That allows early access to support and gives decision-makers a clearer picture of the individual’s experience, which in turn means a more comprehensive decision, to be taken in the round, including, crucially, the victim’s age when the relevant exploitation took place.
Perhaps more than any other group, children will benefit from early identification and protection, and from having decisions made in respect of their status and their support with as full an awareness of relevant facts and context as possible. In response to the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, echoed by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, we see no benefit to child victims in them raising modern slavery issues after any asylum or protection decisions have been made. That would only delay their ability to access the support and protection that they need.
I have read widely the briefings which I and other noble Lords have received, and seen that critics have argued, as has been said, that the clause will stop victims from coming forward. We do not see how a clause that encourages early disclosure of information and early identification, where any negative credibility implications are non-determinative and apply only when there are no good reasons for delay, would discourage victims from coming forward. As to evidence, I say again that the measure will allow for early identification, and we do not want victims to have to describe the same events repeatedly.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
I am sorry to interrupt but will the Minister deal with why children are going through the NRM? The Home Office, through the Minister, told me that the NRM was not suitable for children, who should be dealt with under the Children Act.
Lord Wolfson of Tredegar (Con)
I do not think I am saying anything inconsistent. I am saying that, for the reasons I have set out—I was just starting on the point and hope I will be able to develop it—we do not want to create a two-tier system. Of course, we recognise the vulnerabilities of children. The modern slavery statutory guidance, which I think the noble and learned Baroness referred to, provides for the specific vulnerabilities of children. This clause does not change that. It is also right that our domestic legislation should align with our international obligations, and that includes ECAT. Children get protection from the NRM because they are recognised as victims of modern slavery; that is why they get protection.
On Amendments 67 and 68, I want to reassure noble Lords that we are currently working with stakeholders and operational partners to develop the guidance in a way that is clear for decision-makers and victims. The reasonable grounds threshold is, and will remain, low, as intended by ECAT, to identify potential victims. The House will forgive me, but we need to be clear about this: ECAT sets out that signatories have certain duties when there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person has been a victim or “is a victim” of modern slavery or human trafficking. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans raised concerns that Clause 59 was raising the threshold. Respectfully, it is not. Clause 59 aligns the Modern Slavery Act 2015 with ECAT, but it is already the language used in the modern slavery statutory guidance for England and Wales, under Section 49 of that Act.
Indeed—I have it on my iPad—paragraph 14.50 of the guidance sets out the test of
“whether the statement …‘I suspect but cannot prove’ the person is a victim of modern slavery … is true ... or whether a reasonable person having regard to the information in the mind of the decision maker would think there are Reasonable Grounds to believe the individual is a victim of modern slavery”.
So, in the guidance, the two tests are each used; we are not raising the test at all but aligning it. Nothing will change in practice; we are aligning our domestic legislation to our international obligations. The guidance also uses the phrase “suspect but cannot prove” as part of the test. Both phrases that I have read out are used in the guidance as being indicative of when the threshold is met. We are not raising the threshold and have no intention of doing so, but it is right that we keep setting that out in guidance and not in primary legislation.
Turning to Amendment 70, I thank my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich for his continued engagement. We are of course committed to providing support to victims of modern slavery but we believe that this should be provided on a needs basis. We are committed to maintaining our international obligations under ECAT, and this Bill confirms that, where necessary, support and protections are provided from a positive reasonable grounds decision up to the conclusive grounds decision. Indeed, there is a five-year contract, currently valued at over £300 million, which demonstrates that commitment. Importantly, however, support for victims, including safehouse accommodation, financial support and access to a support worker are already available based on need. There is no time limit for that support.
Each individual victim will have different needs. The amendment, however, removes any needs-based assessment and treats all 12,727 victims who entered the NRM in 2021 as being one of a kind, assuming that they will all need the same level of support. We committed in the other place to providing, where necessary, appropriate and tailored support for a minimum of 12 months to all those who receive a “positive conclusive grounds decision”, and I have just repeated that here.
Finally, Amendment 70 would also reduce clarity, because it refers to assisting the individual in their personal situation. There is no definition of “personal situation” within ECAT, and Clause 64 addresses this issue by setting out circumstances where leave will be granted to confirmed victims. However, Amendment 70 requires no link to the relevant exploitation, which means that a victim could be granted leave to pursue an entirely unrelated compensation claim or assist with an unrelated investigation, and that is not what ECAT was all about.
Before I sit down, I should respond to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, as well as the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, who all mentioned guidance in one form or another. I can confirm that officials would be very pleased to engage on the development of the guidance, to which I have referred on a number of occasions. It will be published over the coming months, but we welcome that engagement. I also assure them and the rest of the House that we will bring forward modern slavery legislation as soon as parliamentary time allows.
I apologise for the length of my response, but there were a number of amendments in this group. For the reasons I have set out, I invite noble Lords not to press their amendments.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I shall just respond to the Minister briefly. I thank him for his reply and all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.
The one fundamental point that I wish to make to the Minister is that, in all his responses, he failed to talk about the statistic referring to the dramatic increase of 47% in the number of victims, in the duty to notify process, who refused to consent to their names being put forward to the national referral mechanism. That is 3,190 reports of adult potential victims via that process who did not consent to their names being put forward. The Minister did not refer to that—and at its heart that is because people already, before the implementation of the Bill, are frightened to come forward and interact with the Government. That is the reality of the situation. For all the Minister’s protestations and reassurances, and all the statements that it will be done on a case-by-case basis, it does not alter the fact that already people are frightened of coming forward and being identified.
All the amendments before us seek to do is to address some of that problem. For example, Amendment 66, on which I will wish to test the opinion of the House, addresses the legislation where it says that if the people who do interact are late in providing information, they will be penalised and it must be taken into account and their claim refused. We are told that it does not matter because, on a case-by-case basis, they can be reassured—yet we are going to pass primary legislation to say that that provision must be included.
Lord Coaker
Lord Alton of Liverpool
“(1ZA) Guidance issued under subsection (1) must, in particular, provide that the determination mentioned in paragraph (c) is to be made on the standard of “suspect but cannot prove”.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that amendments made to the Modern Slavery Act 2015 do not raise the threshold for a Reasonable Grounds decision when accessing the National Referral Mechanism in line with Modern Slavery: Statutory Guidance for England and Wales (under s49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015) and Non-Statutory Guidance for Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the assurance that he gave, and it is my decision now not to move this amendment.
Baroness Butler-Sloss
“Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection
(1) This section applies to the construction and application of Article 13 of the Trafficking Convention.(2) A competent authority may determine that it is not bound to observe the minimum recovery period under section 60 of this Act in respect of a person in relation to whom a positive reasonable grounds decision has been made if the authority is satisfied that it is prevented from doing so—(a) as a result of an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order, or(b) because the person is claiming to be a victim of modern slavery improperly.(3) Any determination made under subsection (2) must only be made—(a) in exceptional circumstances,(b) where necessary and proportionate to the threat posed, and(c) following an assessment of all the circumstances of the case.(4) A determination made under subsection (2) must not be made where it would breach—(a) a person’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights,(b) the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Trafficking Convention, or(c) the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.(5) For the purposes of a determination under subsection (2)(b) victim status is being claimed improperly if the person knowingly and dishonestly makes a false statement without good reason, and intends by making the false statement to make a gain for themselves.(6) A good reason for making a false statement includes, but is not limited to, circumstance where—(a) the false statement is attributable to the person being or having been a victim of modern slavery, or(b) any means of trafficking were used to compel the person into making a false statement.(7) This section does not apply where the person is under 18 years at the time of the referral.(8) Nothing in this section affects the application of section 60(2).”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause is an alternative to clause 62. It ensures that the power currently provided for in Clause 62 is exercised in line with the UK’s obligations under Article 13 of the Trafficking Convention. This amendment also protects child victims of modern slavery from disqualification from protection.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
On behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, I should like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
“Conclusive grounds: support and leave to remain for victims of slavery or human trafficking
After section 50A of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 insert—“50B Confirmed victims etc: assistance, support and leave to remain(1) This section applies if a positive conclusive grounds decision is made in respect of a person.(2) This subsection applies if the person has received support under section 50A and in that case—(a) the Secretary of State must continue to secure tailored assistance and support for that person at the end of the recovery period if they are in need of that assistance and support in accordance with subsection (2)(b);(b) a person who receives a positive conclusive grounds decision must be considered in need of assistance and support under subsection (2)(a) for at least 12 months beginning on the day the recovery period ends;(c) a reference in this subsection to assistance and support has the same meaning as in section 50A(6).(3) If the person is not a British citizen—(a) the Secretary of State must give the person leave to remain in the United Kingdom if subsection (2) or (4) or (5) applies;(b) leave to remain provided under this subsection must be provided from the day on which the positive conclusive grounds decision is communicated to a person for either—(i) the amount of time support and assistance will be provided under either subsection (2) or one of the measures listed in subsection (4), or (ii) at least 12 months if the person meets one or more of the criteria in subsection (5).(4) This subsection applies if the person receives support and assistance under one of the following—(a) section 18(9) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Criminal Justice and Support for Victims) Act (Northern Ireland) 2015,(b) section 9(3)(c) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015, or(c) regulation 3(4)(c) of the Human Trafficking and Exploitation (Scotland) Act 2015 (Support for Victims) Regulations 2018 (S.S.I 2018/90).(5) This subsection applies if the person meets one or more of the following criteria—(a) leave is necessary due to the person’s circumstances, including but not restricted to—(i) the needs of that person for safety and protection from harm including protection from re-trafficking,(ii) the needs of that person for medical and psychological treatment;(b) the person is co-operating with a public authority in connection with an investigation or criminal proceedings;(c) the person is seeking compensation.(6) Where the person is receiving assistance from a support worker the recommendations of the support worker must be considered in assessing that person’s circumstances under subsection (5)(a).(7) The Secretary of State must provide for persons granted leave to remain in accordance with this section to have recourse to public funds for the duration of the period of leave.(8) The Secretary of State must allow a grant of leave to remain under subsection (3) to be extended subject to the requirements of subsection (10).(9) In determining whether to extend a grant of leave to remain under subsection (8), and the period of time for which such extended leave should be provided, the person’s individual circumstances must be considered, and whether that person—(a) is receiving on-going support and assistance under the measures set out in either subsection (2) or subsection (4), or(b) meets one or more of the criteria in subsection (5).(10) If the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person is a threat to public order—(a) the Secretary of State is not required to give the person leave under this section, and(b) if such leave has already been given to the person, it may be revoked.(11) The best interests of the child must be a primary consideration when making decisions under this section in respect of a child.(12) In this section—“positive conclusive grounds decision” means a decision made by a competent authority that a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking;“threat to public order” has the same meaning as in subsections (3) to (7) of section 62 of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection).(13) This section is to be treated for the purposes of section 3 of the Immigration Act 1971 as if it were provision made by that Act.””Member’s explanatory statement
This replacement clause would provide new statutory support for victims in England and Wales after a conclusive grounds decision for at least 12 months. It would also provide temporary leave to remain for all victims receiving support after a positive conclusive grounds decision and for victims meeting the requirements of Article 14 of the Trafficking Convention. It specifies decisions for children should be made on the basis of their best interests.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Coaker
“Slavery and human trafficking: victims aged under 18 years
(1) Where a competent authority is making a decision in relation to a person who is aged under 18 years, the best interests of the child must be a primary consideration.(2) The Secretary of State may not serve a slavery or trafficking information notice on a person in respect of an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.(3) Section 61 of this Act does not apply in cases where either the first reasonable grounds decision or a further reasonable grounds decision made in relation to a person relates to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.(4) Section 62 of this Act does not apply in cases where a positive reasonable grounds decision has been made in respect of a person which relates to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years.(5) The Secretary of State must grant a person leave to remain in the United Kingdom where a positive conclusive grounds decision is made in respect of a person who—(a) is under 18 years, or(b) was under 18 years at the time of the incident or incidents to which the positive reasonable grounds decision relates.(6) Section 64 of this Act does not apply to a person who is eligible for leave to remain under subsection (5). (7) Guidance issued under section 49(1)(c) of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 on determining whether there are reasonable grounds to believe that a person is a victim of slavery or human trafficking must provide that, where the determination relates to an incident or incidents which occurred when the person was aged under 18 years, the determination must be made on the standard of “suspect but not prove”.”
“Migrant domestic workers
(1) The Secretary of State must amend the rules under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 to make provision for the matters mentioned in subsection (2).(2) All holders of domestic worker or diplomatic domestic worker visas, including those working for staff of diplomatic missions, must be entitled to—(a) change their employer (but not work sector) without restriction, but they must register such a change with the Home Office;(b) renew their domestic worker or diplomatic domestic worker visa for a period of not less than 12 months, provided they are in employment at the date of application and able to support themselves without recourse to public funds, and to make successive applications;(c) apply for leave to enter and remain for their spouse or partner and any child under the age of 18 for a period equivalent to the unexpired period of their visa and of any subsequent visa;(d) be granted indefinite leave to remain after five continuous years of residence in the United Kingdom if at the date of application their employer proposes to continue their employment.”
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, Amendment 70A is in my name and I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Lister and Lady Hamwee, for their support, and to Kalayaan for its briefings and assistance. We debated this amendment in Committee but are bringing it back because the Government’s response seemed a little unclear on the situation as it occurs on the ground, and we might push them a little further to take overdue action. I will be interested to hear if there is any progress tonight.
The situation faced by overseas domestic workers is a historic wrong which has been allowed to continue for a decade, despite consistent evidence from the sector on what is happening. We need to reiterate from the start that this amendment looks only to restore the previous status quo, from before 2012. We know from the data collected by Kalayaan that, since then, reported levels of abuse of domestic workers have increased significantly. We also know that the Government recognised this as a legitimate problem, which is why new measures were introduced in 2016, as referenced by the Minister in Committee. These included allowing domestic workers to change employer but not to extend their visa, except in the cases of those officially recognised as a victim of people trafficking or modern slavery. The fact that these measures were felt necessary in 2016 is evidence that the Government concede that the abuse and exploitation is real and needs confronting.
Sadly, the evidence of the last six years from Kalayaan shows that while the problem is real, the 2016 solution has not really succeeded in helping at all. Indeed, its evidence shows that abuse and exploitation have continued in exactly the same way as before. For many of the workers in question, the inability to extend their visas when they change employer in practice leaves them trapped. If workers have only a relatively short time remaining on their visa—weeks or a few months—their visa status makes them unattractive potential employees and so, in practice, makes leaving their abusive employer the only option on paper.
The Government, including the Minister in Committee, have also urged that exploited workers are best dealt with through referral to the NRM. However, the problem here is that while many of the workers in question may have a case under employment law, they often do not meet the criteria of victims of modern slavery. They are, however, by virtue of their status at risk of falling into slavery or other forms of exploitation and abuse, precisely because it is difficult for them to change job or receive support—and because many are simply unaware of their rights or in possession of their passport or visa.
This amendment is really about prevention rather than cure. By restoring the previous ability of domestic workers to change employer and extend their visa we would empower them to report abuse, confident in their ability to attract alternative employment. Instead of waiting for them to become victims of slavery, we would be providing them with their own productive agency to escape their situation and report their exploiters. In the context of the Bill, this is a very modest amendment which would make little difference to the overall migration picture in the UK, but a vast difference to the lives of those impacted. We now have 10 years of data and evidence built up on this issue and I hope that we might be able to right this historic wrong. I beg to move.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, my Amendment 75 is in this group and I wish briefly to speak to it. Things have moved on a little with investor visas since Committee. The Government have at last moved to announce that they intend to suspend, or possibly abolish, the investor visa scheme. They have announced that they will replace it with a new scheme, about which we are not yet very well informed. I hope that, in replying, the Minister will be able to tell us a little more about it.
It is astonishing that the review of the scheme which was promised four years ago has not yet been published. It is difficult not to accept that there must have been some considerable embarrassment within the Government to account for the absence of its publication. I have now been told informally that it is well under way and in the last stages of preparation, and it will indeed be published not just in due course but, possibly, shortly. I would like to have a definite date for its publication if the Minister wishes to persuade us not to divide on this issue.
There are very good reasons for embarrassment here. One of the two chairmen of the Conservative Party at present has made his entire career out of servicing Russian oligarchs, Chinese people and others who have come in on the investor visa scheme. That ought to embarrass the Conservative Party deeply. The Intelligence and Security Committee’s Russia report referred to evidence of foreign interference in British politics. The Government’s response was to say that they knew of no evidence of successful interference in British politics, and they have therefore declined to publish what evidence there is. That also seems improper, and I hope the Minister will be able to say something about reconsidering whether the time has now come for the Government to accept the recommendation of the Intelligence and Security Committee to publish that evidence. There is a stain of potential corruption and foreign interference around investor visas, Russian oligarchs and others that affects this Government and the Conservative Party.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I support Amendment 70A. It is a happy coincidence that we return to this issue on International Women’s Day, because it is very much a women’s issue. It was good to meet with some of the women affected who were outside, opposite the Lords, for much of this afternoon. I thank them for coming to meet us.
I was disappointed by the Minister’s response in Committee. She did not really address the fundamental issue I raised of how, by treating this as a trafficking issue rather than as an employment and immigration rights issue, the approach is failing many overseas domestic workers who are being exploited but not trafficked. Given that there is clear evidence that the 2016 changes are not working, as we have already heard, it is simply not good enough to say that reversion to the status quo ante is not the answer, particularly when so many organisations in the sector believe it is the answer. That was very much endorsed by the women I met outside this afternoon.
The Minister said she would not look again at it but would
“perhaps explore it further and see why what is happening is happening.”—[Official Report, 10/2/22; col. 1922.]
I do not think the same Minister is replying, but I wonder whether she has any information to pass on to the Minister who is replying about what she has managed to find out since Committee.
I understand that Kalayaan and some other NGOs in the sector have, at short notice, been invited to a virtual round table tomorrow to discuss how the ODW route can “be shaped going forward”—I hate the term “going forward”. That is welcome news, but, if the discussions are to be fruitful, Kalayaan is clear that the possibility of reverting to the pre-2016 route must be on the table. To rule out this option, or some form of it, in advance is not helpful, to say the least. Can the Minister give us an assurance that officials will approach the discussions with an open mind so that they and the sector can explore whether the answer does indeed lie in reverting to the pre-2016 policy or some form of it?
The Earl of Sandwich (CB)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hylton very much regrets that he could not stay for this amendment because he had to leave early. He and I have been involved with the problems of domestic workers over decades, it seems—certainly since the 1990s. I should declare that I was once a council member of Anti-Slavery International, and I well remember meeting domestic workers through Kalayaan and being shocked at their predicament, which continues today in some cases.
This amendment has been very skilfully drafted by the right reverend Prelate. It includes domestic workers in diplomatic missions, where a few cases have come up, and, secondly, it allows workers to change their employer, within the same type of work—but they must register this change. They may renew their visas for 12 months at a time but without having recourse to public funds. Thirdly, they may bring in spouses and children while that visa still applies. After five years of continuous residence, they may apply for indefinite leave to remain, and, if their employer wants to continue that employment, that is all right. Thus the amendment is full of limitations, which should satisfy the Home Office. There is also subsection (2)(c), which favours family reunion and prevents the loneliness that often comes from separation.
In the public perception, the Home Office is moving backwards at the moment, and all I can say is that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, this amendment is simple, and there seems to be no reason why Her Majesty’s Government should not support it.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I will speak in support of my noble friend Lord Sandwich. This amendment would take us back to the pre-2012 situation. There is no doubt—there is overwhelming evidence—that not being able to change employer means that these luckless people get stuck with an abusive employer in some cases. This is easily remedied. I agree with the noble Earl that the amendment is skilfully drafted. It proposes a modest change that would undoubtedly do good, and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to accept it.
I detected a slight trace of politics coming into our debate on Amendment 75. I was a Sir Humphrey once, and I commend to the Minister “unripe time”, which is very good, and “due consideration”—“shortly” is very dangerous. Seriously, I see no difficulty with an investor visa, provided that it is for a real investment that is actually invested in plants, machinery or jobs in this country. What worries me is that it is sufficient simply to hold some gilts for a short period and then sell them again—I do not think that that is good enough.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, golden visas and gilts—exactly. I am pleased to have my name to the right reverend Prelate’s amendment, which I moved in Committee as she was unable to speak to it—she had to leave part way through. The amendment from my noble friend Lord Wallace is very topical—sadly topical; having continued for far too long and being topical throughout the period, is the position of migrant domestic workers.
By definition, I failed to persuade the Minister in Committee. She cited James Ewins’s report about the length of stay and the likelihood of exploitation. The report made two key recommendations. One was about information meetings, which I understand have fallen into disuse, the other was the partial but significant relaxation of the visa tie, on which he said
“the existence of a tie to a specific employer and the absence of a universal right to change employer and apply for extensions of the visa are incompatible with the reasonable protection of overseas domestic workers while in the UK”.
I hope the right reverend Prelate has more success than I did on the previous occasion and if she does not, then I hope the group meeting with Home Office officials does.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this is an odd group because it contains two important issues almost at opposite ends of the spectrum. On the one hand we have low-paid, migrant domestic workers with very little in the way of rights and at risk of exploitation because of their precarious visa status and at risk of destitution and deportation if they cease to work for their specific employer. On the other hand, we have this visa category designed for the super-rich. It is part of a global order where being rich entitles you to buy politicians, avoid taxes and be exempted from the normal visa rules that bind the rest of humanity. It is almost poetic for these contrasting issues to be joined together in the same debate.
I had a dream last night that we had a snap general election which would have meant that this Bill, along with the police Bill and others, would have fallen. I woke up very happy. However, the consequence of both these issues is the same. It is exploitation. The migrant domestic worker visa almost guarantees exploitation of the workers by the super-rich and the tier 1 investment visas almost guarantee exploitation by the super-rich. Suddenly, the Government care about oligarchs abusing the very rules that the Government put in place to help oligarchs gain access to our country. It should not have taken an illegal war for the Government to pay attention to these very obvious consequences.
There is an inevitable immorality to becoming super-rich, whether the wealth was acquired through underpaying workers, misappropriating assets during the dissolution of Soviet Russia or the theft of resources from developing countries. It is very hard to become super-rich with a clean conscience. It was obviously wrong to establish a golden visa system for the super-rich. It corrupted the immigration system and gave special rights to the global elite. The Government should never have done this and should end it completely.
I will vote for both these amendments. Could the Minister make my dream come true and accept all these amendments so that at least we have a Bill that we can possibly swallow?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in supporting the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol in moving Amendment 70A. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I had the opportunity of meeting some of the people from Kalayaan in Palace Yard earlier today. It reminded me of the meeting I had with the group in 2015 when we were discussing the modern slavery legislation and the immigration Bill. With my noble friend Lord Hylton, whom my noble friend Lord Sandwich referred to earlier, we moved amendments at this time. I went back and took the trouble to have a look at what was said during the course of that debate. Indeed, everything that the right reverend Prelate said in her prescient and eloquent remarks was contained both in the amendment before the House tonight and in the amendments that were moved in the legislation that we divided the House on back in 2015 and 2016.
My noble friend Lord Kerr got it absolutely right, as often he does, when he said that this is about bringing the position back to the pre-2012 status. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to the request of Kalayaan that that should be one of issues on the table during the discussions that will be held, I presume with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, when they meet tomorrow at the Home Office. Like the noble Baroness, I would be grateful if we could have a bit more elucidation about what is going to be on the agenda for that discussion. Given that there is going to be new legislation not that far up the track, it would be wonderful if we could be assured that this will be on the agenda for proper consideration then and that what the right reverend Prelate has said to us tonight will be one of the things that will be considered.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I will be brief. It has been said that Amendment 70A would reinstate the rights that migrant domestic workers had under the pre-2012 visa regime. It would allow workers to change employer and, crucially, renew their visa—a fundamental right that they do not currently have, leaving them either trapped with abusive employers or destitute and at risk of further harm.
We have reservations about proposed subsections (2)(c) and (d). Although they reflect the situation of a person who applied for a domestic worker visa before 2012, these proposals may be slightly more permissive for people who are currently here, for example, on a skilled worker visa.
However, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, said, if the Government are not prepared to accept this amendment in full, they should at least agree to take it away and come back with a proposal to protect these workers, in particular by allowing them to change employer and renew their visa.
Amendment 75 would require the Government to publish their review of Tier 1 investor visas granted between June 2008 and April 2015 before any replacement scheme can be brought into operation. As has been said, in March 2018 the Government announced a review of golden visas issued between 2008 and 2015, following revelations that the Home Office and banks had made next to no diligence checks in that period. As I understand it, according to a freedom of information request in June last year, the Home Office is reviewing some 6,312 golden visas— half of all such visas ever issued—for a range of possible national security threats. We now know, almost four years after the Government announced the review, that the findings have not been reported, and, subject to what we may hear in response, no satisfactory explanation has been given for this unacceptable delay. One is left to one’s own conclusions as to why the Government might be so interested in delaying the outcome of that review.
I note what the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said had happened since 2015, and the reference to money from—I think—Chinese sources, and to a Labour MP. I would not like to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, who referred to party politics, but my recollection is that there was also a suggestion that a Mr Ed Davey may have received some money from the Chinese. I assume that, unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, just did not recall that, any more than Mr Ed Davey did.
I listened with interest to the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb. I think she said she had dreamt that there had been a general election—but she did not tell us what the result had been, and whether I would be happy with it or disappointed.
In conclusion, I hope we will hear something positive on Amendment 70A. The right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Bristol, went through all the arguments for the amendment and the reasons it is needed, and I have no intention of repeating them. I also hope we hear something positive and more specific on Amendment 75. I asked the Government in Committee about the timescale. I said, “Is it this year?” and the reply was:
“Yes, I hope that it will be this year”.—[Official Report, 10/2/22; col.1924]
Bearing in mind that a few weeks have passed since Committee, perhaps the Minister will be able to say something firmer and more specific than, “Yes, I hope that it will be this year.”
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Bristol, for tabling amendment 70A. I thank all noble Lords for participating in this short debate. I also express my sympathy to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, for her nightmares.
It has been suggested by noble Lords that being able to change employer is of little use to those already close to their visa expiry date. We understand, of course, that it takes time to find work, but we must remind noble Lords that it is not the purpose of the domestic worker visa to enable migrant domestic workers to establish themselves in the labour market. This is about shifting the balance of power towards the worker by making it clear that their status in the UK is not exclusively dependent on the employer they arrived with.
A number of noble Lords asked why we had not changed things back to the pre-2016 arrangements. I remind noble Lords that we did take into account the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner’s advice in 2016 that relaxing the visa tie and allowing ODWs to stay for another two years without reporting to the authorities could inadvertently create a market for traffickers.
I move now to the issue of visa validity for overseas domestic workers and the proposal to reinstate a system of annual renewals and a path to settlement. Although I fully support noble Lords’ dedication to protections for migrant domestic workers, we do not believe this proposal would achieve what it purports to. The overseas domestic worker visa caters specifically for groups of visitors who, by definition, stay for short periods. Approximately 20,000 visas are issued every year on that basis, and we know the overwhelming majority leave well within the validity of their visa. A significant proportion of these workers are repeat customers who, for example, accompany their employer on their annual visit to the UK. They too leave before their visa expires, suggesting that, for the majority of those who use it, the visa serves its purpose.
That aside, the Government are not blind to the vulnerability of overseas domestic workers, which is why dedicated arrangements have been designed and delivered with these individuals in mind. This includes a standalone immigration route for victims of slavery who first entered the UK as domestic workers, which enables them to spend a further two years in the UK in that capacity. Unlike other visa holders, domestic workers who enter the national referral mechanism before their visa expires also benefit from continuing permission to work throughout the duration of their time in the NRM system. This is in addition to the support available via the modern slavery victim care contract.
Yes, these provisions are limited to those in the NRM system, but this package is designed to strike the right balance between ensuring that those who find themselves in an abusive employment situation are able to escape it by finding alternative employment, and encouraging them to report that abuse through the appropriate mechanism.
By attempting to rewind the clock, this amendment risks reintroducing features of the route that were removed for a good reason. This amendment gives no thought to how the route should be modernised, or how better advantage could be taken of the infrastructure being introduced via the future borders and immigration system to improve the way we communicate with customers.
I respectfully contest the assertion that the system worked well in the past. We must not forget that abuse existed before the terms of the visa were changed in 2012. We must also be mindful that allowing ODWs to stay could inadvertently create a fresh cohort of recruits for traffickers, as the anti-slavery commissioner pointed out back then. That is obviously something we all wish to avoid.
However, none of this is to say that arrangements for domestic workers cannot be improved. It is important to keep routes such as this under continual review. It is important to look forward rather than backwards and to prioritise ending the importation of exploitative practices from overseas in the first place. We accept that not all exploited workers are victims of modern slavery. Following our previous commitment to explore this problem further, I am told, to confirm what the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, said, that Home Office policy officials will meet NGO practitioners tomorrow. They include Kalayaan and FLEX—Focus on Labour Exploitation. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I am afraid I do not know what the agenda is, but the Government are keen to hear directly from those who encounter and support domestic workers, including those who may fall between the cracks of labour abuse and modern slavery. The Government have committed to consider all evidence. In the light of this renewed collaboration and for the wider reasons I have given, I invite the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol to withdraw his amendment.
I now turn to Amendment 75, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. The tier 1 investor route was closed to new entrants on 17 February. I should remind the House that this was introduced in 2008, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. The Home Secretary has been clear about the need to stop individuals who may be at high risk of threatening our national security or of being linked to corruption or illicit finance flows. The tier 1 investor route failed to offer sufficient protection against those outcomes, nor did it work to deliver significant economic benefit to the UK. The House can be assured that its concerns about this route, which were well articulated by a number of noble Lords during the debate in Committee, are shared by the Government, and we have taken action to address them.
The Home Secretary stated in her Written Statement of 21 February that the historical review is being finalised and will be published in the near future. I can upgrade that slightly. The noble Lord, Lord Wallace, said that it is well under way; I can upgrade it to imminent, without, I am afraid, giving him a specific date.
With regard to the proposed amendment, we have set out that we plan to make alternative provision for investment-related migration through an expansion of the scope of the existing innovator route. This will be a fundamentally different route of entry which, instead of linking residence to funds in the bank, will focus on applicants’ skills and experience as investors in innovative businesses.
The Government’s view is that this would be an entirely new arrangement, in both its objectives and operation, which would be supported by independent assessment through new endorsing bodies, and not just a replacement or successor scheme within the meaning of the noble Lord’s amendment. Without dwelling on that point, the Government will publish the review of the historical operation of the route as well, although I am sorry to say that I am not sure when; I cannot give him that specific answer.
Without pre-empting what the review will have to say, the wider picture is that the Government are, in any event, committed to identifying ways in which to crack down on wider issues of economic crime. In particular, the Government, as noble Lords are well aware, have brought forward a number of measures in the Economic Crime (Transparency and Enforcement) Bill, including removing key barriers to using unexplained wealth orders and bringing in a new register requiring anonymous foreign owners of UK property to reveal their identities.
Given that the tier 1 investor route has now been closed, I question whether it is sensible to constrain the Government’s ability to make improved provision for investment-related migration, which would be aimed at delivering real economic benefits, pending publication of a review of the previous arrangements. I can also confirm that my memory of the “Conservative” press article referenced by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, is exactly the same as that of the noble Lord, Lord Rosser: I think it mentioned certain members of other parties. Having said all that, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
The Lord Bishop of Bristol
My Lords, having listened to the debates, I am very grateful for the contribution of noble Lords who have spoken on this issue and engaged with it carefully and over time. I have to say that I am disappointed that we do not seem to have made much progress. I would have wanted to hear much more, not just about the agenda of the meeting tomorrow but about the possibility of future legislation and where this clause might fit within it. It concerns me deeply that there has not been any obvious detail about that for the future.
However, mindful of the time and the great number of issues that everyone has before them tonight and in future, I very reluctantly withdraw the amendment at this time.
“Visa penalty provision: general
(1) The immigration rules may make such visa penalty provision as the Secretary of State considers appropriate in relation to a country specified under section (Visa penalties for countries posing risk to international peace and security etc) or 69.(2) “Visa penalty provision” is provision that does one or more of the following in relation to applications for entry clearance made by persons as nationals or citizens of a specified country— (a) requires that entry clearance must not be granted pursuant to such an application before the end of a specified period;(b) suspends the power to grant entry clearance pursuant to such an application;(c) requires such an application to be treated as invalid for the purposes of the immigration rules;(d) requires the applicant to pay £190 in connection with the making of such an application, in addition to any fee or other amount payable pursuant to any other enactment.(3) The Secretary of State may by regulations substitute a different amount for the amount for the time being mentioned in subsection (2)(d).(4) Before making visa penalty provision in relation to a specified country, the Secretary of State must give the government of that country reasonable notice of the proposal to do so.(5) The immigration rules must secure that visa penalty provision does not apply in relation to an application made before the day on which the provision comes into force.(6) Visa penalty provision may—(a) make different provision for different purposes;(b) provide for exceptions or exemptions, whether by conferring a discretion or otherwise;(c) include incidental, supplementary, transitional, transitory or saving provision.(7) Regulations under subsection (3)—(a) are subject to affirmative resolution procedure if they increase the amount for the time being specified in subsection (2)(d);(b) are subject to negative resolution procedure if they decrease that amount.(8) Sums received by virtue of subsection (2)(d) must be paid into the Consolidated Fund.(9) In this section—“country” includes any territory outside the United Kingdom;“entry clearance” has the same meaning as in the Immigration Act 1971 (see section 33(1) of that Act);“immigration rules” means rules under section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971;“specified” means specified in the immigration rules.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause and new clause headed “Visa penalties for countries posing risk to international peace and security etc” provide that immigration rules may make provision penalising applicants for entry clearance from countries posing a risk to international peace and security or whose actions are likely to lead to armed conflict or a breach of humanitarian law.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, I am bringing forward Amendments 70B to 70N and Amendment 84E to allow visa penalties to be extended to countries that present a risk to international peace and security, or whose actions lead or are likely to lead to armed conflict or a breach of humanitarian law.
The existing provision in Clause 69 will already give the Government the power to apply visa penalties to specified countries that are not co-operating in relation to the return of its nationals. We will be able to slow down the processing of applications, require applicants to pay a £190 surcharge or, critically, suspend the granting of entry clearance completely. These powers are scalable, and they are appropriate both in the context of improving returns co-operation and to take action against regimes waging war on the innocent.
In particular, the Government are minded to use these powers in respect of Russia. The ability to suspend the granting of entry clearance for Russian nationals will send a strong signal to the Putin regime that they cannot invade their peaceful neighbour and expect business as usual. Although we do not believe this war is in the name of the Russian people, disadvantaging Russian nationals in this way, as part of our wider package of sanctions, will contribute to the pressure on the Putin regime.
Specifically, Amendment 70B sets out the general visa penalties provisions from the original Clause 69, which will now apply in both contexts. This includes the detail on the types of penalties that may be applied and the provision to make exemptions. This has not substantively changed from the provisions that noble Lords have already considered.
Amendment 70C sets out when a country may be specified and provides for three possible conditions. The Secretary of State must be of the opinion that the Government of the country have taken action that gives or is likely to give rise to a threat to international peace and security; results or is likely to result in armed conflict; or gives or is likely to give rise to a breach of international humanitarian law. The Secretary of State must take into account the extent of, and the reasons for, the action taken, the likelihood of further action, and such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
Amendment 70K broadly mirrors Clause 70, in that it requires the Secretary of State to review the application of visa penalties every two months. If the Secretary of State concludes that penalties are no longer necessary or expedient in connection with the factors in Amendment 70C, penalties must be revoked. This provision is a safeguard to ensure that any visa penalties applied do not remain in place by default.
I am also bringing forward Amendment 84E to ensure that these powers can be deployed in relation to the invasion of Ukraine as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, rather than waiting two months after commencement. The sooner that happens, the sooner this House and all Members can collectively act in response to this appalling crisis.
The United Kingdom stands firmly with the people of Ukraine in their struggle with Vladimir Putin’s monstrous and unjustified war. Extending these powers is a crucial step to enabling the Government to respond to hostile actions, such as those by the Putin regime, in the toughest possible manner. I ask noble Lords to support Amendments 70B to 70N and Amendment 84E for the reasons already outlined. I beg to move.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, my first reaction to these amendments was to wonder why they were necessary. Surely it is already possible to refuse to grant visas, or to slow the processing of visas to nationals of a hostile foreign state. The Government seem to be doing a good job of not granting visas to Ukrainian nationals fleeing war, so why can they not refuse to grant visas to Russians?
On that issue, I would like the Minister to explain why the Home Secretary told the other place yesterday:
“I confirm that we have set up a bespoke VAC en route to Calais but away from the port because we have to prevent that surge from taking place.”
Later, when challenged, the Home Secretary said:
“I think the right hon. Lady did not hear what I said earlier. I said that I can confirm that we are setting up another VAC en route to Calais—I made that quite clear in my remarks earlier on.”—[Official Report, Commons, 7/3/22; cols. 27, 40.]
Can the Minister explain why the Home Secretary gave inaccurate information and then blamed the shadow Home Secretary for mishearing?
Why have the Government accepted only 508 Ukrainian refugees—as I think the Minister said earlier in the House—while Ireland has accepted 1,800? What makes the UK so unique? Are these amendments not more of the Government saying that they are going to do something, instead of actually doing something?
I am also concerned about subsection (6), to be inserted by Amendment 70B, which would allow the Secretary of State to
“make different provision for different purposes … provide for exceptions or exemptions … include incidental, supplementary, transitional, transitory or saving provision.”
In other words, the new clause seems to allow the Secretary of State to do whatever she wants—including to allow into the UK whoever she wants, despite a general ban on a particular country. Where is the parliamentary oversight?
Amendment 70C would allow the Secretary of State to specify that a country is posing a
“risk to international peace and security”,
or a risk of “armed conflict”, or a risk of breaching “international humanitarian law”, if that is her opinion. There is no qualification that she should be satisfied on the balance of probabilities or beyond reasonable doubt, for example, but simply that she is of that opinion. Again, where is the parliamentary oversight?
These new amendments allow the Secretary of State to impose, or not impose, visa restrictions and penalties on countries which, in her opinion, pose a threat. This allows her to exempt whoever she thinks should be exempted, without any parliamentary scrutiny, oversight or involvement in the decision-making. Will the Minister consider withdrawing these amendments and bringing them back at Third Reading with the necessary safeguards in place?
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, for his comments and I will add a few further thoughts.
I appreciate that the intent of these proposed new clauses is to bring additional sanction pressure on Russia, and perhaps also other states which threaten peace and security. However, I ask whether there are any concerns that, in practice, this provision may make it more difficult for a critic of, for example, the Putin regime, to reach the UK in safety. Such a person—perhaps one of those involved in the courageous protests against the current war—might seek to reunite with family in the UK for their own safety. They would require a valid visa, not least since the Bill makes it so much harder for those arriving without a visa to apply for refugee status. Is the Minister at all concerned that additional costs and barriers to obtaining a visa may invertedly hurt people seeking to escape authoritarian regimes, and who would be eligible for a visa to come here, more than it would actually hurt the regime itself?
I note the provision in these amendments “for exceptions or exemptions”, but I would appreciate a comment from the Minister on how these might work in a case such as I have outlined.
I arrived in this country seeking refuge and safety shortly after the Islamic Revolution swept through Iran, many years ago now. I was fortunate quickly to be given refugee status and to receive a welcome that, in time, has allowed me to begin contributing back to the society that provided me with a new home. However, I cannot help wondering what the impact might have been had these amendments been part of the law then. After all, I came from a country that was undoubtedly regarded as something of an international pariah, a risk to peace and security in the Middle East and, arguably, more widely. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and I hope to receive some reassurances.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, we support the amendments, which are obviously in response to the Ukraine crisis. We support the way the powers could be used with respect to armed conflict, threatening international peace or breaching international humanitarian law. I say to the Minister, as I have said in many debates, that Her Majesty’s Opposition stands firmly with the Government in tackling the illegal invasion of Ukraine. However, there are a number of questions that it would be helpful for the Minister to consider. I think it is right for us to ask them, as indeed other Lords, including the right reverend Prelate, have done.
To repeat a couple of questions that others have asked, what will the parliamentary oversight be of these wide-ranging powers for the Secretary of State? Will the Secretary of State be required to advise Parliament when a visa penalty provision is revoked or changed?
The Secretary of State is required to give the Government of a country “reasonable notice” before bringing in penalties. What counts as “reasonable notice”? Could the Minister say anything about that?
How quickly could the powers be used? Could they be used immediately on commencement? It would be interesting to know the answer to that.
As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, raised, could the Government already act in this way? What extra powers does the legislation give the Government? What exemptions would be included and what will the arrangements be for vulnerable people, as the right reverend Prelate asked, or people who might themselves be fleeing persecution in a country that these particular visa penalties might apply to?
I appreciate that the Government are trying to respond to the current crisis. Notwithstanding that, and the general support that there will be for these amendments, there are some interesting and important questions that the Government need to answer.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for some pretty sensible follow-up questions. The first question, about why we need the power, is absolutely reasonable. There are currently limited powers to apply penalties to applications for entry clearance under existing legislation. It might be possible to apply extra checks if a certain nationality is considered to pose an immigration risk that could lead to a slowing down of visa processing. However, that is as far as penalties can reasonably go under current powers.
The Secretary of State must exercise her powers consistently with the Immigration Acts. Neither the Immigration Act 1971 nor the Immigration Rules allows the Secretary of State to adopt measures such as additional charges or suspending visas in order to apply pressure on a foreign Government. By their nature, these powers mean that the penalties can be applied in a blanket way to a nationality. It is correct that the Secretary of State has express statutory authority if she is to take these significant steps.
“Visa penalties for countries posing risk to international peace and security etc
(1) A country may be specified under this section if, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, the government of the country has taken action that—(a) gives, or is likely to give, rise to a threat to international peace and security,(b) results, or is likely to result, in armed conflict, or(c) gives, or is likely to give, rise to a breach of international humanitarian law.(2) In deciding whether to specify a country for the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State must take the following into account—(a) the extent of the action taken;(b) the likelihood of further action falling within subsection (1) being taken;(c) the reasons for the action being taken;(d) such other matters as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.(3) In this section—“action” includes a failure to act;“country” and “specified” have the same meanings as in section (Visa penalty provision: general).”Member’s explanatory statement
See the explanatory statement for the new clause headed “Visa penalty provision: general”.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the two new clauses for insertion before clause 69 in the Minister's name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the two new clauses for insertion before clause 69 in the Minister's name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the two new clauses for insertion before clause 69 in the Minister's name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the two new clauses for insertion before clause 69 in the Minister's name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the two new clauses for insertion before clause 69 in the Minister's name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the two new clauses for insertion before clause 69 in the Minister's name.
“Visa penalties under section (Visa penalty provision: general): review and revocation
(1) This section applies where any visa penalty provision made pursuant to section (Visa penalties for countries posing risk to international peace and security etc) is in force in relation to a country.(2) The Secretary of State must, before the end of each relevant period—(a) review the extent to which the country’s government is continuing to act in a way that, in the opinion of Secretary of State, has or is likely to have any of the consequences mentioned in section (Visa penalties for countries posing risk to international peace and security etc)(1), and(b) in light of that review, determine whether it is appropriate to amend the visa penalty provision.(3) If, at any time, the Secretary of State forms the opinion that, despite the fact that the country’s government has taken or is taking action as mentioned in section (Visa penalties for countries posing risk to international peace and security etc)(1), the visa penalty provision is not necessary or expedient in connection with—(a) the promotion of international peace and security,(b) the resolution or prevention of armed conflict, or(c) the promotion of compliance with international humanitarian law,the Secretary of State must as soon as practicable revoke the visa penalty provision.(4) Each of the following is a relevant period—(a) the period of 2 months beginning with the day on which the visa penalty provision came into force;(b) each subsequent period of 2 months.(5) In this section, “visa penalty provision” has the same meaning as in section (Visa penalty provision: general).” Member’s explanatory statement
This clause provides for the review of the effectiveness of visa penalty provision made in relation to countries presenting a risk to international peace and security etc, and requires its revocation if the Secretary of State concludes that it is no longer necessary or expedient.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the two new clauses for insertion before clause 69 in the Minister's name.
“(a) “visa penalty provision” has the same meaning as in section (Visa penalty provision: general);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the two new clauses for insertion before clause 69 in the Minister's name.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential on the two new clauses for insertion before clause 69 in the Minister's name.
“(c) the individual is travelling to Northern Ireland on a local journey from the Republic of Ireland.”Member’s explanatory statement
Under this amendment, persons who are neither British nor Irish would nevertheless be able to make local journeys from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland without the need for an Electronic Travel Authorisation.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, Amendment 71 in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, and my noble friend Lord Coaker was tabled in Committee and is brought back on Report because of the serious implications of Clause 71 for the cross-border economy between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. There are also social and health implications. With the utmost sincerity, I do not think that the Government have fully considered this issue. I am a member of the protocol scrutiny sub-committee in your Lordships’ House, which has discussed this issue. We wrote to the right honourable and noble Baroness, Lady Williams, received a response which we were not happy with, and have written again.
Clause 71 amends the Immigration Act 1971 to introduce these electronic travel authorisations. This provides for a pre-entry clearance system that requires anyone who does not need a visa, entry clearance or other specified immigration status to obtain authorisation before travelling to the UK, including on journeys within the common travel area, which the UK and Ireland are part of. Indeed, the present clause has been expressly formulated to ensure that CTA journeys are captured.
Obviously, as I said earlier, this system does not apply to British or Irish citizens, and it appears that the UK Government intend the scheme to apply on the land border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, of which there are about 300 crossings on a very tortuous line, but this looks to be in breach of the rights provisions of Article 2 of the protocol. It also shows a total lack of understanding of this border, which has many crossings. Home Office Minister Kevin Foster confirmed that the ETA will involve payment of a fee and an online application.
However, I am more concerned about the economic, social and health consequences of Clause 71 for the people who live along the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, particularly those who are not Irish or British citizens, of which there are many, and many of them contribute to the economy in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, and have family who reside on the other side of the border.
Concerns have been raised about the impact of ETA on business, health, tourism, and recreational issues, as non-visa nationals in the Republic of Ireland would be required to obtain an ETA before a visit to Northern Ireland, a fact that has been recognised and raised by the Irish Government because it would have an impact on tourism to Northern Ireland. Many people travelling to Dublin Airport and Shannon Airport journey north to examine the beauty and potential of our tourism in Northern Ireland. In the context of an invisible land border that British and Irish citizens can freely cross, it is eminently foreseeable that many other people who have hitherto been able to similarly cross the border without any prior permission will largely be unaware of this ETA requirement.
The written response from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, to our committee some weeks ago, and the response from the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, in Committee to me do not adequately address the situation. They do not provide for the exemption to the ETA requirement for non-Irish British citizens who enter Ireland legally or are legally resident in Ireland and who do not currently require permission to enter the UK for short-term cross-border travel from Ireland to Northern Ireland. The noble Baroness’s points around enforcement in her letter, and the noble Lord’s response in Committee some weeks ago, are unclear and apparently inconsistent. While the letter states that the Government will not criminalise those who are simply living their everyday lives, the scheme as has been outlined would do exactly that for large numbers of people who currently cross the border without restrictions to access essential services, support supply chains, for education or visiting family.
It is worth pointing out that the UK’s ETA proposals would also undermine several core areas of north/south co-operation as set out in strand 2 of the Good Friday agreement. In this respect I, along with other noble Lords, have concerns on the areas of tourism and healthcare. Many of these were raised in Committee on this amendment. The ETA proposals threaten to undermine the mandate of Tourism Ireland as an all-island body set up under the framework of the Good Friday agreement, which exists to promote tourism on the island of Ireland, and disproportionately impact the sector in Northern Ireland. As I said before, most tourists enter the island via Ireland’s ports and airports, and 70% of the £1 billion tourism spending in Northern Ireland comes from foreign visitors.
The ETA scheme would also undermine established cross-border healthcare service provision and the recently signed UK-Ireland CTA healthcare memorandum of understanding, which establishes entitlement on the basis of residency. Healthcare in border regions is highly integrated—I think of Newry and County Louth, Craigavon and Monaghan, Fermanagh and Cavan, Altnagelvin and Letterkenny in County Donegal—with the closest service often across the border, including jointly funded cancer and cardiac services based in Northern Ireland and vice versa.
In this context, I ask the Minister: what discussions have taken place with the Irish Government? I know that the Minister for European Affairs in the Republic of Ireland met Home Office Minister Kevin Foster last week here in London. What was the outcome of those discussions? What discussions have taken place with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office. I note that a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office is sitting here in the Chamber tonight. I would like to know what discussions have taken place to highlight the issues and problems and the very practical economic, social and health implications that these will have throughout the island. Have there been discussions with civic society—with the businesses that will be impacted, which gain from the employment of many of these people on a cross-border basis? Will there be any exemptions or special arrangements for people crossing the land border frequently from the Republic of Ireland? It would be preferable if ETA requirements did not exist, or were not required from the Republic of Ireland into Northern Ireland.
I say to the Government Front Bench that we are discussing something with political, economic, social and health consequences. It would be preferable if this section did not relate to Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, because it will have severe implications and impact on our day-to-day work and living. That is the important consideration. It is ridiculous nonsense for this to be included in this part of the Bill, because it does not take account of those economic, social or health consequences.
In such circumstances, I ask the Minister to declare tonight that the Government will withdraw this provision. If not, will they come back at Third Reading to do so? If I do not get those undertakings here tonight, I will definitely press this amendment to a vote. I beg to move.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I will keep my remarks brief as the case for this amendment has been made so very powerfully this evening by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie.
When we debated this amendment in Committee, I raised several areas of concern regarding these proposals for the ETA requirements. In his response, the Minister confirmed that these proposals would not result in any kind of checks on the Irish land border, which is very much to be welcomed. But as the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, said, it remains far from clear how these ETAs will be enforced in practice. In the many thousands of border crossings that take place every day for work, leisure, family or educational purposes, there is currently no expectation or need to carry a passport. Given the very special circumstances of the land border on the island of Ireland, and further to his responses in Committee, I ask the Minister to expand this evening on how this scheme will work in practice.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, I remain concerned about the potential impact of these proposals on the Northern Ireland tourist industry. Does the Minister accept that these proposals may deter international visitors who have flown into the Republic of Ireland from visiting Northern Ireland during their stay because of the additional financial and bureaucratic requirements that they will entail? Have the Government carried out an impact assessment of the effect of these measures on the Northern Ireland tourist industry? I hope the Minister can respond to this this evening, as he did not when I asked the same question in Committee.
Given the special circumstances and potential negative impact of these proposals on Northern Ireland and Ireland, I believe they have not been properly thought through. I therefore urge the Government to think again and accept this amendment.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I support this amendment. At this late hour I will not go into everything I said in Committee, but I live on the border and see it every day. I deal with and know people who cross the border every day. I know of many people who do not have Irish or British passports. They are not citizens of either country. Many of them are eastern Europeans who have remained and who work on both sides of the border, sometimes at the same time.
We heard about healthcare from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie. The whole healthcare drive has been an all-Ireland drive to provide services of the best quality in Ireland. Your Lordships will be well aware in GB that, because of the land mass, it is sometimes better to have centres of excellence. There are therefore health staff and, just as in Great Britain, many of them are not British—and we are now trying to inhibit their crossing the border.
Before I go any further and talk about other areas, I must declare my interests in that, first, I am involved in tourism and, secondly, my brother is chairman of the organisation mentioned, Tourism Ireland. Nobody has lobbied me on this at all, not even him. When I rang him about it, he was not quite able to give me the figures I wanted, so this is not an “I’m telling you what I’ve been told” scenario at all.
I want to look at what the Minister said in reply, because we have heard that a lot of it was perhaps slightly muddled. I think it is worse than that. It was contradictory. First, in talking about the costs in tourism the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, ventured to say:
“I looked that up this morning in anticipation of this, and it is currently $14”,
so to him it was “not overwhelming”. People will be well aware that air passenger duty has been a bone of contention in this country and in Ireland, especially because in the Republic it was always lower than in the United Kingdom. I am aware that the Chancellor announced that because of the stress on tourism, he was going to lower it for internal travel throughout the United Kingdom but also, I believe, that it would be devolved to Northern Ireland for international travel.
If the Government attach so much importance to that and consider it significant—I think it was being lowered from something like £10 or £12 to £6 or £7—why did the Minister tell us that this is not significant? Is it or is it not? If it is not, why did they change it? I will tell the House why. In effect, the Government have just resurrected it by doubling it in order to bring this measure in. So, it does matter, which is not what the Minister said.
I then looked at the next paragraph. The Minister said:
“There will be no controls whatever on the Northern Ireland land border. Individuals will be able to continue to pass through border control at first point of entry to the common travel area.”
In many cases, the first point of entry is in the Republic of Ireland, so is the Republic going to administer this visa? I suggest that it will not, so this does not tie up.
Next, the Minister said the following:
“As is currently the case, individuals arriving in the UK, including those crossing the land border into Northern Ireland”.
I hesitate to say this, and correct me if I am wrong, as the Minister may have walked up and down our border many times without my noticing it, but I suggest that he would not have a clue where the border was. That is not me laughing at this. He would not have a clue, as there are no markings on the road. He might stop at a shop on either side, which takes euros or pounds. There is nothing else, but I will give him a lead: the telephone boxes in the Republic are yellow. If you see one of those, you know you have “crossed the border”. However, there is no border, so who are these visas for? It is absolutely clear that there is nobody to inspect them, so what are the Government going to do?
The Minister also said that the Government are going to use
“a variety of communication channels”.—[Official Report, 10/2/22; col. 1935.]
Excuse me, but it is almost laughable to say there would be communication in the Republic of Ireland to tell people that they cannot come north and vice versa if they do not have Irish passports.
I am sorry, but the reason for having legislation is to enforce it. This provision is not unenforceable because people refuse to have it enforced, but because it is totally unenforceable under those circumstances. This amendment is therefore not that logical—I think it is getting them out of a hole, but the Government are not prepared to look at the hole they are in. This may not be the most vital thing in the world, even if it is to us; it is a tiny thing.
The noble Baroness also mentioned the protocol. I am not talking about the protocol, because clearly, the Government have not used it as the excuse for not doing this. This is therefore basically outside the protocol, which has no bearing.
However, on the protocol, we all know, and we agree with them, that the Government put in place an incredibly bad arrangement, depending on which way you look at it. They are trying to alleviate it on the one hand, and they have brought out something to dump on top of it on the other. We have a saying in Lough Erne in Fermanagh: “I didn’t come up Lough Erne in a bubble.” It looks as if the Government did, because it seriously is unworkable.
That is all I am going to say, except perhaps ask the Minister to define the hard border. He says in his script: “There is no hard border; there is no hard border; there will never be a hard border.” What is a hard border? I do not know what the definition is, but it is where documents are checked or people have to stop. He is absolutely right that there is no hard border. Therefore, there is no border to make these checks. I suggest that the Government agree to this amendment.
Lord Hain (Lab)
My Lords, I appeal to the Minister, especially as I hope he has received some expert advice from his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Caine, who, as a Northern Ireland Minister, is respected on all sides of the House. He knows his stuff, and that is a big plus. The noble Viscount has explained in practical detail why it is essential either to accept this amendment or to withdraw the provision and come back at Third Reading without it. My noble friend Lady Ritchie has underlined that with an eloquent speech, which I really hope the Minister has listened to carefully.
This is not a party issue or an Opposition versus Government issue; this is a Northern Ireland issue. I worry that in the construction of this Bill and this particular provision, Ministers have been thinking about everybody except Northern Ireland. That, I am afraid, is far too often the case. Their whole approach to Brexit has neglected Northern Ireland and deeply offended unionists for reasons I completely understand, including the former Government supporters who kept the Conservatives in power for a couple of years—the DUP. In Whitehall, there seems to be a default position in which Northern Ireland does not register when Bills are framed. I am afraid this is a very good example.
May I underline the points of my noble friend Lady Ritchie and the noble Viscount, made with a great deal of practical advice, about the operation across the border? The border, in everyday life for those who live either side, does not exist. People cross the border all the time and work, receive healthcare, get blood transfusions and receive educational opportunities and provision from either jurisdiction. I could go on, but time is short. It is terribly important to keep momentum going following the Belfast/Good Friday agreement, knowing that is the case. These unhappy residents, who are entitled to all these provisions by their residency rather than their nationality—they may be Polish, Lithuanian or all sorts of nationalities—and who provide essential services to people on both sides of the island of Ireland could be caught by this. This is a practical issue.
As surveys have shown, most Northern Ireland tourists who leave Northern Ireland to go to Europe, America or the rest of the world go via Dublin. Equally, most incoming tourists to Northern Ireland come via Dublin. If, in addition to the other issues involved, they will have to pay a fee—nominal, you may argue, but it is an additional hurdle—to benefit from Northern Ireland’s beauty and opportunities and bring much-needed income to Northern Ireland, especially to businesses suffering from an absence of tourists because of Covid, this is really damaging.
Can I also bring to the Minister’s attention the proposal, with cross-party support, to have Rally Ireland, which crosses the border, in the international FIA calendar for the world rally championships? The proposal put this year did not succeed but it is being strongly and widely backed for next year. This will affect Rally Ireland and the practical implications have not been thought through.
I refer to the detailed 1,000-word letter of the noble Lord, Lord Jay, who is chair of the Lords protocol committee, on which I sit, along with my noble friend Lady Ritchie. I have it in front of me, but I will not read it out this evening because the hour is late. It asks all sorts of questions about the reply from the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, to the series of questions that our committee asked. I am afraid that, given her normal standards, it was a very unsatisfactory reply, which reinforces my concern that Northern Ireland has not really been thought of.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
My Lords, I did not intend to take part in this debate, but, given the description of life in County Fermanagh of the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, I have been tempted to participate, because I too was brought up there, just a few miles from the border. As someone who now lives about 20 miles from the border, I am always interested in hearing descriptions of life on the border from those who are not often in Northern Ireland or, indeed, the Irish Republic. But we should take very seriously indeed those who comment with real experience of living there—I am talking about not just myself but the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, who also does not live very far from the border.
Noble Lords have raised a number of practical issues that affect the common travel area. We need to remember that this has been of immense value and benefit to the people of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic over many years, predating the European Union. It has existed for many decades, and we should cherish it and do everything possible to remove any travel friction within it, regardless of our position on Brexit—certainly that was always our view.
It is also clear that there should not be any kind of barrier or checks along the border with the Irish Republic in relation to the movement of people—or goods, for that matter. That has always been very clear from the standpoint of my party and those who come from Northern Ireland.
Some people have said that there cannot be checks on the border for the practical reason of the 300 crossings, and all the rest of it—that has always been clear. Never mind the principle; the reality is that you cannot have that kind of checking along the border. No one wants that, and it cannot be done. For that reason, no one was ever advocating that there should be any kind of checks along the frontier between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic.
There is of course a border; sometimes there is not a visible sign of it, but in other parts of the Province there are visible signs of the border. I recently noticed that, on the road from Dublin up to Belfast, as you cross the border, there is now a sign saying, “Welcome to Northern Ireland”. It has thankfully not been defaced—many years ago such signs were constantly defaced. Maybe after reading this debate somebody might decide to go out and do that, but I hope not. Indeed, there is a camera at that part of the border. We were told at one stage there could not be any infrastructure along the border, but there has been a security camera there for many years, without any controversy.
We have a different fiscal regime, excise regime and currency, as well as different tax laws. There is a whole range of differences between north and south, and they are all managed not by checking anything at the border but by intelligence-led investigation at the destination that people or goods are travelling to. That has been the case for decades. For instance, when it comes to the investigation of fuel laundering, the authorities on both sides of the border co-operate very well and share intelligence. They do not do that along the border but they do investigate these matters. That is the way these things should be done.
The only thing I want to say to the House tonight is that all that having been said and accepted, we would say that exactly the same principles should apply between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. If all of this is correct about checks and there being no friction between north and south, that should equally apply between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, and vice versa—east-west. You cannot have one principle for the north-south relationship and a completely different set of principles for the east-west relationship.
For instance, if the protocol was being properly and fully implemented today, and we did not have the grace periods—that were opposed by some Members of this House and the other House—people would be getting their luggage checked when they travelled between Northern Ireland and Great Britain or Great Britain and Northern Ireland in relation to some SPS and customs regulations. Pets cannot be brought from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland to Great Britain under EU laws—this is for British citizens travelling from one part of the United Kingdom to the other.
Therefore, all I say in relation to this matter is that of course we need to keep the border open and frictionless, with free movement and the rest, but let the same principles and passion for freedom of movement and no checks apply east-west as well as north-south. That is what is in the Belfast agreement, which the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, referred to. It is a three-stranded approach. The first strand is the internal Northern Ireland arrangement and strand 2 is the north-south arrangement. But we also have strand 3, which deals with east-west, and that has to be protected and preserved. The fact that it is not is at the root of the problems we are having with devolution in Northern Ireland at the current time.
I want to put that matter of principle, as it were, on the record, because it is important. I do not disagree with what has been said about the matter under consideration in this amendment but we must also consider ensuring that the principles of the Belfast agreement, as amended by the St Andrews agreement, are preserved and upheld in their entirety.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, it is always a tremendous pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dodds—I have been doing so for 20 years. I do not always agree with him but we agree on lots of things, and I agreed with much of what he said this evening: there is a special difference between dealing with these issues about Northern Ireland and dealing with things generally in the Bill.
The proposal by the Government is daft and it could be dangerous, and it is also utterly unnecessary. It has clearly been drawn up by people who know nothing about Northern Ireland—that is the difficulty. If only the architects of this proposal had talked to the Governments in Belfast or Dublin, or even to the Northern Ireland Office. And I absolutely agree, with great respect to the Minister who is winding up, that it should have been the noble Lord, Lord Caine, doing so—he is the one who knows a huge amount about Northern Ireland and presumably he would have been able to answer these questions with the experience of someone who has spent many years dealing with these issues.
The practical problems have been outlined well by my noble friends, such as the problem with tourism. One of the very first north-south bodies to be established was an all-Ireland tourist body. People come from all over the world to Ireland and want to see both ends. To impose this unnecessary restriction on them will jeopardise an industry that has been severely hit because of Covid over the last number of years. There are thousands of Lithuanians working in the Republic of Ireland, and probably a number in Northern Ireland, whose lives could easily be overturned by this—particularly those who work near the border, of course. They rely on common health facilities, as well as common shopping facilities.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and my noble friends have said, the border does not exist in the ordinary sense. It is not like a border anywhere else. One of the great issues which has been ignored in drawing up this silly proposal is that it ignores entirely what has been agreed for the last quarter of a century. In drawing up the Good Friday agreement, in which I played some part a long time ago, we believed that the border was crucial to the success of our talks. The border has hundreds of crossings; there is no apparatus checking on people going back and forth. The principle lying behind that lack of the border being a border, if you see what I mean, and the fact that it is invisible in many ways, was an integral part of the agreement. I shall not talk this evening about the protocol but that is another disaster, in the sense that it has caused difficulties in Northern Ireland, and we will come to it on another occasion. The resolution on the border was a hugely important and significant factor in the success of the Good Friday agreement, and this provision strikes at the heart of it.
The problem is not simply what is in this particular proposal—it is how the proposal was arrived at, how it was structured, and how people drew it up. That has been disastrous, because it has been done with no knowledge of how it could affect the Good Friday agreement or future proposals on the border itself.
The relations between the Republic of Ireland and our Government are at rock bottom at the moment, and this does not help; it makes it worse—and I bet your bottom dollar that there have been no real discussions between the two Governments, in the way that there should be.
This should be dealt with in the British–Irish Intergovernmental Conference—the agreement set that up. The noble Lord, Lord Dodds referred to strand 3 of the agreement—that is to say, the relationship between east and west. I chaired the talks, along with the Irish Minister, on setting that up, and one result of it was the British–Irish Intergovernmental Conference: a body including both Governments to deal with tricky issues. If this is not a tricky issue, I do not know what is. I bet your bottom dollar, too, that there has not been much discussion with the parties in Northern Ireland either, or with the Northern Ireland Executive or the Northern Ireland Assembly. No—it is a disaster.
The sooner that this provision is removed from this Bill, the better. I doubt that the Government will do it but, if they do not, it will just fall into a pattern, whereby Northern Ireland is put on the side and seen as a peripheral business. It will come back to bite them, and I urge the Government to withdraw the provision or accept this amendment.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Murphy, who articulated what I would think is the majority opinion in this House. This is one of those policy proposals from the Government in the Bill that defies belief. We have heard from the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, and my noble friend Lady Ritchie about living on the border. The three people who live closer to the border than the rest of us say that what is before us is an absolute nonsense. It does not make sense. All I say to the Minister who will respond is: why would the Government resist something that everybody says is a nonsense?
How is it going to work? Who will enforce it? Has the Home Office agreed this with the Northern Ireland Office? What discussions have taken place? They may not be able to say it here, but we have a Minister from the Northern Ireland Office and Ministers from other parts of the Government. I cannot believe that the Northern Ireland Office thinks that this is a good or sensible idea.
What reaction has there been from the British Government to the Irish Government telling them that it is a nonsense? The Irish embassy has been on to many of us, in a very reasonable way, saying that it just will not work. It feeds into a belief that the Government somehow do not properly understand Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, whatever the rights and wrongs of what people think about him—not about the noble Lord, Lord Dodds, but about what he said; I apologise. It is a good job he and I know each other well. It feeds into the narrative that the Government do not understand Northern Ireland, do not understand the architecture that has led over many years to the peace that we have had, and take many things there for granted. This is the latest example.
Clause 71 will require people who are not British or Irish citizens to have electronic travel authorisation to move from Ireland into Northern Ireland. I just reread it to make sure. I showed it to my noble friend Lady Smith and said, “Have we got this right?” How is it going to work? There are hundreds of crossings a day. Let us start to be practical about this. I live in Ireland. I am an Irish citizen. I have an American wife who works in Northern Ireland. What happens? Is she supposed to have an electronic travel authorisation every day, every week or once a year? If she does not have it, who enforces that? Who checks it? What arrangements take place for that? There has to be some arrangement, otherwise it is not worth it being in the Bill. There has to be something that happens, otherwise why is there a requirement to do it.
The practical arrangements are of real concern to people because they want to know what happens, so businesses in Northern Ireland and Tourism Ireland are raising concerns about it. The Government’s reaction is simply to ignore it or, without any proper explanation, say that there is not a problem.
What is the answer to people concerned about visiting family, accessing childcare and accessing the cross-border healthcare that we heard about from my noble friend Lord Hain? What is going on and why are the Government not listening to what people are saying? Specifically, have parts of the Government talked? Has the Home Office spoken to the Northern Ireland Office? Is there agreement between them? What have they said to the Irish Government? What are the answers to the practical questions that I have raised and particularly those raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough? How on earth is this going to work?
I very much support what my noble friend Lady Ritchie and the noble Baroness, Lady Suttie, said. This matter raises serious questions and the Government have to do more than say that it will be fine—it will be all right and do not worry about it. We have seen the consequences of that in other areas of life in Northern Ireland. The Government need to get a grip on this. It is absolutely ridiculous and the Government need to sort it out.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, for explaining her amendment so powerfully. I appreciate the intention behind it but the amendment would undermine the Government’s efforts to strengthen UK border control. The Government are clear: there will continue to be no routine immigration controls on journeys to the UK from within the common travel area and none at all on the land border between Ireland and Northern Ireland. I am very familiar with the land border between Northern Ireland and Ireland, and I appreciate that you often do not know whether you have crossed it. Individuals will not be required to carry or present any documents when crossing the land border, nor will British or Irish citizens require an ETA.
To protect both the UK immigration system and the common travel area from abuse it is important that, as now, all individuals arriving in the UK, including those crossing the land border into Northern Ireland, continue to enter in line with the UK’s immigration framework. This is a well-established principle of the operation of the common travel area, and it applies when travelling in all directions. Visa nationals are required to obtain a visa for the UK when travelling via Ireland, including when they are crossing the land border. Otherwise, they are entering illegally. That includes UK visa nationals resident in Ireland. This is a well-established requirement and we are simply extending the same principle to individuals requiring an ETA.
The amendment would result in an unacceptable gap in UK border security that would allow persons of interest or risk, who would be refused an ETA, to enter the UK legally, undermining the very purpose of the ETA scheme, which is to prevent the travel of those who pose a threat to the UK. It would also provide an opening for those looking to abuse our current CTA arrangements, which is obviously in no one’s interests.
Some noble Lords are concerned about the impact on tourism and the economy. The Government are committed to developing a clear communications strategy to tackle any misunderstandings about the requirements to travel to Northern Ireland. As has been pointed out, over the last decade Northern Ireland has been transformed and is now very much considered a “must see” tourism destination. We will continue to support tourism in Northern Ireland and to Northern Ireland by ensuring that the process for obtaining an ETA is quick and light touch. Successful applications will be approved within minutes of submission.
Regarding the impact on frequent cross-border travel, I want to first make clear that those with any form of existing UK immigration status, such as frontier worker permit holders, will not be required to obtain an ETA. For those who do require an ETA, the application process will be quick and, as I said, light touch, and the majority of applications will be approved within minutes. Once granted, an ETA will be valid for multiple journeys over an extended period, minimising the burden on those making frequent trips, including those across the Ireland-Northern Ireland border. As now, it will not require those crossing the land border to hold any particular physical documentation, as ETAs will be issued electronically.
In answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, I was not comparing this with other forms of charge when I spoke on this previously at the Dispatch Box, and I certainly did not say that it did not matter. It obviously does matter, and I hope I did not sound as though I thought it was a trivial amount of money, because I do not.
The Government consider the scheme compliant with our commitments under the Belfast/Good Friday agreement and the protocol on Ireland and Northern Ireland.
I have been talking to my noble friend Lord Caine; I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, that he would have been much better at doing this than me. We have been having discussions with the Irish Government, as he is well aware. The UK has a close exchange with Ireland on all matters of bilateral interest, including this one, and we will continue to engage with Ireland as we develop this scheme. My noble friend assures me that he has been in contact with the Home Office. Having said all that, I appreciate that I will probably not have satisfied anybody in this House, but I nevertheless ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Hain (Lab)
Before the noble Lord sits down, could I ask him about the potential impact on Rally Ireland, which is competing with other countries where this requirement will not be present? About 20 teams compete, with lots of non-British and non-Irish nationals in them, and they will each require multiple applications.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I asked my noble friend whether he was familiar with Rally Ireland, and he is not either. I will come back to the noble Lord with a specific answer. I had not heard of Rally Ireland before.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, this has been a very interesting debate. The noble Lords representing the Government should look to the Good Friday agreement, because that will provide the solutions to this issue. The North/South Ministerial Council, the British-Irish Council and the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference deal with those east-west issues.
I have not heard anything from the Government that provides me with any consolation. I still ask them to come back at Third Reading with a possible amendment, but in this instance, I seek to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am grateful for this opportunity to speak to Amendments 72 and 74, and I congratulate my noble friend on the honour of being appointed a privy counsellor. It is richly deserved, and we can all bathe, I hope, in reflected glory. I look forward very much to hearing from my noble friend how her Amendment 73 will impact, and possibly supersede, my Amendments 72 and 74.
Before that, however, I want to raise my concerns about the new powers included in Clauses 76 and 77, which raise a tribunal charging power in respect of wasted resources. I do not disagree that there may be circumstances in which unnecessary costs arise, but it is a very dangerous precedent to set that a First-tier Tribunal or Upper Tribunal may—as I understand it, for the first time ever—charge the participant. Without going into the details, which I am sure the House is familiar with, I will briefly set out my concerns, those raised by the Law Society of Scotland, and those of the Select Committee on the Constitution in its report published as House of Lords Paper 149.
In the view of the Law Society of Scotland, the reason that Clause 76 is “problematic, unnecessary and unacceptable” is that:
“The First-tier or Upper Tribunal is to be given powers to charge a person exercising rights of audience or rights to conduct litigation if that person is found to have acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently. Under current statutory”
law—for example, the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1980—
“and common law powers professional regulators have sufficient powers to deal with matters of professional discipline such as improper or unreasonable conduct. It is inappropriate that the determination of negligence should be included in the clause when that is properly the province of the civil courts. Furthermore, we note that any amounts charged under this clause for negligence are to be paid to the Consolidated Fund rather than to the client who may have suffered as a result of any alleged negligence. This appears to be a form of”
backdoor
“taxation rather than compensation for negligence.”
Through these two small amendments, I would like to understand better the thinking with which the Government have drafted these two clauses. Amendment 74 is consequential on Amendment 72, simply leaving out Clause 77 if the House was minded to remove Clause 76.
I am delighted to say that the House of Lords Constitution Committee, in its report of January this year, also quoted the Law Society of Scotland and said in paragraph 94:
“There is at least the potential that these new rules could discourage legal representatives and immigration advisers regulated by the office of the Immigration Services Commissioner, as well as applicants, from raising or engaging in legitimate proceedings.”
I would like to think that this was not the intention behind the government thinking, but I would very much like to hear reassurance from my noble friend the Minister that this is indeed the case.
To conclude, in the view of the Law Society of Scotland this clause is “unnecessary”; there are already existing statutory and common law powers for the appropriate regulators to deal with such issues as “matters of professional discipline” following existing complaints procedures; and it is therefore
“inappropriate that the determination of negligence should be included in the clause when that is properly the province of the civil courts.”
I also set out the Law Society of Scotland’s and my objection to the fact that this would be
“paid to the Consolidated Fund rather than”
towards reimbursing
“the client who may have suffered as a result of any alleged negligence.”
With these few remarks, I beg to move. I look forward to hearing the Government’s response.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, Amendments 72 and 74 are about First-tier and Upper Tribunals being given the ability to order a party to pay a charge in respect of wasted or unnecessary tribunal costs when
“a relevant participant has acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently, and … as a result, the Tribunal’s resources have been wasted”.
Why does such a charge not apply in civil or criminal cases? Is this yet another example of trying to deter asylum seekers from accessing justice and/or to deter lawyers from representing them, as the noble Baroness suggested? I can understand an order requiring one side to pay the other side’s costs, but not the court’s costs. If the Home Office has acted “improperly, unreasonably or negligently”, can the Minister confirm that it will be charged for the tribunal’s time, or is it just the applicants?
This change seems to set a dangerous precedent for the UK judicial system. If the Government were to maintain that they have no plans to extend this principle to other courts and tribunals, they must accept that this is a deliberate attempt to deter asylum seekers from seeking justice and/or to deter lawyers from representing them.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
We also think that the provisions in Clauses 76 and 77 are unnecessary and in fact ought to be removed from the Bill.
The Bill requires the Tribunal Procedure Committee to give the tribunals the power to fine individuals exercising a right of audience or a right to conduct litigation, or an employee of such a person, for “improper, unreasonable or negligent” behaviour. There are issues about wasted costs. As has been said, this change could certainly affect the willingness of lawyers and solicitors to take on difficult cases for fear of risking personal financial liability. As far as we are concerned, the immigration tribunals already have all the case management costs and referral powers that they need to control their own procedure.
In Committee I asked how many of the cases dealt with by the immigration tribunal over the last 12 months fall within the category of unreasonable behaviour, for which the Government would expect these costs orders measures to be activated. I thank the Minister for his letter in response, which states in the second paragraph that:
“It is not, however, possible to say how many cases dealt with by the Tribunal within this period fell within the category of unreasonable behaviour. This is because we do not hold data on the number of cases where behaviour or circumstances could have been considered unreasonable, but where no costs order was sought, or considered by the tribunal of its own initiative.”
I have to say that that letter simply confirms that the Government have no hard evidence to support their assertion that the provisions of Clauses 76 and 77 are necessary, because of the reasons set out in the letter, which I quoted and which indicate a certain paucity of hard evidence to support the Government’s position.
I will be interested in the Government’s reply to see whether they challenge my interpretation of the content of the letter of 3 March which the Minister was good enough to send to me. However, certainly, in the absence of a government response saying that their letter did provide the hard evidence to back up their view that the provisions of Clauses 76 and 77 are necessary, I must say that it is very difficult to understand why they are bringing forward the provisions outlined in those clauses.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Baroness McIntosh of Pickering for explaining her amendment. Government Amendment 73 is a technical amendment to Clause 77. It does not change the policy; it makes a minor revision to the drafting of subsection (1) of Clause 77 to ensure that it matches the rest of the clause in only making provision in relation to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber. This change will prevent any uncertainty arising about the jurisdictions in which this clause should be applied, and it gives the Tribunal Procedure Committee complete clarity about how to approach drafting the rules to enact these measures.
I turn now to Amendments 72 and 73. The Government are committed to making the immigration and asylum system more efficient, while also maintaining fairness, ensuring access to justice and upholding the rule of law. To achieve this, we need all representatives involved in these proceedings—whether they are acting for the appellant or for the Home Office—to play their part in ensuring that appeals run smoothly. Representatives do not just have a duty to act in the best interests of their client; they also owe duties to the courts and to the public interest, which include acting with integrity, upholding the rule of law and supporting the proper administration of justice. We are aware that there are concerns about the behaviour of some representatives in immigration proceedings, which can waste judicial and tribunal resource and lead to delays in the tribunal process. Existing case law identifies the types of circumstances and behaviours which have led to costs orders being made or considered, and the principles applied by the courts. These have included showing a complete disregard for procedural rules through, for example, abusing court processes in relation to evidence or the timing of applications. As with the current costs orders regime, the policy will apply equally to the representatives of both parties—in answer to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. This will include the Home Secretary when represented by presenting officers. To further ensure fairness, the paying party will be able to make representations before any order is made, and the tribunal retains absolute discretion as to whether a charge should be made in each case.
As I explained in Committee, tribunals can currently make wasted and unreasonable costs orders which relate to the legal costs of the parties. However, these mechanisms are generally only considered at the request of the other party and are infrequently employed. Clause 76 creates a new power for tribunals to order a party to pay an amount which represents a portion of the tribunal’s costs which have been wasted as a direct result of that party acting unreasonably, improperly or negligently. This power applies across all tribunal jurisdictions and is subject to the Tribunal Procedure Committee making rules for its application in a particular tribunal. It will allow the tribunal to make an order in relation to wasted tribunal resources in the same types of circumstances which would currently warrant a wasted or unreasonable costs order. An order can be made against “relevant participants”: this means legal and other representatives exercising rights of audience, and the Secretary of State where they are a party and do not have legal representatives. I hope that this goes some way to reassuring my noble friend.
To encourage increased consideration of whether to make costs orders, Clause 77 provides a duty on the Tribunal Procedure Committee to introduce tribunal procedure rules in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber. This will lead to judges more regularly considering whether to make a wasted costs order, an unreasonable costs order or a tribunal costs order under the new Clause 76 provision. This will ensure that circumstances and behaviours which have warranted the making of costs orders previously will more often give rise to judicial attention. While the requirement in Clause 77 is for the TPC to make rules in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber, it is at the committee’s discretion to create similar rules in other jurisdictions if it considers it appropriate. Specifically, Clause 77 requires procedural rules which identify circumstances or behaviours which, absent of reasonable explanation, the tribunal will treat as warranting consideration of the making of a costs order. The rules thereby introduce a presumption that requires the representative, or other relevant party responsible for such circumstances or behaviour, to explain themselves and why such a costs order should not be made. This will ensure the regular consideration of costs orders by the tribunal. More importantly, however, the tribunal will retain absolute discretion as to whether to make an order in all cases.
Noble Lords have asked whether this will mean fewer representatives willing to take on immigration work. The Government think it right that representatives should explain themselves if they are responsible for circumstances to be set out in the rules as warranting consideration of a costs order. However, where there is a reasonable explanation, no order would be expected. The tribunal continues to have full discretion as to whether to make the order. Therefore, these changes should not impact legal representatives who fulfil their duties to the court, remain committed to their work and ensure justice for their clients.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked why these changes are being made in the Immigration and Asylum Chamber and not in other jurisdictions. Obviously, the Nationality and Borders Bill as whole is focused on reforming the asylum system. Clauses 76 and 77 are part of a programme of reforms designed to streamline immigration and asylum appeals. There has been judicial concern, and a recognition that a problem exists with the behaviour of some legal representatives and other relevant parties in immigration proceedings. It is at the discretion of the Tribunal Procedure Committee to create similar rules in other jurisdictions if it considers it appropriate.
For the reasons I have outlined, I hope that my noble friend Lady McIntosh of Pickering feels able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
Before my noble friend sits down: I asked a specific question as to why the money raised will be paid into a consolidated fund. I listened carefully and I do not think I heard him respond on that point.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am afraid that I will have to come back to the noble Baroness on that point.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all those who have spoken. I detect the mood of the House is not to support these provisions but the hour is late, and we have a lot more business to come, so am reluctant to test the opinion of the House. At this stage—
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I am sorry for interrupting, but I have just been informed that the answer to the noble Baroness’s question is that it is standard practice.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
I am most grateful. If that is the case, I am surprised that the Law Society of Scotland is not aware of that, because it certainly did not respond in that regard.
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise my concerns. I would like another opportunity at some future date to pursue this further, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a drafting amendment that clarifies that, like the requirement in Clause 77(2), the requirement for Tribunal Procedure Rules to prescribe conduct of the kind mentioned in clause 77(1) applies only in relation to the Immigration and Asylum Chamber of the First-Tier Tribunal and the Upper Tribunal.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire
“Tier 1 (investor) visas: review report
Any replacement, successor or alternative visa scheme to the Tier 1 (investor) visa scheme must not come into operation until the Secretary of State has published and made publicly available the review of Tier 1 (investor) visas granted between June 2008 and April 2015.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Government to publish its review into Tier 1 (investor) visas granted between June 2008 and April 2015 before any replacement scheme can be brought into operation.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire (LD)
My Lords, I was not satisfied by the answer, and I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Alton of Liverpool
“British National (Overseas) visas: eligibility
(1) Within two months of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must amend the immigration rules to ensure that all persons meeting all the conditions set out in subsection (2) are eligible to apply for the British National (Overseas) visa. (2) The conditions in this subsection are that—(a) the person has at least one parent who is a British national (overseas),(b) the person was born on or after 1 July 1997,(c) the person is aged 18 or over on the date of application, and(d) the person is—(i) if applying to enter the United Kingdom, ordinarily resident in Hong Kong, or(ii) if applying for permission to remain, ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom, the Bailiwick of Guernsey, the Bailiwick of Jersey, the Isle of Man or Hong Kong.”
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to introduce Amendment 76, whose equivalent was moved in Committee but had its inception in the House of Commons. The amendment stands in my name and those of the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, so it is an all-party amendment. It affects BNO eligibility for visas for young people; that is, those who were born after 1997, whose parents qualify but they themselves do not. This was in many respects an omission from the original scheme. I declare my interests as a patron of Hong Kong Watch and as vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong.
The original plan was launched on 31 January as a bespoke immigration route for BNO status holders and their family members. It was something that we could all welcome, reflecting our moral and historic commitment; and, indeed, it has been a great success, with over 100,000 applications made to date. However, some 18 to 24 year-olds were unable to access this route. as your Lordships know, this amendment would enable individuals born on or after 1 July 1997 who have at least one BNO parent to apply to the route. As I said, the amendment had its genesis in the House of Commons. I pay particular tribute to the right honourable Damian Green for the work that he put into it, but also to the support of Lady May and other notable members of the Conservative Party, as well as the support of the Commons from all Benches on all sides, so this is bipartisan, and bicameral as well.
I pay a special tribute to and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, who has already been congratulated quite a lot today on her notable elevation to the Privy Council—perhaps because of what she did on this amendment. She and her noble friend Lord Sharpe have engaged very much with those who have signed this amendment. He has significant experience in Hong Kong, so this was close to his heart.
The noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, made a very memorable speech in Committee, which was followed by many people in Hong Kong, let alone in this country, and it says an awful lot that someone who has held such high office in the past is willing to commit so strongly to this, to show that his affection and commitment to the people of Hong Kong remain completely unchanged. Like me, he continues to be concerned about those who will not qualify for this scheme, but that is not the point of the amendment. It is something that others must step up to the plate to do something about, but I hope especially that those living in other Commonwealth countries can follow the example that the British Government have set in issuing a Written Statement which was the upshot of conversations that we had in Committee; the Government
“intend to lay the changes to the Immigration Rules in September with the changes expected to go live in October”.
The Written Statement also details the welcome programme led by the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. Its tone and what it says at the end I particularly welcome:
“We look forward to welcoming applications from those individuals who wish to make the UK their home”.
The Government have taken a positive approach. They have engaged constructively, and this decision is worthy of this country and its special relationship with Hong Kong. It will allow young Hong Kongers who were not eligible for a BNO visa to avoid languishing in the asylum system, unable to work or study. This change of policy will allow these young people to settle more quickly and enrich British society.
I do not need to say very much more, other than to comment on one development in Hong Kong this week which underlines why life has become so difficult for people such as Joshua Wong, Nathan Law and others to whom we referred in Committee. Paul Harris, the former chair of the Hong Kong Bar Association and a veteran human rights barrister, and a man of great standing, has had to leave Hong Kong after police questioned him. It marks another dark day for human rights and the rule of law in Hong Kong. His steadfast defence of Hong Kong’s beleaguered democracy and his opposition to the draconian national security law provoked the ire of the Chinese Communist Party and made him a marked man. For those young people who joined many of the protests and demonstrations, this scheme will literally be a lifeline. I hope that we will then use our standing to convince other countries to follow our example and do the same by extending these lifeboat provisions to enable settlement—other Commonwealth countries especially, such as Australia, New Zealand and Canada, which already have significant communities of people drawn from Hong Kong.
I hope that I have been relatively brief, since the House has a lot of other business to accomplish. I beg to move Amendment 76.
Lord Patten of Barnes (Con)
I support the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I will be even more brief. It may have been obvious that I have been able to contain my enthusiasm during much of the discussion of this Bill to within the bounds of public decorum, but on this occasion I want to say without any reservation how strongly I support what the Government have done.
We have a continuing moral responsibility to the people of Hong Kong. Hong Kong has been hit by a mendacious Government in Beijing—including Mr Putin’s best friend, we are now told—who have set about comprehensively and vindictively destroying the freedoms of a great and open society. It is particularly appropriate that we have recognised some of those who have been more affected, particularly with the charges that have been levelled at them in recent weeks around civil disobedience and freedom of speech. This amendment and the proposals of the Government will help those who have been most affected: the younger Hong Kongers who are the children of people already able to get a BNO passport but who unfortunately are in the group born after 1997. It is a very important amendment. I am delighted that the Government have accepted it and that they continue to assert our continuing moral responsibility for Hong Kong.
I expect, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said in our earlier debate, that the young people who come here will make a really significant contribution to this country. One day, I hope, they will be able to return to Hong Kong as a free society. That is not entirely in our hands, though the more we behave like a liberal democracy that believes in liberal democracy, the more likely it is to happen.
I am delighted that I am able on this occasion to say how much I support what the Government have done, and I look forward to doing so on many future occasions—there have not been quite enough in the past. Maybe that has been my fault or maybe the fault has lain elsewhere, but that is a subjective judgment. I thank the Government very much and hope they will continue to be as open-minded and gracious in the way they respond to good arguments.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I declare my position as the co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Hong Kong. I am in the rare position of congratulating the Government very warmly and thanking them for listening to campaigners, including on their own Benches, in taking this step for the younger people of Hong Kong who have at least one BNO passport-holding parent. I also join the noble Lord, Lord Alton, in congratulating the Government on the welcome programme for the BNO passport holders coming here. The APPG heard from the noble Lord, Lord Greenhalgh, this week and we appreciated his enthusiastic words on that programme.
I will make one extra point. The all-party group held an inquiry into the treatment of young medics and humanitarian workers in Hong Kong during protests. Those young people had to have their voices disguised to testify to us. I remember one of them, who as he was talking to us on the Zoom call was glancing at the door, saying, “I don’t know if the police will come through that door at this moment.” I have no doubt that some of those young people speaking to us had parents who were BNO passport holders, but some of them did not, yet they were young people who had made similar contributions to that society. My simple question to the Government is: will they in future, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton said, work with Commonwealth countries to see that all of those young people who have made brave contributions to democracy and the rule of law in Hong Kong are able to find a route out if they need to?
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I will even more briefly strike a slightly different note. This proposal—I know it has virtually gone through—is very unwise. We have a scheme which already applies to rather more than 5 million people. That is surely enough, and we should leave it at that.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I give the Liberal Democrats’ support for this amendment and pay tribute to the noble Lords, Lord Alton and Lord Patten of Barnes, for their repeated campaigns to support Hong Kong and in particular young Hong Kongers.
It is perhaps right that the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, is on the Front Bench when, for once, we are saying, “Actually, you’ve got this right”. So often, we seem to give her such a hard time, although we say, “We think that she is probably with us but having to give the government line”. The fact that the Government have now acknowledged the importance of supporting young Hong Kongers is very welcome. Alongside the privy counsellorship, we are very keen to welcome that.
I am afraid that these Benches disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington—actually, this is the right thing to do. It is not about to open the floodgates to mass immigration, but it does give an opportunity for young Hong Kongers who feel the need to come here to do so.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I express our wholehearted support for the amendment and the extension of the BNO scheme to young Hong Kongers. I congratulate all noble Lords around this Chamber, from all parties and no party, who have campaigned on this issue. I thank the Government for their decision and the progress that has been made, which has led to agreement all around the House.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
I thank noble Lords and pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, who tirelessly campaigns on this and other issues. I thank him for his kind words, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this short debate on Amendment 76.
We recognise that the BNO route is creating unfair outcomes for the families of BNO status holders, with some children able to access the route independently because they were old enough to be registered for BNO status, while their younger siblings, aged between 18 and 24, are unable to do so. That is why, on 24 February, the Government announced a change to the BNO route to enable individuals aged 18 or over who were born on or after 1 July 1997 and who have at least one BNO parent to apply to the route independently of their parents.
The policy change addresses the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and other Members of both Houses. It will ensure that we are addressing potentially unfair outcomes for families of BNO status holders and ensure that the UK meets its ongoing commitment to BNO status holders.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, I say that there are of course other routes for those who are not eligible under this particular scheme. We intend to lay the changes to the Immigration Rules in September, and they are expected to take effect from October.
In the light of these assurances, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, in the light of what the Minister has been able to say to the House, and of the debate and the excellent contributions from all who have spoken—including my noble friend Lord Green, with whom I have a good friendship but often disagree—I think that young Hong Kongers who come to this country will enrich our lives. I have seen for myself, in my own city of Liverpool, the great contribution that Hong Kong people have made over many generations. I know that these will be patriotic and loyal citizens, who will care for this country and enliven our society.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, and I am grateful to all who have spoken in tonight’s debate.
Lord Coaker
“Indefinite leave to remain payments by Commonwealth, Hong Kong and Gurkha members of armed forces
(1) The Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.(2) In section 68(10), after “regulations” insert “must make exceptions in respect of any person with citizenship of a Commonwealth country (other than the United Kingdom) who has served at least four years in the armed forces of the United Kingdom, or any person who has served at least four years in the Royal Navy Hong Kong Squadron, the Hong Kong Military Service Corps or the Brigade of Gurkhas, such exceptions to include capping the fee for any such person and their dependents applying for indefinite leave to remain at no more than the actual administrative cost of processing that application, and”.”
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will leave Amendment 78, in the names of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, and others, to them. I will speak to Amendment 77 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith.
We have been trying for some time to rectify the issue where those who have served our country are charged extortionate fees to settle here, among the communities that they have served. Since we debated this in Committee, the Government have moved a small way and announced that veterans who have served six years will no longer be required to pay visa fees for leave to remain. That is welcome but, frankly, not enough, and it is not what has been called for by the Armed Forces community and Members of both Houses, including some from the Government Benches.
The Royal British Legion said:
“Whilst we welcome the news that these fees will be waived for some Commonwealth Service personnel, this proposal still leaves many Armed Forces families facing severe hardship. We strongly urge the Government to go further and scrap these unfair charges for everyone who has served for at least four years and their immediate family members.”
Currently, a veteran who wishes to settle here with their partner and two children will be charged around £10,000, the vast majority of which is profit for the Home Office. The Government’s policy change amounts to a 25% discount, when a veteran has served over six years. Even in these cases, it will cost more than £7,000 for a family of four to settle in the country for which a veteran has risked their lives in service, and we ask the Government to look yet again at this—because I do not believe that they have got this right, and nor do many others.
It is not right for the Home Office to make a profit from veterans who are exercising their right to settle here with their children. This is not a party-political issue, and it is not an immigration issue; it is an issue of how we treat those who have served this country and how we fulfil our pledges in the Armed Forces covenant. I beg to move.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
I support Amendment 77, and I speak to Amendment 78 in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, and the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Coaker. I am very grateful for their support.
When I returned in Committee to this issue of fixing a date, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, spelt out a bit more fully than had the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, at Second Reading the Government’s position on this long-standing issue. He said:
“I can confirm that the Government will update Parliament … with the aim of implementing any changes by the end of this calendar year.”—[Official Report, 10/2/2022; col. 1965.]
He went on to say that this was not an “in due course” response, which as noble Lords will recognise is the way favoured by Governments avoiding a firm commitment. But is “with the aim of” any more convincing than “with a view to”, as expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, at Second Reading? Neither formulation is definitive; both are woolly.
I recognise that the Government seem at last to be willing to do more than give this issue active consideration, which has been their stated position and what they have been doing for the past six years. Noble Lords will recall that the issue has been raised by Members of both Houses, including by me in meetings with successive Home Secretaries and other Ministers, through Oral Questions and Questions for Written Answer, as well as by some of the veterans themselves over the past six years or more. Against that background, it seemed reasonable to require the statutory time for this finally to be settled and for the loyal veterans who have waited for so long to know by when they will receive the answer to their request.
I had hoped that this Government would not resist this straightforward and simple amendment. However, following helpful discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, I sense that the Government are really on the side of these loyal veterans, some of whom are watching on the Parliamentlive channel as I speak. If the Minister responds to indicate a firm commitment to them and gives a Dispatch Box assurance that the House will be kept informed of that progress, I think that the House will feel that at last there is a positive light starting to glimmer at the end of this long tunnel. If such an assurance comes from the Minister, I shall not divide on Amendment 78 this evening.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I rise to support both amendments, and again pay tribute to the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for bringing the issue of veterans who have served in her Majesty’s Armed Forces Hong Kong. There are some issues that come back to the Chamber again and again, and they come in different pieces of legislation and are responded to by different Ministers at different times. This is a case in point.
If the Minister is able to give reassurance to the noble and gallant Lord, then so much the better. I hope that even the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, does not think that granting citizenship or indefinite leave to remain to those who have served with Her Majesty’s Armed Forces in Hong Kong will be a dangerous route to go down, and that the Government really will give a sufficient response to Amendment 78.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to add my voice, albeit briefly, in support of both these amendments, particularly Amendment 78 in the name of my noble and gallant friend Lord Craig of Radley. Although his amendment is prescriptive in asking the Government to respond
“Within three months of the passing of this Act”,
I think he told the Minister that if an assurance can be given that, within a reasonable time of the Bill’s enactment, the Government will move on this issue, he would be happy not to divide the House. I agree with him about that and if that assurance can be given, it will surely meet the terms of his amendment.
We are not talking about large numbers—it not 5 million people—but people who have served the Crown. If anybody is vulnerable today as a result of the passing of the national security law in Hong Kong, it is surely people who have served the Crown. There is no question in my mind about the justice of what my noble and gallant friend is arguing for, but this is not the first time of asking; he has urged us to do something about this year in, year out—in good times and bad. I hope that the Government will take this opportunity to deliver in the Bill what my noble and gallant friend has asked for.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, as a retired second lieutenant who served in Borneo alongside Gurkha regiments, I am very happy to support these proposals.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have participated in this relatively brief debate. I will start by addressing Amendment 77, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, regarding settlement fees for non-UK members of our Armed Forces.
The Government highly value the service of all members of the Armed Forces, including Commonwealth nationals and Gurkhas from Nepal, who have a long and distinguished history of service to the UK here and overseas. That is why there are special immigration rules in place for our Armed Forces personnel that put them in a favourable position compared to other migrants, as I detailed last month during Committee. However, we recognise that the fees attached to settlement applications place a financial burden on our non-UK personnel, should they choose to remain in the UK after leaving the Armed Forces. That is why, last year, the Government consulted on waiving these fees altogether in some circumstances.
Following this, the Home Secretary and Defence Secretary announced on 23 February this year that the Government have decided to waive settlement fees, including administrative costs, for non-UK personnel in our Armed Forces who have served for six years or more, or are discharged due to an illness or injury attributable to their service, regardless of length of service. We are also extending the settlement fee waiver to undocumented veterans currently living in the UK who meet these criteria.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, asked me why it is six years, not four. I hope he will forgive the lengthy digression. Careful consideration was given to the number of years that should be used for the eligibility criteria. The initial policy proposal was for those who had served at least 12 years at the point of discharge, as the noble Lord acknowledged, but following the public consultation Ministers agreed that the eligibility criteria should be reduced to six years.
When considering the number of years’ service for the fee waiver, a balance rightly has to be made between value for money for the taxpayer and acknowledgement of the service of the individual. For example, it costs approximately £92,000 to train a soldier. Those costs cannot be discounted. Therefore, it was considered appropriate to set the eligibility criteria to those non-UK service personnel who have served for at least six years and wish to settle in the UK following service, given the significant outlay already invested by the taxpayer.
Four years is the minimum term of service that personnel must serve before applying for a discharge. It is important to note that there is no intention to change the option available to non-UK service personnel to make a paid application for settlement in the UK on discharge, as long as they have served a minimum of four years.
We recognise the strength of feeling from parliamentarians, service charities and the public about this issue, which is why it was decided to reduce the required length of service to be eligible, as I just said. It is estimated that the fee waiver may affect around 80% of non-UK service personnel. The Home Office is rightly focused on implementing this new policy at the earliest opportunity, the aim being for it to come into effect on 6 April this year.
I will digress again, because noble Lords also raised the issue of dependants. The Government believe that it is right and fair that fees and policies for non-UK family members of Armed Forces personnel are not more generous than those for dependants of British citizens and are applied consistently. Any decision to relax the fees or policies for non-UK family members of Armed Forces personnel could undermine current fees and the rules would be discriminatory.
Non-UK family members of Armed Forces personnel can apply for settlement once they have spent an initial five-year period in the UK with limited leave. The fees and policies that apply to the dependants of non-UK members of the UK Armed Forces are closely aligned with those that apply to dependants of British citizens and other settled persons under the standard family rules. Furthermore, reducing the fees for dependants of both non-UK and British Armed Forces personnel would be similarly discriminatory and unfair to those in other professions, many of whom face similar concerns and are contributing to the UK in other ways.
There is additional support for families in planning for the cost of visa fees. That is provided by things such as the Joining Forces credit union service for the Armed Forces. That was launched under the Armed Forces covenant in 2015, and it offers savings and loans schemes at fair rates through the payroll scheme. The issue raised by this amendment has largely been addressed by the recently announced government policy, which is due to be implemented in the near future.
I turn next to Amendment 78, tabled by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, regarding citizenship and settlement rights for British-Hong Kong veterans. I know he will listen to me extremely carefully, as indeed will those Hong Kong veterans watching live.
The Government remain extremely grateful for the contribution made by former British-Hong Kong service personnel. That is why the Minister for Safe and Legal Migration announced to the House of Commons on 7 December last year that the Home Secretary has identified an option that will enable our Government to treat this group of personnel in a similar way to other non-UK service personnel who were based in Hong Kong before the handover.
I appreciate that the noble and gallant Lord wants reassurance that the Government are taking concrete steps to further support British-Hong Kong veterans where possible. I can confirm that the Government will update Parliament by the end of June and implement any changes by the end of this calendar year. The Government remain committed to implementing a solution to the issue of British Hong-Kong veterans before the end of this calendar year, but I respectfully ask the House to give us the necessary space to do so.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will let the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, talk about Amendment 78 when we come to it, but, as one of the signatories, it would be churlish not to recognise the way the Government have moved on that issue.
With respect to Amendment 77, I appreciate that the Government again have made some movement on this but I do not think it is enough. It should be four years; that is what the demand is. I do not understand or accept the point the Minister made about the exclusion of dependants. Dependants should be included in any scheme we take forward. As such, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Oates
“UK immigration status: certification
(1) The Secretary of State must issue physical proof confirming immigration status to anyone who has been granted such status under the immigration laws of the United Kingdom and who requests such proof.(2) No fee may be charged for issuing physical proof under this section.(3) The certificate mentioned in subsection (1) must confirm that the relevant person has the relevant status.(4) The certificate mentioned in subsection (1) is valid for right to work checks, right to rent checks and all other checks that may be undertaken by agents within and without the United Kingdom to confirm the relevant person’s UK immigration status including permission to travel to and enter the United Kingdom.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would require the Government to issue a physical certificate to all people with a UK immigration status, allowing all those with such status to provide documentary proof.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 79 would require the Secretary of State to provide physical proof of immigration status to anyone who has been granted such status and requests such proof. The arguments for providing physical proof alongside digital status have been aired extensively in this House, most recently in the debates on the then Immigration and Social Security Co-ordination (EU Withdrawal) Bill, when your Lordships overwhelmingly supported a cross-party amendment to this effect for EEA citizens with settled or pre-settled status. I am heartened that this amendment has also received support from across the House, and I am grateful to all the signatories of it.
This amendment differs a little from my 2020 amendment in that it covers not just EEA citizens with settled and pre-settled status but also non-EEA citizens who have immigration status. That is because, despite the huge difficulties and anxieties caused by digital-only status, the Government have decided to extend it to non-EEA citizens who previously were able to use biometric residence permits, biometric residence cards or frontier worker permits.
Whatever the merits or otherwise of a digital-only system, one would imagine that before introducing such a radical change the Government would have undertaken extensive trials to check that the system worked and could be easily operated by those who had to use it. In fact, the Government conducted only one such trial in 2018, which concluded:
“There is a clearly identified user need for the physical card at present, and without strong evidence that this need can be mitigated for vulnerable, low-digital skill users, it should be retained.”
The Government ignored that finding and ploughed on.
A comprehensive document setting out many of the difficulties users have encountered was submitted to the independent monitoring authority by the3million in November last year, and I raised a number of specific concerns when we debated this amendment in Committee. These included problems with updating status when a person received a new passport, multiple errors in the view and prove system, and even immigration officials demanding physical proof of settled status.
The Government set up a settled status resolution centre, which, confusingly to everyone, works alongside the UKVI resolution centre. At the outset, those who received a letter telling them they had received settled or pre-settled status were not provided with any contact number at all if something went wrong. Subsequently, the letters included the number of the EU settlement resolution centre for people to contact—but many cannot even get through. Despite the Home Office asserting in meetings with stakeholders that callers who did get through to the resolution centre had to wait an average of 14 minutes, it could not or would not say how many did not get through, although it acknowledged that demand was managed. That seems to mean that callers were simply disconnected to keep waiting times down. For example, the transcript of a call made on 12 November 2021 and included in the submission to the independent monitoring authority showed that the call had been automatically disconnected regardless of the options chosen.
The full scale of the problem has come to light only recently, because until then the Home Office resolutely refused to provide detailed information on the performance of the resolution centre. In 2019, an FoI request to obtain this information was refused, on the grounds that the data was already planned for publication. However, as no such publication subsequently took place, a new FoI request was submitted in July 2021. After repeated follow-up requests, an internal review and a referral to the Information Commissioner’s Office, the information was finally published on 1 December last year. It immediately became clear why the Government had been so reluctant to publish the data, because it showed that, over the 12 months to October 2021, just 44% of the calls to the EU settlement resolution centre were successfully connected.
In response to all these difficulties and to the Government’s rejection of biometric residence cards for EU and EEA citizens with settled and pre-settled status, the3million made the constructive alternative proposal of a barcode system similar to the one we had for Covid vaccination status. The Minister responded to this suggestion in Committee by saying:
“He mentioned the QR code, and I totally agree; the QR code has worked brilliantly throughout the pandemic for certain things such as updating your Covid vaccination status. I will take that back to the Home Office and report back on any progress … but I support the whole principle of being able to use a QR code”.—[Official Report, 10/2/22; cols. 1981-82.]
At last, after so many years debating this issue, there seemed to be a glimmer of hope and some common ground.
How naive I was. Last Friday, the3million received a letter from the Home Office rejecting the idea of a barcode. It is four pages of bureaucratic obstructionism without any acknowledgement of the problem that needs to be addressed, the anxieties of those whom the policy affects, or any positive proposals about a way forward. It makes a whole series of inaccurate assertions that could easily have been corrected if those involved in determining the policy had engaged effectively with those affected by it, but they did not.
Having finally agreed to a meeting for the 3million to present the proposal, the Home Office then took eight months to respond to it and refused to hold an interim meeting with the group during that time to discuss progress with its assessment of the proposal. It then produced a wholly negative response that rejects the proposal out of hand on grounds that are simply wrong and could have been corrected had the interim meeting taken place.
The truth is that the Home Office had made up its mind before it had even begun. Unfortunately, this sort of response is not a one-off but part of a pattern of behaviour at the Home Office that was identified in the independent Windrush Lessons Learned Review—commissioned by the Home Office—which states on page 141:
“It is not clear that the department has learned the wider lesson that it should be engaging meaningfully with the communities it serves. The true test will be whether stakeholders, including those considered to represent critical voices, are firstly invited to participate in developing the department’s policies, and also in designing, implementing and evaluating them.”
The Home Office’s response to the barcode proposal makes it abundantly clear that this test has been comprehensively failed. At the heart of this issue is whether the Home Office is willing to listen to the users of its services and take on board their concerns, or whether Ministers and officials are impervious to them and simply determined to pursue their policy regardless of the consequences.
As I have said in all our previous debates, this is ultimately about people’s lives, the unnecessary difficulties and anxieties being imposed on them, and the Home Office’s seeming inability to recognise or empathise with those concerns. I hope that the Minister and her department will reflect on how their response fits into the wider cultural problems in the Home Office and come back with a proposal that will fix this problem, rather than continuing to pretend that it does not exist. I beg to move.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, I supported the noble Lord, Lord Oates, last time, as did the House, as he said, by an enormous majority. I did this because I was impressed by the postbag I got from people who argued that they would feel more confident, and that it would be easier to rent accommodation, open a bank account and so on, if they had some physical proof. I am sure that is the case.
The Minister then argued against me that there was a cost involved in doing as I asked and providing physical proof. I confess that she was probably right. There is no cost involved now if one follows the example of the QR code on the NHS vaccination app. That works brilliantly well, as she acknowledged in Committee, and I see no reason why it should not be applied here. There is no reason why one should not be able to download a document off the Home Office website, and present it—with the QR code on it—as the necessary authentication, thus avoiding the need for any biometric card. It seems to me that it is now genuinely cost-free.
Since it would provide considerable reassurance to a large number of people, I hope that this time the Minister will feel able to accept the amendment in the name of noble Lord, Lord Oates.
Baroness Shackleton of Belgravia (Con)
My Lords, I speak not only on my own behalf but on behalf of my noble friend Lady Altmann, who has had to leave the Chamber due to the illness of one of her children.
I sat on the Select Committee which investigated settled status. We interviewed, at length, as I have said before, the ambassadors for the other European countries. Each and every one of them identified as the most egregious problem the lack of giving their nationals with settled status physical proof. What was more abhorrent is that every English person living in their states was offered such physical proof.
As I am known to be speaking out on this, my inbox has been inundated with examples of people being stuck at airports, at hospitals and when renting. It is iniquitous, because the Government have failed to give any comprehensive, sensible, rational reason why they will not simply change their mind and look at this from the perspective of the people being disadvantaged by it. If I could be persuaded that it was just about money, I am sure that given the choice of having to buy physical proof for a small fee, most applicants would be more than happy to pay to give them peace of mind.
It is simply not good enough to rely on machinery. Machinery lets us down. Why do we have a centre outside the Chamber for when our voting system does not work? Why do we have back-up systems? What happens when the power goes down? What happens when people interfere with systems, which is probably going to happen in any war? What happens if you are dispossessed?
The Government should reflect seriously on how we welcome the many people who live in this country and who give their lives for this country. They are considered to be citizens equal to the people born here but they are disadvantaged by not having the simple provision of a piece of paper—a card, a passport, a driving licence or any other of the pieces of paper we carry around—with no viable explanation as to why it is refused. Please, can they change their mind?
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 79. I did not speak on this in Committee, but I did raise this concern in a question on 1 July last year. The Minister told me then that the Home Office had recently met with the3million—that was on 21 June—to discuss this in relation to European citizens. As the noble Lord, Lord Oates, has said, that was over eight months ago, so there has been a lot of dragging of feet.
The recent letter from the Home Office to the3million, with its rejection of the use of a QR code, is hugely disappointing. Perhaps even more disappointing is the fact that the response does not start from the premise that physical proof is a necessity—indeed, quite the opposite. It perversely insists on disputing what is a clear necessity for a significant number of citizens, as the3million would have explained carefully to the Home Office in that aforementioned meeting. In Committee too, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, gave many examples of where physical proof is necessary. We have just heard how noble Peers have had their inboxes inundated.
Whatever happens to this amendment, it is important that the dialogue between the Home Office and the3million continues. I know it has written to the Home Office today addressing every single one of the objections that the Home Office has raised concerning the proposal for the use of a QR code. If it would be helpful, is the Minister willing to meet a number of interested Peers, alongside a representative of the3million, to discuss a way forward?
A purely digital approach is not a panacea in this regard, even if the Government wish to believe it is. There needs to be the option of physical proof of status. I will certainly vote for Amendment 79 if it is taken to a Division.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oates, ran off an extremely impressive list of people and groups supporting this amendment for physical proof. I add the European Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House, of which I am a member, along with the noble Earl sitting on the Woolsack. Last year, when we examined the implementation of the settled status system, we unanimously recommended that physical proof be made available. That committee contains members of all parties in your Lordships’ House and none, and we had no hesitation whatever about the recommendation we made. This was after the evidence had come from the Covid barcode system that it could be done at nil cost and would give tremendous relief to people like me who sometimes struggle a little with the digital world in which we now live.
I really hope that the Minister will now go back and accept that providing this physical proof will greatly increase the respect in which this country is held by member states of the European Union, which have unanimously asked for this. It will do nothing but good for the individuals who get the physical proof and for this country, which will have shown that it listens to the views of others. I hope the amendment can be accepted.
Lord Sandhurst (Con)
My Lords, I am pleased to follow my noble friend Lady Shackleton’s speech.
We had the Windrush disaster because people got nothing in writing. That was a shameful episode; many people suffered badly and we are now paying large sums of compensation. That does not assist the taxpayer, but no doubt the civil servants 30 years ago did not think about that. It costs us all money now, so if nothing else think about the money for future taxpayers. I see no reason why we should risk a repeat of the Windrush disaster.
If a modest charge is necessary, so be it. People will pay £10 for a piece of paper or for registration costs, but what is that? They will have comfort and security. The Home Office’s reluctance to issue proof in documentary form for European citizens living here, minding their own business, is difficult to understand.
There will be personal disasters in future. They will be disasters in 10, 15 or 20 years for the individuals who, for one reason or another, are unable to prove that they are settled in this country when they come back from time abroad. I ask the Minister to think of herself and her children and grandchildren in that position. Decent people living in this country deserve to be treated decently.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise very briefly to say that the Green group would certainly have attached a signature to this motion had there been space. Like everyone else, my inbox has been utterly swollen with emails and letters about this.
I will make an additional point which no one else has. Travelling has now become much more stressful. There are extra stresses and worries. Not having a piece of paper just multiplies that. I draw here on my own example of helping an older gentleman to make some travels across the channel recently. He carries a whole wodge of printed-out Covid vaccine passports. Every time we travel, we must have a passenger locator form; there is huge stress until it is printed out. He is lucky enough to be a British citizen, so he then puts his passport with those printed-out pieces of paper, and there is a sigh of relief. However, there are additional difficulties if you do not have that piece of paper. In the case of this gentleman, several times recently the travel has gone wrong, his phone has run out of charge and he has been left relying on the kindness of strangers to pull through. However, if you need your phone to prove your settled status, that is not going to help. We cannot assume that people are always going to have charged, working devices with them. Just printing out a piece of paper would offer a level of assurance for travel in these difficult times.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I will not delay the House as we are all keen to complete Report stage. Having read Hansard for 3 am on 9 February, I felt that I must return to the charge on Amendment 82, which is eccentrically grouped with the high-profile Amendment 79.
The purpose of my amendment is to ensure that visa provisions can be included in future trade agreements only if they are specifically and separately approved by both Houses of Parliament. The need for this arises because of recent reports of plans to grant visas in trade agreements currently under discussion with India. I know that this has been a long-term aspiration for them. I believe that visas should be the subject of nationality law, such as this Bill. It should be separately agreed, and not bundled up into the CRaG process. Discussion in the CraG process will always look at an agreement in the round in the light of the interests usually concerned with such agreements. It certainly will not want to hold up an agreement for immigration reasons. Yet, as we know from WTO agreements, once provisions are in them, they are legally enforceable whatever happens. Given the population of some countries with which we are negotiating, I am very concerned.
The Minister was reassuring and suggested in Committee that any visa provisions would be confined to mobility issues affecting UK service suppliers seeking to go to India, and that this was precedented in the Japan and Australia agreements. In these circumstances, I cannot see why he cannot agree to my amendment—perhaps with a government tweak to make this explicit and/or to give a categoric assurance that visa provisions in any trade agreement will be confined to this area.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, obviously, these Benches wholeheartedly support Amendment 79 for the reasons explained.
I have some sympathy for the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, as far as Amendment 82 is concerned. One would hope that there would be cross-departmental working on trade agreements so that there would be no agreement to any visa deal without Home Office agreement. However, bearing in mind the apparent disagreement between the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence over the role of the MoD in the channel in relation to migrant crossings, I am not reassured. Perhaps the Minister can reassure the House on this issue.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I too will be brief. I was anticipating a more favourable response to Amendment 79 and the issue of the QR code. I was certainly taken aback to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Oates, that the Home Office has now rejected the bar code. I accept that the Government did not give any specific commitment in relation to the QR code when we discussed the matter in Committee, other than to say that they would take the matter back to the Home Office.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I am always worried that the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, will not get home, so if he wants to exit stage left, I will not be in the least bit offended. I am very keen that he gets his train.
On Windrush, that tragedy did not arise because people did not have a piece of paper. That problem arose because, through successive changes in immigration law over the years, Windrush was simply forgotten. Of course, it was at the time a declaratory system, but the problem did not arise because people did not have a piece of paper.
To return to Amendment 79, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Oates, will not be happy with what I will say. I hope that I can provide a comprehensive and sensible reason why, to quote my noble friend Lady Shackleton.
We provide all individuals who are granted UK immigration status with a formal written notice of their grant. It is in the form of a letter sent by post or email which sets out their immigration status. They can retain the letter for their own personal records and use it, if they wish, when contacting the Home Office about their status.
We took full account of the recommendation from the beta assessment of the Home Office’s “prove your right to work” service and have introduced a wide range of support to help vulnerable users as we roll out the e-visas, which are the secure, online services which can be used to view and prove immigration status. We are and have been implementing the change in an incremental way since 2018, to ensure that no one is left behind.
Those who struggle to use them can also contact the UKVI resolution centre, including by phone, for help using the service or sharing status on the individual’s behalf. We have also developed mechanisms which reduce the need for individuals to prove their status themselves when accessing public services: for example, benefits and healthcare. Status information is already shared automatically with HMRC and DWP and the NHS in England and Wales.
We published a policy equality statement in relation to the EU settlement scheme on 18 November 2020. The statement considered the impact of e-visas and set out the support available to users who need help. There are reports of incidents where the system may not have worked as it should have, but feedback on the e-visas and online service has been generally positive. Most users find it easy to use and it is aligned with other digital government services, such as DVLA services for renewing driving licences and paying vehicle excise duty. E-visa holders can check their status at any time by logging into the view and prove service; they can even contact the Home Office if they experience any issues with their e-visa.
The noble Lord, Lord Oates, previously referred to the Government’s intention to remove biometric residence permits, biometric residence cards and frontier worker permits from the lists of documents acceptable as part of a right-to-work check. We can do this because the online system works. The cards will remain valid for other purposes, including as an identification document and to board travel services when returning to the UK. As the noble Lord is aware and has mentioned previously, we have been considering the merits of introducing a QR code. As he said, I committed to take the matter back and discuss it with the Home Office. He is absolutely right: we have written to the3million, setting out why we do not think it is a viable option. We have had to consider a wide range of factors, not least that using this method in the context of demonstrating vaccination status is not equivalent to using it to show immigration status, since a person’s immigration status can change in a way that their vaccination status cannot.
The information on an insecure printed document, even one validated by a QR code, would not be a secure method of sharing and proving immigration status in a way that gives confidence to the user and the checker. We consider that it would open the system up to potential fraud and abuse because the QR code would not be sufficient to verify the identity of the document holder. We have looked into whether we could incorporate a facial image on to the QR code but found that the technology would not support inclusion of high-resolution facial images. It would not adhere to the principles of data minimisation, whereby only as much personal data as is needed for the checking purpose should be shared and accessible only for as long as required. The checker would require an app on an internet-enabled device capable of reading the code, whereas any internet-enabled device with a web browser can be used to check a share code. Our reply to the3million, which I will share with the noble Lord, has been published on its website and provides a full explanation.
Physical documents obviously expire—my parents insist on printing their Covid passes out, and sometimes they are near or at expiration—they can become invalid or be lost, stolen or tampered with, and they take time to replace, leaving our immigration system open to fraud and abuse. They do not provide that real-time information. Last year, UK Visas and Immigration received over 44,000 reports of lost or stolen biometric residence documents and issued over 22,000 replacement cards for those reported lost or stolen. Implementing this amendment would involve significant costs; they could well be over £270 million if we had to issue a physical document to everyone with an immigration status.
Our provision of a letter sent by email or post meets the need for a physical document showing a person what their immigration status is, and it can be kept for personal records. The ability to view and prove immigration status online in the form of an e-visa provides foreign nationals with the certainty that they need to demonstrate their rights in the UK now and in the years to come. I hope—although I doubt it—that I have reassured the noble Lord on his concerns. On the other point, I am very happy to meet any interested parties that wish to discuss this further.
I turn to Amendment 82 from my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble Lord, Lord Green, on trade agreements containing provisions on visas. We should recognise that the Immigration Rules and decisions about visa requirements are sovereign national powers which rest with the Home Secretary. I sympathise with my noble friend’s desire to retain national control over visa policy. We took back control of our borders when we left the EU and now have the freedom to set our own rules in the interests of the UK.
However, trade and immigration are separate policy areas and the UK does not routinely discuss immigration in trade negotiations. What comprehensive free trade agreements typically include is provisions on so-called mode 4 trade in services. These set the terms for the temporary movement of service providers between parties to the agreement. Immigration policy, as opposed to mode 4, is our overarching approach to long-term immigration and border controls.
I know my noble friend has expressed concerns about the Government’s negotiations with India on a free trade agreement. As is standard in UK free trade agreements, I expect we will explore mode 4 provisions, which could support British and Indian businesses and consumers, in our negotiations with India. This is not a one-way conversation. UK business stakeholders have identified mobility issues affecting UK service suppliers seeking to go to India, which we might seek to address in these negotiations. This is just as we have done in our free trade agreements with other partners such as Japan, Australia and the EU and would expect to do in any future comprehensive free trade agreements. But any agreement will be consistent with the points-based immigration system and we will not compromise the principles or functioning of that system.
I also want to note that Parliament already has appropriate involvement in the scrutiny of free trade agreements and their provisions through the CRaG process. The legislative framework set by CRaG provides Parliament with the opportunity to undertake scrutiny of an FTA prior to its ratification. I understand the point my noble friend raised previously that CRaG is a rather binary tool, but it would not be appropriate to have additional processes to consider individual issues within the agreement. Immigration is clearly an important issue but comprehensive trade agreements, by definition, cover more areas. It would not be practical or desirable to have carve-outs for individual issues; taken together, these could make the process of negotiating and scrutinising trade agreements lengthy and impractical.
While I agree with the thrust of my noble friend’s argument that robust scrutiny is critical, I cannot agree with the amendment. I instead point to the comprehensive processes we already have in place to ensure that Parliament has its say on trade agreements and, critically, that any changes to domestic law would need to be passed by this House in the normal way. I hope I have set out clearly for my noble friend why this amendment should not be pressed.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, is she confirming that any immigration negotiations with India will be confined to mode 4?
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. Given the lateness of the hour, I will not go into detail but just say two things. First, I have read the entirety of the Home Office letter to the3million group, most of which is wrong and could have been corrected if the Home Office had the decency to meet on an interim basis as requested. The Minister will have seen, or will see shortly, the comprehensive refutation of every point that she has made.
Secondly, it is all very well to say that the system works well for some people. For digital-savvy people, I am sure it is fine; but for people who are not digital-savvy, it is not. That is specifically what the pilot undertaken by the Government warned about. It said that the system should not be changed, as unless effective mitigation was put in place it would have a significant impact on vulnerable users. It is having a significant impact. I very much regret and am dismayed that the Home Office does not understand that and will not listen to the people who have to use it. On that basis, I would like to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe
“Duty to publish immigration data
(1) The Secretary of State must ensure that information is regularly published on immigration, including data on asylum and other immigration. (2) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the passing of this Act, review the International Passenger Survey conducted by the Office for National Statistics and in particular review whether the data that it collects are—(a) accurate, and(b) relevant for assessing the scale and nature of immigration to the United Kingdom.(3) The Office for National Statistics must update the International Passenger Survey in the light of the review.”
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, noble Lords will know the importance that I attach to numbers. This has become even more important as the number of refugees and migrants entering the UK increases, as they arrive perfectly legitimately from Hong Kong, Afghanistan and, unless disaster can be reversed, Ukraine. My Amendment 81 would require the Secretary of State to ensure that information is regularly published on immigration, including regular data on both asylum and other immigration. I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Green, and my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts.
Many years ago, I was the Home Office adviser in the Downing Street Policy Unit, and I discovered just how difficult it was to get up-to-date figures on the movement of people. The International Passenger Survey improved things, but although revived after a Covid break, it no longer includes the key questions on passenger arrivals or departures that the ONS needs to produce accurate statistics. Adequate data matters, whatever your position on immigration. It is vital to make provision for housing, schooling, health services and transport, and to prepare for other aspects of the care and employment of migrants.
We had a good and mature debate on Friday at the Second Reading of my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts’s Private Member’s Bill on the office for demographic change. Even if the Government were discouraging, a strong case was made for more and better work by the ONS and the Home Office on immigration and asylum data to aid long-term planning. However, today, local authorities bear the immediate impact of the need to look after migrants, and are therefore also in need of immediate and up-to-date data.
As things stand, we risk chaos when there is a surge of arrivals, yet the tone of the response in Committee, certainly in respect of asylum seekers crossing the channel, was to produce less data, including
“presenting data in a way that enhances the public’s understanding of key issues and puts the data into appropriate context, as well as the need to prioritise the department’s resources.”—[Official Report, 8/2/22; col. 1552.]
The Commons Library has produced a good report, dated 2 March, on asylum statistics, which perhaps unsurprisingly showed that in 2021 we saw the highest annual figure for asylum since 2003, up two-thirds from 2020, and that work in progress was 125,000 claims —far too high a figure. That is a lot of people waiting. I also picked up from discussions with officials that it was thought desirable to delay the logging of some immigration data for up to a year, to check whether those who had arrived remained.
My noble friend the Minister is always so helpful that I hesitate to be critical. However, taking all this together, it sounds like a move to less up-to-date data, more spin and fewer facts and figures on which to base sound policy. Knowing the Secretary of State as I do, I am very disappointed and wonder whether this is fully understood by her. In any case, I call on my noble friend the Minister for more reassurance.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 80, which I have co-sponsored. The problem is that Covid has sent immigration statistics into a tailspin, to which the Government’s response has made matters worse. As I understand it, the Government suspended the International Passenger Survey that took place at all airports when Covid struck, mainly to protect the staff, who would normally have been interviewing people all day. That is fair enough. It was also the case that the number of international passengers fell through the floor, so it was not much of a guide to levels of immigration.
All this roughly coincided with efforts by the ONS to use existing statistical data to estimate migration flows. That effort has already run into trouble. In any case, it is by definition a year late because it relies on statistics that are looked at every 12 months.
The purpose of the amendment is in effect to call for the reinstatement of the International Passenger Survey, improved where possible, so as to have a clearer and more up-to-date indication of where we stand. I need hardly remind the Government that they promised to “take back control” of immigration. At present, they have very little idea of the present scale of immigration, and when they do find out they are likely to have an unpleasant surprise, with very little time to adjust their policy before the next election. That is their problem.
I will also speak briefly on Amendment 81, which concerns people crossing the channel. The Home Office has announced that it will publish the statistics on only a quarterly basis. I hope that is wrong and that the Minister will be able to say that it will be much more frequent than that.
There seems to have been a kind of fix between the Office for Statistics Regulation and the Home Office, whereby it was agreed that quarterly publication would ensure that the statistics were
“put into the longer term and wider immigration and asylum context and so better support the public debate and understanding”.
Well, “weasel words” does not describe it. What they are actually doing is insulting the public’s intelligence. If they go on with that policy, they are simply trying to keep the facts from the public on a matter of considerable public concern. So it is not surprising that a number of MPs have actually attacked this move, with one calling it an attempt to cover up failure while another said that it was “burying bad news”. I regret to say that that may very well be an accurate statement of the position. The Government clearly have a serious problem here, exacerbated by their previous promises, but they will have to deal with it, and deal with it honestly.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I have put my name to Amendment 80, which I am pleased to support—and I also support Amendment 81 very strongly as well. My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe is a demon for data, as she has just demonstrated in the House, as a basis for good decisions and keeping the public well informed about what is going on around them while avoiding rumour and anecdote, which takes us to a bad place, particularly in areas as sensitive as immigration. Therefore, I particularly share her view, and the view of the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, that the Government’s decision to reduce transparency about the flow across the English Channel is regrettable. It is clearly an area of considerable public concern and, for better or worse, we will not solve it by not publishing the figures—that is likely to make it worse.
I shall add one thing on the international passenger survey, when we come to relaunch, refocus and redesign it. I was once questioned as part of that survey, when I was travelling through Heathrow, and I was very pleased to answer the lady, who was very good and helpful. I went on and talked to her a bit about her job, and I can offer the House three take-aways. First, under no circumstances do you cross-question; so if someone says that they are coming here to be a plumber in Cardiff, a plumber in Cardiff they are—there is no question of whether they might be something else. That is not your job; you just write that into the form. The second was that you tended to have a predominance of older people answering the form. She said that younger people would be in a hurry, pushing on, and they tended not to want to stay and answer her questions —or there were not many of them. Older people seemed to have more time and, therefore, she felt that the survey was biased towards older people. Thirdly, and finally, on the issue of the early morning or transcontinental flights, known as the red-eye flights, unsurprisingly those people coming off those flights did not want to answer a survey—they wanted to get to a shower, a bed or their office. She told me that so difficult had it been that they had started reducing the number of staff who were on the early shift, and they brought full staffing on at about 8.30 am or 9 am, when people were in a more helpful mood—perhaps that is the best way of putting it.
I leave it to the House, and to my noble friend the Minister, but with that sort of anecdotal background, this can hardly be a system that inspires confidence as to the accuracy and value of the data that it collects. If we are going to relaunch it, we need to think much more clearly about how we are going to gather data in a way that creates confidence and trust.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak in support of Amendment 80 and, partially, Amendment 81. On Amendment 80, it is common sense—and would be helpful to all sides of the debates on this Bill that arose in Committee and on Report—that we should know more. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, has said, whatever our analysis or principles, we would all be helped if we had reliable data in the public square on asylum and immigration because we could then perhaps do some myth-busting.
When you talk to people outside of this House, there are a range of responses to this issue and, indeed, to our discussions here on the Bill. There is some perception that borders are open, and that there are too many people flooding into the UK for society to cope. Some people will even go so far as to say that we are full. I do not think that we are full but, as far as some are concerned, it looks as though we are being overwhelmed. They use the evidence of their own eyes, watching people crossing the English Channel weekly, sometimes daily, with a perception that nothing is being done. I know that this Bill is trying to do something about precisely that, but the perception is that all these people are coming in and nothing is being done.
I have said before that I do not believe that the people making those observations in public are motivated by xenophobia. I have a number of observations. The UK may not be full—it is not full—but if you live in one of the many towns where there is a chronic housing shortage, you are near the top of the housing list and then you get bumped, you may have a perception that it is to do with immigration because some refugees have been given housing. British citizens from all ethnicities can become frustrated and can feel as though there are indeed too many people coming to the UK. We need to have the figures to be able to refute that, or to do something about it. Also, as it happens, you need the figures to plan how we can get more housing and deal with the lack of services—because, actually, the problem is not too many people but not enough services. We need to know, and that is why the data would be helpful.
My second point is about lack of trust, a sense that those in authority are not prepared to tackle this issue; that it is too difficult. Often, that takes the form of people believing that lies are being told about the figures and the real numbers are being hidden. It is in all our interests in restoring trust that we are not hiding any figures. Also, confusion remains over different categories of people wanting to come to the UK. Even in this House, throughout this debate there has been slippage in talking about migrants, immigration, asylum seeking, refugees and so on; they are all too often conflated.
This is further confused by reality. For example, in my view, there are not enough opportunities for unskilled economic migrants to make their life here. I have to persuade my fellow citizens of that; they do not necessarily agree. Regardless, many undoubtedly present themselves as asylum seekers here because of the confusion. I know that it is not a clear picture; none the less, it would surely help to detoxify the issue if politicians were open and honest. That would mean our having much more granular information about the numbers of all types of people living in the UK and their status here.
Finally, I have reservations about Amendment 81 asking for weekly figures of the numbers entering the UK across the English Channel. My reservations are based on the image of some ghastly nightly announcement like those Covid death announcements, which were so often demoralising and not necessarily very reliable. I do worry about scaremongering, or that stats might be used as a substitute for analysis or context, but, on balance, I believe that sunlight is the best disinfectant and the more information in the public realm, the better. This is not because I am particularly enthusiastic about data or into number-crunching, like some other noble Lords. No nation state can claim to have meaningful sovereignty if it does not know or check, or has no control over, the number of people living within its borders. It comes over as indifference to the worries of people who are already citizens here if it looks like we are being evasive about those numbers, or not openly telling them the truth.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I hope that I do not disappoint noble Lords, but I generally agree with all the speakers before me, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley. We agree with Amendment 80 in principle, in that there is a definite need for accurate immigration data. In particular, the public need to know what net immigration to the UK is—that is, the number coming into the UK set against those emigrating. In particular, they need to know how many of those are seeking refuge from war and persecution, such as those trying to come to the UK from Ukraine, and how many are effectively economic migrants, whether workers or students, who make a contribution to the economy as either workers or consumers. The former—genuine refugees—arguably have a stronger case for coming to the UK than those who want to further themselves or their careers. As I have said numerous times, in recent years only six in every 100 immigrants have been refugees.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I thought that I would short-circuit the process. The noble Lord said that Covid had sent immigration into a tailspin. Certainly it has distorted the immigration figures and, although refugee numbers were high in 2021, as the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, said, that is because they were much lower in the previous two years because of Covid.
The International Passenger Survey is not the vehicle by which accurate immigration figures should be counted, as the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, said. The IPS conducts between 700,000 and 800,000 interviews in a normal year, of which over 250,000 are used to produce estimates of overseas travel and tourism, so I do not even think that it is intended to be an accurate measure of people coming here to live, as such. As the noble Lord said, the people who conduct these surveys come up to you with an iPad and ask you a series of questions, none of which is verified, and participation is voluntary. This is hardly a basis for accurate migration figures.
Can the Minister please tell the House how the Home Office keeps track of those entering and leaving the UK, particularly those entering visa-free from the EU/EEA and the 10 other countries whose nationals can now use the e-passport gates? In particular, how do the Government keep track of how many of those leave at the end of the maximum six-month period? Can the Minister also explain why citizens of the United States, say, can enter visa-free and use the e-passport gates but UK citizens cannot do the same when entering the United States? I thought that we were taking back control of our borders.
Amendment 81, as drafted, would include those crossing the channel by ferry and by Eurostar legitimately, which is not quite what the noble Baroness was seeking to achieve.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will briefly say that, like the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, I agree with most of what many noble Lords have said. The need for accurate immigration data is absolutely fundamental to any discussion on this issue. The noble Baroness, Lady Fox, made this point: one of the things that is important is to distinguish clearly between immigration, asylum and migration. All that gets conflated into one, which is not helpful to the debate or the discussion, and it simply confuses people. It would be interesting to hear from the Minister the Government’s position on data. Irrespective of the debate that we will have about policy, if we are going to build trust, that data basis is essential not only for the public but for us to understand the policy prescriptions that we will debate between ourselves.
This is in line with Amendment 81 of the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe: on trust, whatever the rights and wrongs, the decision of the Government to abandon the daily figures for migrants crossing the channel was a disaster in public relations terms, because people knew that the Government were failing on it. It was going up and up, and the Government were making prescription after prescription, in terms of policy, to try to deal with it. In the end, they brought the MoD in, in a confused way where we are still not sure how that is meant to work, and they are going to quarterly figures. What people say to me, and what I think—to be perfectly blunt, although I am not a cynic—is that the Government would not have acted as quickly as that if the numbers were going in the right direction; that is what people think. If people think you hide figures when they are bad, and publish them only when they are good or meet your policy objectives, it is no wonder there is distrust among the public about official statistics.
The amendments before us are absolutely essential. They ensure that we have data which is accurate, objective, allows us to make decent policy decisions, and is a basis for our debates. Can the Minister say something about what the Government’s policy is on data? Also, what is happening with respect to the migrants crossing the channel? What is the figure today, compared to what it was a couple of weeks ago? When can we expect the next figure? When the Government are seeking to build trust in passing the Bill—controversial in its own right—why on earth have they taken the decision, which is hard to comprehend, to produce figures on a quarterly basis? It simply looks as though they are hiding bad news.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their amendments and their participation in this debate. I note that their interest lies in ensuring that the Secretary of State publishes regular data on a range of areas on immigration. I acknowledge the importance which my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe attaches to statistics, and I acknowledge the important work which the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, has carried out over many years, which serves to inform debates not only in the public sphere but in this place.
I assure the House that the Home Office provides a wide range of immigration data on a regular basis and has done for many years. This includes information on many parts of the immigration system, including the asylum and resettlement systems, returns and detention, and other areas such as visas and citizenship. All this demonstrates our commitment to ensuring that the public have the information they need to understand migration trends, and that the approach to small boat arrivals is in line with these other statistics on the immigration system.
The Home Office reviews the statistics that it publishes as a department, in line with the Code of Practice for Statistics. Where it is clearly in the public interest to do so, it will publish new statistics and amend existing statistics to ensure they continue to provide transparency around key government policies. However, we must weigh up the need for more statistics against other considerations. This includes the practicalities and costs of producing resilient, assured data derived from operational systems, presenting that data in such a way as to enhance the public’s understanding of key issues, and putting the data into appropriate context, as well as recognising the need to prioritise the department’s resources.
Amendment 80 would require reviewing and updating the International Passenger Survey by the Office for National Statistics. I emphasise that the ONS is a statistical agency, which is independent of government, and whose work is overseen by the UK Statistics Authority. While the Home Office publishes statistics in relation to the operation of the immigration system, the ONS is responsible for the national migration and population estimates. It would be inappropriate, I submit, for politicians to interfere with or seek to direct the National Statistician in his statistical duties.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe and the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, referred to the International Passenger Survey, as did my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbots. Prior to April 2020, the Office for National Statistics used this to measure migration but it is important to note that, as your Lordships have heard, it is no longer used for that. While the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, calls in effect for the reinstatement of the IPS, I have to advise the House that it was the ONS that concluded that the IPS had failed to meet changing user needs. It did not tell us what we needed to know about migrant patterns or give us enough detail to get a robust understanding of migration. I happily adopt the useful points made in this regard by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick.
As acknowledged by the noble Lord, Lord Green of Deddington, the IPS was paused during the pandemic. The Office for National Statistics is instead working on producing statistics that will tell us more about migrant patterns. This is a work in progress but it should better meet the needs of policymakers. It is experimental statistical work, and we do not yet know whether it will provide robust answers, but the Home Office is committed to supporting ONS statisticians in exploring every avenue. We need to ensure, as I think the House agrees, that we have a clear understanding of such issues and their implications for the data before we publish anything or we risk doing precisely what the noble Baroness, Lady Fox of Buckley, said we risked: misleading the public and undermining faith in statistics, rather than enhancing the public’s understanding of such important matters.
In relation to Amendment 81, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, from the Opposition Front Bench and others have pressed us on the alteration or the presentation of small boat statistics. Following advice from the independent UK Statistics Authority on making sure statistics on small boat crossings are published in an orderly way, the Home Office published a new statistics report on irregular migration to the United Kingdom. The report, which includes statistics on those arriving across the channel in small boats, was published for the first time on 24 February, covering data up to December 2021. We will update on a quarterly basis.
The decision to publish small boats figures in a quarterly report ensures regular statistics are released in an orderly, transparent way that is accessible to everyone, meeting the principles set out in the code of practice for statistics. The approach has been particularly important in allowing us to present small boats data in the wider context of longer-term trends, other methods of irregular entry and the immigration system more widely, and hence to provide statistics on a more sound basis. Where it is clearly in the public interest to have more frequent releases of information, we will consider this, as we have done with the EU settlement scheme, on which we publish statistics monthly.
In the case of small boats, publishing frequent updates will not provide sufficient time to collate the data collected in the field by operational staff and integrate that with the information from the asylum applications. Nor will it allow us to perform the robust assurance processes we undertake for our wider published statistics. This increases the risk of incomplete or incorrect data being put into the public domain.
The motivation for these changes is not to obfuscate or conceal. It is an attempt to provide more useful statistics —not to hide figures but to provide more assured data. Given that assurance, I ask the noble Lord and the noble Baronesses to withdraw their amendment.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his comments, although I have to confess a sense of disappointment. Cutting resources and costs devoted to immigration data, whether by the ONS or the Home Office, may prove to be a false economy, and I am not convinced of the case for moving to quarterly reporting on small boats. It feels a little bit like hiding the story.
However, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their welcome support. I think we are all agreed on the need for accurate and reliable data on asylum and immigration, and on small boats and both directions of travel. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, we should respect the principle that sunlight is a powerful disinfectant. It should help to build trust but, for now, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 80.
“Fees
(1) Section 68 of the Immigration Act 2014 is amended as follows.(2) After subsection (9), insert—“(9A) Notwithstanding subsection (9), in setting the amount of any fee in relation to registration of British citizenship the Secretary of State—(a) must not set that amount at a level beyond the Secretary of State’s estimation of the administrative costs of the function to which the fee relates,(b) must have regard to the need to promote British citizenship as the nationality of all persons connected to the United Kingdom and British overseas territories citizenship as the nationality of all persons connected to the British overseas territories, and(c) may have regard only to—(i) the costs of exercising the function,(ii) fees charged by or on behalf of governments of other countries in respect of comparable functions, or(iii) any international agreement.” (3) After subsection (10), insert—“(10A) Fees regulations must provide that no fee is to be charged for—(a) the registration of any child who is looked after by a local authority, or(b) the registration by statutory entitlement of any person to correct any historical legislative unfairness.””
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, it gives me great pleasure to move Amendment 83. I say at the outset that I shall neither speak to nor move Amendment 84. I take this opportunity to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for their support for this amendment.
The attraction of this amendment is that, after this matter was raised in Committee, it marries together two separate ideas—one pressed so eloquently by a long-standing campaigner on these issues, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and the other by me in a separate amendment. I say how delighted I am that we have the support of the Constitution Committee of this House in its HL paper 149 of January this year. Paragraph 15 states clearly:
“Clause 1 provides that a person is entitled to be registered as a British overseas territories citizen if a number of conditions are met. This clause corrects the historical inability of mothers to transmit citizenship. It is unclear what fees will be charged for registration applications under this clause and similar provisions”
in later clauses. It goes on:
“In a recent case the Court of Appeal held that a fee of £1,012 for certain registration applications by children was so high as to be unlawful.”
In paragraph 16, the Constitution Committee therefore requests:
“The Government should clarify its intentions on the amount of fees to be charged under clauses 1, 2, 3 and 7.”
Amendment 83 deals specifically with Clause 1. In the amendment, we state that no fee can be set above the cost to the Secretary of State of registration and that the cost must be set having regard to the vital importance of rights to citizenship by registration, securing the shared connection of all British persons; can be set only having regard to the specified principles; must not be charged to register the right to citizenship of
“any child who is looked after by a local authority”;
and must not be charged to register the right to citizenship of any person under a statutory provision specifically intended to correct past legislative discrimination or injustice that had wrongly excluded that person from citizenship.
It is clear from the Explanatory Notes—I entirely endorse this—that the purpose of Clause 1 and the whole of Part 1 is to correct a historical wrong, saying:
“This clause creates a registration route for the adult children of British Overseas Territories citizen … mothers to acquire British Overseas Territories citizenship”.
The wrong is that:
“Before 1 January 1983 children could not acquire British nationality through their mother. While registration provisions have since been introduced to rectify this issue for the children of British citizens (section 4C of the British Nationality Act 1981), this was not changed for children of”
British Overseas Territories citizens.
I am sure your Lordships would agree that charging £1,012 for a child and £1,126 for an adult to be registered as a British citizen is prohibitively expensive when the cost to the Home Office of registration, as estimated by the Secretary of State, is only £372. It could lead to many in this position not seeking registration because they cannot afford the fee. I ask my noble friend the Minister to tell us, in summing up the debate, where people—particularly children but also adults—will be expected to find the fee.
The remaining £640 in the case of a child, and more in the case of an adult, is money raised by the Home Office from the process that these British children and adults must go through to secure their citizenship rights. I do not know whether that is an unintended consequence of the way the fees are structured, but it does not seem fair to me.
In the case of PRCBC and others v SSHD, in February 2021, the Court of Appeal emphasised that for many
“children of a single parent on state benefits. it is difficult to see how the fee could be afforded at all.”
In its judgment handed down on 2 February 2022, the Supreme Court emphasised that these findings are not disputed. The court has similarly emphasised the importance of citizenship to a person’s identity and sense of belonging, and to their capacity to fully participate in social and political life. The Supreme Court Justice ruled that this a political decision, and I put it to the House this evening that it is now for us to rise and respond to the challenge and make sure that, as this is a matter of policy that is for political determination, we put it right this evening.
In conclusion, this is a very modest amendment. It seeks simply to remove the power to use the function of registering British people’s citizenship to raise money to pay for the immigration system and to restrict any fee that is charged to cover the estimated costs of registration. It does this by amending the powers in Section 68 of the Immigration Act 2014 to clearly distinguish rights to be registered as a British citizen from the many and diverse Home Office immigration functions to which those powers also apply. These people have lived their whole lives in this country and essentially have nowhere else to go. I do not believe that it is right that this fee should cause a barrier to them obtaining full citizenship, which, in my view, is their right.
As I said earlier, the amendment also precludes registration fees being charged in two specific cases. Local authorities should neither be charged nor discouraged from acting to secure the citizenship rights of British children whom they are looking after. Further, where a right of registration is provided to correct this historic injustice in British nationality legislation, the only fee should be to cover the process of that application.
With those remarks, I hope that this amendment will find the favour of the House and not just of those have who co-sponsored it, thereby correcting a historic injustice and ensuring that those who are entitled to this will actually be able to afford it. I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for tabling these amendments. I welcome her to the noble band of terriers who have been snapping at the Home Office’s heels on the issue whenever the occasion arose.
In Committee, the Minister, who to be fair is new to the issue, tried some of the old, discredited arguments. Notably, he referred to the
“sustainability of the system and fairness to the UK taxpayer.”
When challenged, he acknowledged that the system to which he referred was the migration and borders system. Once again the Home Office is conflating citizenship with immigration. We still await a convincing reason as to why children who were born or who have grown up in this country should be subsidising the migration and borders system. Moreover, the distinction between this group and taxpayers is simply not valid, as the children’s parents are already taxpayers and the children will be in future and may already be paying indirect taxes.
The Minister also tried to reassure us that there are a number of exceptions to application fees which protect the most vulnerable, including young people who are in the care of a local authority and applying for limited or indefinite leave to remain. However, the exceptions apply only to leave to remain, and when challenged he accepted the distinction between citizenship and leave to remain, saying:
“There is no arguing about that at all.”—[Official Report, 27/1/22; col. 469.]
When challenged again later, he assured me that he would not try the argument again today. Now that both he and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, have accepted that that argument will not wash in this House, and the importance of citizenship has been a thread running through the debates on the Bill, I hope he will not attempt to use the argument again this evening.
In Committee, the Minister also promised to write in response to a number of questions on the best interests review, for which we have been waiting, like Godot, for a good year since the Court of Appeal ruled that the current fee is unlawful because of the failure to take account of the best interests of children under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act. I am grateful to him for the letter, although I found it a bit confusing. However, as the noble Baroness said, at least we now have the Supreme Court judgment, which did not dispute the best interests finding, and the Minister’s letter confirmed that the best interests Section 55 review will be published. My understanding is that it will be published by early May. Can he confirm that and say whether it will include a race and disability equality assessment? Can he also give an assurance that Parliament will be given an opportunity to debate the review report?
It is difficult to believe that a fee of over £1,000 is in the best interests of any child who has to pay it, given the evidence of the insecurity, alienation, exclusion and isolation it can cause, as noted by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court judgment found that, best interests aside, as the noble Baroness said, it is for political determination to limit the Home Secretary’s discretion in setting the fee level. The Bill gives us the opportunity to so determine politically.
Noble Lords have frequently cited the former Home Secretary Sajid Javid, who described the fee as “huge”. Less well known is that, just shortly before becoming the current Home Secretary, Priti Patel also questioned the level of the fee, according to a Times report, and indeed the Minister accepted that it is “a lot of money”. We have an opportunity this evening—or rather, this morning—to end the long-standing injustice created by this huge fee that has served to exclude thousands of children from their right to register as citizens. I hope we will take it.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I am very pleased to speak at this time of day in favour of this amendment, which was so ably moved by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I have spoken at earlier stages, so I do not need to detain the House for very long this evening. I have spoken not just on earlier stages of the Bill but over the years about the injustice of this extraordinary sum of money being charged in citizenship fees, especially in the case of children, as we have just heard. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, I was struck by Sajid Javid’s own remark about the huge cost of placing such a large amount of money on the right to become a British citizen—over £1,000.
I gave a witness statement to the High Court about what the intentions of the 1981 legislation actually were. I served in another place then and I spoke in the debates in the House of Commons at that time. The Government of the day—a Conservative Government—rightly wanted to ensure that every person in this country saw themselves as a British citizen and gave them routes to achieve that status. I think that the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister of the day would be horrified at the idea that we would try to make money out of this process and thereby exclude people who ought to become British citizens from being able to do so. I particularly draw the attention of the House to proposed new subsection (2)(c)(i), as inserted by Amendment 83, which deals with the costs of exercising the function.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, in rising to support Amendment 83, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, to which I have added my name along with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, I declare my interests as set out in the register.
I set out my reasons for supporting this amendment in Committee. We should simply not have a situation whereby people, including children, are excluded from the citizenship to which they are eligible because they do not have funds. It is nonsensical for the Government to put up a barrier to people being, and feeling, fully part of our society. The Government rightly talk about the importance of integration, community cohesion and levelling up. This policy works against all three of those.
Being a British citizen is completely different from indefinite leave to remain, and this must be constantly recognised. If people are eligible to be citizens, cost should not be a barrier. The registering of British people’s citizenship should have no revenue function, and fees should be removed altogether for children in care and for those whose registration is provided to correct a historical injustice.
I simply urge the Minister to hear the strength of feeling in the House, accept this amendment and deal with it once and for all.
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I am wholly familiar with Governments siphoning off funds raised for one purpose and using those funds for a quite different purpose. I was particularly conscious of that during my years as president of the Civil Court Users Association, when the Government collected very large funds on the issue of writs and the other issues needed in the litigation process, and then used that money in a quite different sector of the court system.
I am also familiar with the disproportionate fees, compared to the administration costs, involved in the process of obtaining British citizenship. The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, has already given examples of that which I willingly adopt. I am aware too of this problem for a rather more personal reason, in that young members of my family, who have very little resource, have been in the process of obtaining British citizenship and have been heavily penalised—not by £1,000 but by £2,000 and more. They were young, and the family were able to provide the necessary support. But that is an example of the rampant unfairness.
My recollection—I cannot put my finger on it exactly—is that one of your Lordships’ committees recently investigated this problem and issued a report, in which it said specifically that the correct level of fees involved in the obtaining of British citizenship should be based on the administration cost and nothing else. However, the practice continues, and the provision contained in this amendment to Section 68 of the Immigration Act 2014 is very well drafted and sets out precisely what should be done. It reads as follows:
“in setting the amount of any fee in relation to registration of British citizenship the Secretary of State … must not set that amount at a level beyond the Secretary of State’s estimation of the administrative costs of the function to which the fee relates”.
There cannot be a fairer or more precise way of addressing the problem, and I congratulate the tablers of this amendment on the care and precision with which they have done it.
Since I have not tabled this amendment, it is not for me to make the decision about whether a Division should be called. That is a matter for those who have brought it forward. I look down at the leaders of my own party to see how they are going to participate in this issue—we have not heard from the noble Lord on my side what position my party is taking.
I would, however, discourage a Division at this time of night. Certainly, when I was last in the House, a number of years ago, if you put forward an amendment at Report and it had been defeated in a Division, you were not entitled to take it further—to Third Reading, for example. The fact is that those who will be voting in whatever Division is called are not in this House and have not listened to the arguments. It is a kind of routine form of voting, not the measured form of voting that happens after listening to the arguments.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I am afraid I have to plead guilty as charged to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, since I was chair of the committee on citizenship and citizenship engagement that he was referring to, which had among its extremely able members the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and my noble friend Baroness Eaton.
We came across this issue, so I have some sympathy with the direction of travel of this amendment. In simple terms, while our committee was sitting the fees for naturalisation were raised to £1202, with an extra £80 if you wanted to have a citizenship ceremony. We were told that the cost of administering was roughly half that, so there was an override of about £600.
To be honest, to forgo the citizenship ceremony, which we were able to attend, would be to miss something. It was an extraordinarily moving experience to watch the people enter enthusiastically into their new life. In the margin of the meeting, they did, of course, tell us about the costs that they had to incur along the way. My major reason for supporting the direction of travel, though, is the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Alton. We are trying to promote people to come forward and anything that dissuades them is a mistake. I am not sure that we must have regard to what other countries are charging. That seems to me not necessarily something that will add to the sum of human knowledge; nor do I think there is necessarily not some room for a bit of a surcharge for the overall administration. But the underlying point is that the margin between the cost of providing the service and the cost being charged is too great.
In my view, this amendment—not in this form, but something like it—would impose some financial discipline at a lower operational level because it would impose some direct responsibility. Once it becomes a sort of global figure, nobody cares about it, is responsible for it or does anything to improve the service it is providing. That is why I think this is going in the right direction, even though I do not agree with all the detail.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I want to support Amendments 83 and 84 and really thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for putting them forward. I do not know whether she will be grateful but I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. Whether she wants me or not, I am one of the terriers she has managed to inspire in this instance. I have tried to pursue a bit of theme—I raised it at Second Reading and in Committee—that the Bill should have been used, apart from anything, to send a positive message about the benefits of being a citizen and those special rights and duties characteristic of any nation state. I feel the Government have missed a trick.
It seems to me that these modest amendments could punch above their weight by, on the one hand, removing entirely unnecessary barriers to citizenship but, on the other, making a positive case that we care about citizenship by doing so. It is a reminder that the barriers we are talking about here are not necessary. They are just financial ones. These are people whom the British state, according to its own British Nationality Act, says are entitled to citizenship, so that is not even in dispute. That is what is so irritating about this.
The fees are undoubtedly causing people problems and putting them off realising their citizenship rights. We have already heard the details. But the fact that you can be charged well over £1,000—despite the Home Office estimating that it takes only £372 to cover costs—just makes it feel like a rather grubby money-raising scheme. The amendment rightly tackles the fact that you should restrict any fee to just covering the real cost. I worry that it sends a message that citizenship is being cheapened morally by charging too much.
This goes beyond money because we need to consider what it means. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the right reverend Prelate both referred to what this means politically. It is completely counterproductive that citizenship is treated in this financial way because of the impact it has on social bonds and cohesion. Rather than citizenship which allows a sort of national solidarity of citizens—as we have inspiringly seen among the citizens of Ukraine—instead we are socialising new generations into a kind of shadow citizenship status that is fracturing and creates cynicism in the UK’s very commitment to the belonging, to equal rights and virtues and to the promise of what it means to be British.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise extremely briefly to demonstrate the very great political breadth of the terrier pack of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I just tweeted a picture of the text of the amendment with the hashtag #FairFees. It is simply unconscionable that people having to register the right they hold as a British citizen is being treated as a cash cow. To charge any fee to a looked-after child—how incredibly counterproductive is that?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, for so ably introducing this amendment. I recognise the commitment of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, on these issues over many years.
Enabling eligible citizens to register their British citizenship is a positive thing, not just for the individual concerned but for society as a whole, for the reasons many noble Lords explained. Fees should not be set so prohibitively high as to prevent anyone who is eligible having their British citizenship officially registered.
We have raised before, and say again: why are immigration and nationality unique among government departments in being required to be self-funding when the services they provide are of benefit to everyone, not just the users of these services? We support the amendment.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords and various noble Baronesses from across the House in welcoming Amendment 83, as tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and my noble friend Lady Lister. There is universal agreement that fees should not be a barrier to citizenship. I think the Government probably agree with that, so the only plea I make is that they act on it to make sure that fees do not act as a barrier. The Government have the power to do something about this. They can hear what people think about the importance of citizenship as a social glue in our society, and the reverence we all have for it, yet a barrier is placed because of the fee. The Government have it in their power to resolve it. Let us do it.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady McIntosh for tabling Amendments 83 and 84, concerning the fees that may be charged in relation to registration of British citizenship. Please be in no doubt that we recognise the strength of feeling on this subject, which I know is of particular importance to my noble friend, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I say at the outset that the Government recognise that the acquisition of British citizenship is a significant life event and offers particular value to those able to obtain it, particularly children. All noble Lords agree with this point and have observed it.
Apart from allowing a child to apply for a British citizen passport, British citizenship gives them the opportunity to participate more fully in the life of their local community as they grow up. It also offers specific practical, legal and intangible benefits, including the right to vote on reaching adulthood, of course, and the particular sense of identity and belonging that results from knowing that the country that you have grown up in is your own.
Please let me also reassure the House that the Government are actively considering fees in this space. Following the Court of Appeal judgment in the case brought by the project for the registration of children as British citizens last year, the Secretary of State committed to reviewing the fee in line with her duties under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009. While I recognise that the House has been very patient, waiting for the outcome of that review as though waiting for Godot, it is the Government’s view that it was important to allow the Supreme Court to give its view on the questions raised by a separate ground in this case, which considered fundamental questions around whether the powers that underpin the setting of fees had been lawfully applied, before concluding that work. Following the Supreme Court judgment of 2 February, the Secretary of State is currently considering her policy response to the review, and I hope to update the House by early May. I cannot give a specific date.
Furthermore I reiterate that, as regards the new routes introduced by the Bill to correct instances of historical legislative unfairness, it remains the Government’s intention not to charge in instances where there has been historical unfairness and/or discrimination. This is in line with our approach to other instances of historical unfairness, where waivers and exceptions were introduced in fee regulations, as is appropriate for provisions of this nature. The Government are currently exploring options in this regard for the routes introduced by the Bill. I hope that this reassures my noble friend to some extent.
However, it is important to consider the legislative history of the fee-setting regime, and the intent that has underpinned it. Since the establishment of the current nationality regime in the British Nationality Act 1981, registration of British citizenship for those who either have an entitlement under the provisions of that Act or who are applying on a discretionary basis under Section 3(1) has been contingent on payment of a fee. Current fee-setting for British citizenship is underpinned by the powers set out under Section 68(9) of the Immigration Act 2014 which, as the Supreme Court has affirmed in its recent judgment, were explicitly authorised by Parliament and empowered the Secretary of State to set fees at a level that reflected the costs of exercising the function, the benefits that accrue to an applicant as a result of acquiring that British citizenship, and the wider costs of the borders and migration system. Parliament also explicitly authorised the maximum amount that may be charged in relation to an application for British citizenship registration at £1,500, through the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Order 2016, which sets the framework for the current fees set out in secondary legislation.
The wider application of these principles and the powers to set immigration and nationality fees have underpinned the Government’s policy over the last decade of moving the borders and migration system to an increasingly self-funded basis, reducing the reliance on the UK taxpayer. Accordingly, fees across several routes, including nationality, have increased to support those broader funding objectives.
However, it is important to be clear on the role that these fees play in supporting the essential work of the border and migration system and particularly in funding the critical activity that supports and safeguards the interests of the people in the UK. These activities, which include ensuring that the UK’s borders are secure from threats and illegal activity, the effective operation of resettlement schemes to support those who are in greatest need and the management of a visa system that attracts the best and brightest to contribute to the UK’s prosperity, are essential to the delivery of the department’s wider mission and objectives.
Any reduction in income from fees must therefore be considered in terms of its impact on these activities, with the likely result being that activity in those areas will be reduced or income must be recovered through other means. This funding includes support for front-line operations that keep the country safe. A need to secure funding through other means may impact on fees for economic routes where the department’s objective is to attract visitors and skilled individuals to support the UK’s economy, which in turn benefits all those who live in the UK, or it will place an increased reliance on the taxpayer to fund these activities, which may in turn reduce the funding available for other important government work.
As such, there is a complex balance of considerations that the Secretary of State must take into account when setting fees, and, in line with the charging powers established by Parliament through the 2014 Act, these have informed the current fees structure. Fees charged are kept under review, as they are in other countries, and, as I have stated, there are ongoing considerations regarding fees charged for citizenship registration specifically, the outcome of which we will share in due course.
Additionally, I emphasise that elements of the amendment, such as the requirement to except fees for children in local authority care, although of course well intentioned, would more appropriately be set out in fees regulations and should not be introduced in primary legislation. In addition, it is not appropriate for a duty to have regard to the need to promote British citizenship in primary legislation that is setting fees. I therefore request that the noble Baroness withdraw her amendment for the reasons that I have outlined.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am humbled by the level of support expressed in the House this evening and outside the House from the Law Society of Scotland, the Project for the Registration of Children as British Citizens and Amnesty International UK. I pay tribute to the long-standing work of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the support that I received this evening from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. Very seldom do the noble Baroness, Lady Fox, and I agree, but on this occasion I am delighted to have her support and that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, and others. I am particularly pleased to welcome the support of my noble friend Lord Hodgson, who speaks with great authority on these matters. As he described it, the Government are going in the right direction, but I argue that, this evening, I do not believe that they have gone far enough. Therefore, regrettably, I wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 83.
Baroness D'Souza
“Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy
(1) Within 30 days of this Act being passed, the Secretary of State must amend part 7 of the Immigration Rules on the Afghan Relocations and Assistance Policy (“ARAP”) in accordance with subsections (2) to (11).(2) The Secretary of State must amend paragraph 276BB3 to specify that a person falls within that paragraph if—(a) at any time on or after 1 October 2001, the person—(i) was directly employed in Afghanistan by a UK government department, or(ii) provided goods or services in Afghanistan under contract to a UK government department (whether as, or on behalf of, a party to the contract); and(b) because of that employment or provision of goods or services, the person’s life or safety is at real risk.(3) The Secretary of State must revoke paragraph 276BB4.(4) The Secretary of State must amend paragraph 276BB5 to specify that a person falls within that paragraph if the person meets conditions 1 and 2 and one or both of conditions 3 and 4, as set out in subsections (5) to (8). (5) Condition 1 is that at any time on or after 1 October 2001, the person worked in Afghanistan alongside, in partnership with or closely supporting and assisting a UK government department or for a British-based organisation or institution founded by, funded by or otherwise connected to the UK government.(6) Condition 2 is that the person, in the course of that work, made a substantive and positive contribution towards the achievement of—(a) the UK government’s military objectives with respect to Afghanistan,(b) the UK government’s national security objectives with respect to Afghanistan (and for these purposes, the UK government’s national security objectives include counter-terrorism, stabilisation, counter-narcotics and anti-corruption objectives), or(c) the UK government’s human security objectives with respect to Afghanistan (and for these purposes, the UK government’s human security objectives include interventions to reduce violence, ensure basic security and promote human rights and the rule of law).(7) Condition 3 is that because of that work the person is or was at high risk of death or serious injury.(8) Condition 4 is that the person holds information the disclosure of which would give rise to or aggravate a specific threat to the UK government or its interests.(9) The Secretary of State must amend paragraph 276BB2 to reflect subsections (2) to (8) of this section.(10) The Secretary of State must insert into the Immigration Rules a route for additional family members of locally employed staff to apply in exceptional circumstances for relocation, and ensure this route is provided on terms that are no less favourable than those contained in the Home Office’s Additional guidance on the eligibility of additional family members under the Afghan locally employed staff relocation schemes, published on 4 June 2021.(11) The Secretary of State must specify in the Immigration Rules that any decision to exclude a person who would otherwise be eligible for the ARAP scheme must be made in accordance with the exclusion criteria set out in Article 1F of the 1951 Refugee Convention, and provide independent and transparent due process guarantees in relation to any exclusion decision, including impartial decision makers, disclosure of relevant information and evidence and rights of appeal.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause would expand eligibility for ARAP by amending the Immigration Rules. It would insert into the Rules a relocation route for additional family members, which can be no less favourable than the current Home Office guidance, and limit the basis on which persons, who would otherwise be eligible for relocation under ARAP, can be excluded from the scheme.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I return to the Afghan relocations and assistance policy. This stand-alone amendment seeks to protect and indeed make welcome those Afghan citizens who worked with UK bodies to promote democratic policies and, as a result, are in danger of retaliation from the current Administration in Afghanistan. Most of us will have heard terrifying stories of young women and, by extension, their families hiding in appalling circumstances simply because they are known to have worked with British organisations, including the British Council, the BBC and other non-governmental organisations.
Recent reports by reputable bodies not only indicate public support for Afghan resettlement but cite many distressing case studies of the rejection by ARAP of those who played a central role of advancing the UK’s military and security objectives. This amendment seeks to revise the Immigration Rules in three main ways: by broadening and clarifying the eligible criteria; by narrowing the exclusion criteria; and by inserting into the Immigration Rules a route for the relocation on additional family members. This amendment also brings the Immigration Rules into conformity with the obligations due as a signatory to the 1951 UN refugee convention.
Despite many brave words, the current schemes for rescuing Afghan citizens are limited, in many cases exclusionary and somewhat duplicitous, in that the resettlement offer has been gradually reduced, leaving many hundreds if not thousands at risk, purely because of their association with the UK. We have a moral duty; we chose to go into Afghanistan with many different aims and goals, and often these goals were implemented by Afghans who served us well and courageously. We need to honour our commitment to protect them, as well as our international reputation as a fair and decent country. I might add that, if this amendment is accepted, it will also benefit Ukrainian refugees, who will no doubt continue to seek refuge in the UK for some time to come. I beg to move.
Baroness Coussins (CB)
My Lords, in supporting Amendment 84B, I declare my interest as a member of the MoD’s former assurance committee on locally employed civilians, set up to monitor the intimidation policy for Afghan interpreters. My concern is that, without this amendment, the relocation possibilities available to former Afghan interpreters will be significantly and unfairly reduced. I acknowledge, of course, that before ARAP our ex gratia redundancy scheme, though not without its problems, nevertheless managed to relocate well in excess of 5,000 interpreters and their families, and I think that number is probably now significantly higher. But ARAP was meant to improve eligibility even further. It now appears that the Government are determined to row back again with new restrictions, even though, at the point of the Taliban’s takeover, there were interpreters who had already obtained security clearance under either the ex gratia scheme or ARAP.
We need—and these people deserve—clarity. This amendment would ensure that they were eligible under category 1 of ARAP. They also deserve transparency of decision-making, but last July the Home Office rejected 21 interpreters on national security grounds for relocation under ARAP, despite the fact that the MoD had already confirmed that they were eligible. Their rejection letters from the Home Office gave no information on why this change of heart was made. Why is there not better alignment between the MoD and the Home Office on this? Nine of them have already had their rejections overturned, following judicial review, and this amendment would ensure that the others could also come to safety in the UK, as well as their family members, as was always the original intention and scope of the pre-ARAP scheme.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak briefly. The case has overwhelming been made, and this has broad cross-party support. I want to make one point. A few hours ago—yesterday, now—the Independent reported concern from British staff in our embassy in Kyiv, who have of course been relocated, that Afghanistan part 2 is happening, with local British embassy staff, some of whom have worked there for many years, are being denied visas to the UK and the chance to escape the high risk of Russian retribution and the obvious dangers of Kyiv. This amendment would set the right model for this and future situations. I am interested to hear from the Minister, given the urgency of the situation for the people in Kyiv now, what the Government’s plans are.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
My Lords, I support this amendment. The hour is very late and it is customary at this time of night to say that I shall be brief. I am not proposing to say that—which is probably just as well because, normally, if a noble Lord says they are going to be brief, they talk for at least 10 minutes.
This is an incredibly important amendment. In many ways, it is worthy of a debate in its own right—perhaps a Question for Short Debate—which would allow the House to discuss the details and the Minister to give a full answer. Six months ago, we were all talking about Afghanistan and our duties to people who had worked with us, alongside our forces, for the British Council and as security guards. In the last two weeks we have heard little about Afghanistan. When the Secretary of State for Defence was asked on the radio yesterday morning whether the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme had been opened, he was unable or unwilling to answer. He eventually said, “Well, it’s a matter for the Home Office, and by the way we’re very busy with Ukraine.” Yet as the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, has pointed out, the issues that we are thinking about here have parallels in Ukraine.
Importantly, the fact that there is a war in Ukraine does absolutely nothing to take away our moral duties to those people in Afghanistan who have been left vulnerable because they worked with us—perhaps for the British Council as contractors. There is a group of people who are petrified now, moving to safehouses on a regular basis and going underground so that we do not know where they are. Their lives are at risk. While the world is looking at Ukraine, we still have a duty to Afghanistan.
This amendment is detailed and specific. As the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, made clear when moving it, it is extremely important as a way of delivering on the commitments that we made six months ago. The ARAP scheme, when it was announced by the Secretary of State for Defence in April 2021, was seen as being important; nobody quite thought it would be needed to the extent that it has been. But the rules have changed, and they keep being changed. People who worked for the British Council as contractors and as interpreters—as the noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, said—thought they had a right to come under ARAP but then that has become unclear. The Minister has on previous occasions agreed with me and other noble Lords that it is important that the Home Office, the MoD and the FCDO work together. Could she tell us, at least, that there is going to be some progress on ARAP?
It is now so late and there are so few Peers around that I believe it is unlikely we will take this to a vote, because it would be unfortunate and unhelpful to those who might wish to come under ARAP that a vote be lost. That would look like a kick in the teeth, which I hope is not a message that your Lordships’ House would wish to send.
Even if this amendment is not put to a vote, can the Minister give us some commitments on the ARAP scheme and the ACRS that might give hope to people who are still stuck in Afghanistan? Finally, might people who have been in Ukraine as Afghan refugees and are now seeking refuge yet again be able to come here? Might we deliver on some of our commitments under the Geneva convention on refugees?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will speak briefly in support of the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza; it is a really important amendment, which goes to the heart of the matter. Whichever way you look at it, there are Afghans who helped us who cannot relocate to the UK; that goes to the core of the importance of the noble Baroness’s amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Coussins, has given us some examples and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, reminded us of the obligations that we continue to have. What assessment has the Home Office made, with the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office, about the number of people they would have expected to help who are still trapped in Afghanistan? What is the current situation there?
The amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, seeks to extend that eligibility to others who may be at risk from the Taliban-controlled Government in Afghanistan. We have a duty to help those who helped us; we all accept that, but what is the current situation? What are the routes available, and why would the Government not accept the amendment? We all agree with the principle but we know that problems still exist. An explanation would be extremely helpful; even at this late hour, this amendment enables us, once again, to ask the Government the extent of the problem and what they are going to do about it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I apologise for being slow to rise; I was frantically writing down the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. I will perhaps answer the last question first on how many are yet to come. That is a very difficult question to answer; I do not think that anyone would pretend to know. I can give an answer the other way round in that ARAP has already seen over 8,000 people relocated to the UK, many as part of the Operation Pitting group who were safely evacuated from Afghanistan last summer. Eligibility has actually been expanded, not reduced. I am not sure which noble Lord said that it had been reduced, but it has been expanded several times since it was launched: first to include people who had resigned from service, then to include people who had been dismissed for all but serious or criminal offences, and then in December last year to include people who had worked alongside rather than directly for HMG, and their non-Afghan family members.
The ACRS opened on 6 January this year; it is up and running. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Newnham, spoke earlier of an almost dismissive comment about the ACRS. I do not think that she was referring to me—I hope she was not.
Baroness Smith of Newnham (LD)
No. The person who was unable to answer the question was the Secretary of State for Defence, on the radio this morning. He basically said, “It is a Home Office matter and, by the way, we are rather too busy with Ukraine.” That was the impression that he gave.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
It is a Home Office matter, so he was absolutely right on that, but it remains very important. Putting Ukraine into strong focus does not take away from our concern for what is happening to the people of Afghanistan. I doubt that it is getting any better; possibly it is getting worse. They still need our help and support.
On ARAP, the Home Office works with the MoD and the FCDO to ensure people’s safe passage here. I appreciate the sentiment behind the amendment, which seeks to widen further still the eligibility criteria, but it is not necessary to put the suggested changes in primary legislation. The Immigration Rules are designed to be altered where needed, with the approval of Parliament, to enable us to make changes such as those I have just been talking about. Having them prescribed in primary legislation would prevent the Government responding quickly where changes are required.
In any case, the specific changes put forward here are unnecessary. The ARAP rules as drafted, and changed as recently as December, provide us with the requisite flexibility to allow all those who made a substantive and positive contribution to the UK’s objective in Afghanistan, either directly for or alongside a UK government department, and who are now at risk as a result of that, to come to the UK. This has always been the intention of the scheme, and that is what is being delivered.
On additional family members, the ARAP rules reflect the wider immigration system in that principals can be joined by spouses, civil partners, durable partners and children under 18. It is right that they are consistent with other routes to the UK. In June last year we published guidance on how additional family members can join principal ARAP applicants here outside the rules, where there are specific levels of dependence or risk. This option has been widely used, and by definition provides us with greater discretion than having prescriptive criteria set out in the rules.
Security checks are carried out by the Home Office after the MoD has approved them. On JRs, the Home Office overturns MoD grants only ever on serious national security grounds.
The ARAP scheme has been a huge success. It has provided resettlement to more than 8,000 people already, with a similar number yet to come. The rules in place strike the right balance between providing support to those who need and deserve it and protecting the finite capacity of this country to resettle those in need. I hope the noble Baroness will be happy to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister, as always, for her answer. I think the most recent pronouncement from the Home Office on the ARAP scheme was that it would in future include only Afghan citizens who were explicitly involved in promoting British values and policies, which necessarily excludes an awful lot of people who worked for British companies but without necessarily being seen to be explicit in promoting their values.
Secondly, the Minister said that she did not feel it necessary for this to be in the Bill, but I feel strongly that unless these criteria are in the Bill they will never remotely happen, and therefore it is important that they be included. I feel that the ARAP scheme continues to be somewhat thin, a little confused and confusing and somewhat pusillanimous, but in view of the hour I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee
“Assessments: trauma-informed approach
(1) All assessments of persons subject to immigration control or relating to modern slavery or human trafficking must be made on the basis of a trauma-informed approach.(2) The Secretary of State must publish and keep updated guidance for caseworkers and others dealing with such persons regarding the use of such an approach in achieving best evidence in order to reach decisions.(3) The Secretary of State must ensure that caseworkers and others to whom the guidance under subsection (2) applies receive appropriate training to ensure assessments under subsection (1) are conducted on the basis of a trauma-informed approach.(4) Before publishing or updating the guidance in subsection (2), the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Royal College of Psychiatrists,(b) the British Medical Association,(c) the British Association of Social Workers, and(d) any other persons they consider appropriate.(5) In subsection (1) “a trauma-informed approach” includes—(a) the recognition of the impact of trauma on individuals,(b) the recognition of the causes and indicators of trauma,(c) the importance of avoiding re-traumatisation, and(d) the integration of knowledge about trauma into policies, procedures and practices.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new Clause is aimed at ensuring that immigration officials and caseworkers operate a trauma-informed approach in assessing claimants and provides for training to ensure a capacity for trauma-informed interviewing, similar to Ministry of Justice and National Police Chiefs’ Council guidance on achieving best evidence in criminal proceedings.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, Amendment 84C would provide for a trauma-informed approach to assessments of persons subject to immigration control or relating to modern slavery or human trafficking—not the first time this has been referred to during the course of the Bill. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for adding her name to this amendment. She has had amendments regarding codes of practice, but the whole issue has been central to much of the Bill. Government processes and actions should be trauma-informed.
Both the Ministers who have responded on these points have rested their arguments on asylum seekers having access to healthcare, but the point is much wider. I have attempted to spell it out in an amateurish way, but the point must be emphasised, even at what I described when making my notes as “stupid o’clock.”
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, this amendment, which I am pleased to add my name to, aligns well with the principles of my own earlier amendments on Report and in Committee. On all the previous occasions, the government response highlighted just how underappreciated the impact of trauma is on the health and recovery of refugees and asylum seekers.
Public Health England has produced advice and guidance on the health needs of migrant patients for healthcare practitioners. This was updated in August 2021 to include advice that practitioners should:
“Consider applying trauma-informed practice principles when working with migrants affected by trauma.”
The guidance emphasised the six principles of trauma-informed practice, including safety, trust, choice, collaboration, empowerment and cultural consideration. I will quote just one paragraph from the guidance:
“Trauma-informed practice is not intended to treat trauma-related issues. It seeks to reduce the barriers to service access for individuals affected by trauma. While more evidence is needed to gain an in-depth understanding of the effects of trauma-informed practice for migrant populations, there is evidence that services provided to vulnerable migrants without a trauma-informed approach can result in harm.”
Unfortunately, the recent report We Want to Be Strong, But We Don’t Have the Chance, published by the British Red Cross in 2022, stated that
“for many women, the UK’s asylum process is not sensitive to gender or trauma and does not provide the support they need.”
It gave examples, which I will not repeat at this time of night, but one of the key recommendations of the report is to
“Ensure each stage of the asylum process is trauma-informed and gender-sensitive”.
This amendment seeks to achieve consistency and accountability in achieving this, with the person at the centre, not the process. I urge the Minister to accept this amendment.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will just make a couple of remarks about this amendment from the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Hollins, which I support. It is a shame that we are right at the end of the evening—or in the middle of the night, or in the morning, or whatever—because it is one of those amendments that raises a number of really important questions for the Government. It is really quite an appropriate way—not at this time—to end the Report stage, because it encompasses so much of what has been debated on the Bill so far.
We are talking about people who are traumatised, fleeing war, risking their lives; people who have lost their homes and loved ones, experienced extreme violence, and children who have been trafficked and exploited. One of the criticisms throughout the passage of the Bill so far is that we are debating measures that we believe would remove support from these people, damage their credibility, penalise them for not providing evidence neatly to a deadline, as we heard earlier, and make it harder, for example, for modern slavery victims to report abuse. That is a point of difference between us.
I am sure the Minister will say that of course, people will take account of trauma, and they will interview, meet and discuss such issues with these individuals and support them in a way which reflects that. But what this really important amendment is driving at is the absolutely essential need to have a trauma-informed approach. If the amendment does nothing else but remind those who work with victims and survivors that that sort of approach is the best way forward, then it has served its purpose.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I thank noble Lords for their comments. I say to them, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that the impact of traumatic experiences is writ large throughout the whole decision-making process in the asylum system. For example, the asylum interview policy guidance includes a specific section on
“Victims of torture or other trauma”,
and this supports interviewers to create a suitable environment for claimants who have experienced trauma to explain their claim. The impact of trauma has also been carefully considered in the drafting of the Bill.
In relation to modern slavery and human trafficking, we are acutely aware of the trauma that victims of modern slavery may experience, and already recognise the impact that this trauma might have on a potential victim’s ability to even recognise themselves as a victim or indeed be identified. We are committed to identifying victims of modern slavery as quickly as possible and ensuring that they receive support as early as possible too.
The effects of trauma are already considered as part of the decision-making process and included in the current modern slavery statutory guidance of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and they will continue to be applied in decision-making. There is a code of conduct for all professionals working with survivors of human trafficking and slavery, published by the Helen Bamber Foundation, and The Slavery and Trafficking Survivor Care Standards, produced by the Human Trafficking Foundation. We will build on this approach in updated published guidance, ensuring that decision-makers have the tools to recognise the effect that traumatic events can have on people’s ability to accurately recall, share or recognise such events. This will give decision-makers the flexibility to take a case-by-case approach and the tools to recognise the possible effect of exploitation and trauma and ensure that decisions are based on an understanding of modern slavery and trafficking.
We will also continue to engage with the six thematic modern slavery strategic implementation groups, bringing together government, the devolved Administrations, NGOs and businesses. We recognise that modern slavery remains a rapidly evolving area, and it is very important that the guidance be continually updated to ensure that it is reflective of current policy and practice.
In summary, I hope that I have explained that trauma-informed decision-making is writ throughout the whole asylum system process, and I hope the noble Baroness will be happy to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, this noble Baroness will withdraw my amendment but not that happily, I am afraid. It refers not only to interviews and so on but to policy-making. If it is actually incorporated in policy-making, why have we, during the course of the Bill, been discussing how delays are treated and late evidence? Only today—or yesterday—we have discussed inconsistencies in evidence. The amendments are aimed at the whole of immigration control, which would include, for this purpose, asylum seekers as well as slavery and trafficking.
I am afraid that the words may be there on paper—and my words can only be on paper—but I have had the clear impression, not only during this Bill, that the process and the policy-making are not trauma-informed. I do not know how many Members still remain in the building on the government side, but it would be inappropriate and have no effect to tax the patience of those who remain by dividing the House. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(aa) sections (Visa penalty provision: general), (Visa penalties for countries posing risk to international peace and security etc) and (Visa penalties under section (Visa penalty provision: general): review and revocation) (visa penalties in relation to countries posing a risk to international peace and security etc);”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment provides that the provisions for imposing visa penalties introduced by the three new clauses in the Minister's name relating to visa penalties will come into force on Royal Assent.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Monday 14th March 2022
(2 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 127-I Marshalled list for Third Reading - (11 Mar 2022)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, before we move on, I will make some remarks about devolution and this Bill. I begin by placing on record my thanks to the devolved Administrations for their engagement at both official and ministerial level.
The majority of the Bill’s provisions apply across the UK. Some clauses extend only to England and Wales because the relevant policy areas relate to matters that are devolved in Scotland and Northern Ireland. These are: civil legal services; arrangements for prisoners who are liable to removal from the United Kingdom; and some specific measures relating to support for potential victims of modern slavery.
I want to be clear that, in the view of the UK Government, the provisions of the Bill that have UK-wide application relate strictly to reserved matters. This means that none of the Bill’s provisions engage the legislative consent process. We have therefore not sought legislative consent from the devolved legislatures.
I advise your Lordships’ House that the Scottish Parliament has approved a Motion, lodged by the Scottish Government, to withhold legislative consent in respect of specific measures relating to age assessment and modern slavery. But it is the view of the UK Government that these measures relate strictly to reserved matters and therefore did not engage the legislative consent Motion process and do not require legislative consent.
The Senedd Cymru has also approved a Motion, lodged by the Welsh Government, to withhold legislative consent in respect of specific measures relating to age assessment and to powers to make consequential provisions. Again, in the view of the UK Government, these measures relate to reserved matters and therefore did not engage the legislative consent Motion process and do not require legislative consent.
For the sake of completeness, I will say that the Northern Ireland Executive has not lodged a Motion relating to the Bill in the Northern Ireland Assembly.
We look forward to continued engagement with the devolved Administrations as we move to operationalise the Bill and the wider new plan for immigration.
Clause 44: Illegal entry and similar offences
Amendment 1
Lord Rosser
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 55 at report stage which removed an inserted subsection that would have created an offence for ‘arriving’ in the UK without entry clearance.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I apologise—the House will have to put up with me rather than my noble friend Lord Coaker. I note what the Minister said about reserved matters and the approach and feelings of the devolved Administrations. One only hopes that these matters can be resolved in a satisfactory way acceptable to all parties.
I will speak to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lord Coaker. All the amendments in this group are tidying-up amendments, and most are consequential on changes this House saw fit to make to the Bill on Report. We on these Benches are content with all the amendments proposed today.
Amendments 1 to 6 in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker make minor, technical changes to what is now Clause 44 of the Bill. On Report this was Clause 39, and your Lordships’ House voted to remove a subsection that provided for a new offence of arrival into the UK. These amendments are consequential on that change.
Amendment 8, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker, is consequential on the decision of this House to remove Clause 58 from the Bill on Report. Clause 58 would have provided for the credibility of trafficking victims to be damaged by late compliance with an appropriate trafficking notice. This tidying-up amendment removes a now-defunct reference to Clause 58, which is no longer part of the Bill.
Amendment 10, also in the name of my noble friend Lord Coaker, removes a subsection from Clause 70 on child victims of modern slavery. This clause was added to the Bill on Report as an amendment led by my noble friend Lord Coaker. The subsection being removed disapplied what was then Clause 64 to child victims. However, Clause 64 was then removed and replaced by a subsequent amendment. Amendment 10 removes the reference to Clause 64, which no longer exists in its original form.
I have also been asked to introduce Amendment 9 as the noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, is unable to be here; he sends his sincere apologies to the House. As a result of the number of votes on Part 5 of the Bill, the noble Lord has tabled this amendment to ensure that there is consistency across the Bill. Like other amendments, Amendment 9 is a tidying-up amendment and does not introduce new issues of principle. It simply removes the previous definition of “public order”, which is no longer used due to changes made to Clause 67 agreed by your Lordships on Report. The noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, has asked me to put on record his thanks to all those who last week supported his amendment to give support and leave to remain to confirmed victims of modern slavery. He also made the point, with which I and others strongly agree, that we regret Part 5 being included in the Bill at all, but the Bill still leaves this House with significant improvements, which we hope the other place will support.
Finally, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, for her amendments, which are consequential on amendments that these Benches supported on Report. I also welcome Amendment 11 from the Minister, which reflects the decision of this House to remove Clause 9 from the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I can be fairly brief. I support the amendments put forward to your Lordships’ House by the noble Lord, Lord Rosser. In particular, I refer to Amendment 9 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I think we would all want to extend to him a speedy return to his place and thank him for all the work he does on behalf of victims of modern-day slavery. I mention my own interest as a trustee of a charity, the Arise Foundation, that deals with modern slavery and human trafficking.
It has been a pleasure to have co-signed amendments to Part 5 of the Bill in the noble Lord’s name but, like the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, I would have preferred that Part 5 was not here at all. I hope that the Minister, when she comes to reply, will be able to give us some indication about the cart-before-the-horse point that was made frequently during discussions on Part 5—in other words, when the new legislation on modern slavery will be laid before your Lordships’ House. I realise that she cannot give us an exact date, but is there some rough estimation of when we might expect to see that? After all, all these issues will be back on the table and open to amendment at that time.
I am sure that all noble Lords will join me in commending the noble Lord’s perseverance and persistence in the cause of improving the support and outcomes for victims of modern slavery over many years. I support his tidying up of Amendment 9 and trust that noble Lords will do the same. We have had the opportunity to improve the Bill for victims of modern slavery, and I am proud of what the House has done in undertaking that. There are still areas of concern, and the Government will know that the outcomes of the Bill will be monitored closely by those who work with victims of human trafficking.
In concluding, I ask the Minister whether the Government will publish the statutory guidance cited in Part 5, in Clause 64, before ping-pong is completed. If not, will it be published during the current Session of Parliament?
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, on these Benches we support the amendments, but I ask the Minister to go back to the—to me quite worrying—announcement she made at the beginning of this debate, regarding the legislative consent Motions or otherwise. The fact that the Scottish and Welsh Governments do not support the Bill—I assume that is the political and, if you like, philosophical reality behind their stance—seems to raise not just political but practical and procedural issues and matters of enforcement.
I will refer to one issue in the Bill: the arrival or entry into the UK. If asylum seekers arrive at the coasts of Scotland or Wales rather than England, what is to happen? I understand that the Minister’s tone had to be quite neutral and not alarmist, but there are very serious issues related to this. I think the House would be grateful if the Minister were able to flesh out the position a little more.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
We have greatly improved Part 2 of the Bill, because it no longer flies in the face of the 1951 refugee convention as understood by our courts, all the other parties to the convention and UNHCR, the institution given the responsibility of overseeing the implementation of the convention. I really hope the Minister will ensure that her colleagues in the other place understand that many in this House feel very strongly about this and would be unlikely to change our view if we were again asked to consider the introduction, contrary to the convention, of a first safe country rule.
There is never a good time for a unilateral reinterpretation of international obligations, but there could not be a worse time than when there are 2.7 million refugees in continental Europe and the Russians are trampling on the 1949 Geneva conventions. We really need to hang on to our reputation for believing in a rules-based system and the rule of law.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, I support all the amendments because they all seem to make complete sense in terms of tidying up, including those in the Government’s name. I too was disturbed by the announcement about the devolved legislatures—it expresses the deep unease about the Bill out in the country as a whole. I ask the Minister to take away from this House a real concern that this is not the right time to press ahead and that Ukraine has raised questions about the Bill and whether some kind of pause ought to be considered.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, for outlining his points. I will start with the government amendments, which are two tidying-up amendments for consideration by your Lordships’ House. The first is a minor drafting amendment to Clause 47, which relates to working in United Kingdom waters. The amendment removes a definition of the term “United Kingdom waters” from the clause. This definition is superfluous as the term is not actually used in the Bill. The amendment therefore helps to clarify Clause 47, so I commend it to your Lordships’ House.
The second amendment is necessary to resolve a problem that has arisen in connection with Schedule 2 to the Bill. This schedule relates to deprivation of citizenship. Its inclusion in the Bill was agreed when noble Lords voted to accept amendments on this topic moved on Report by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. The problem obviously arises because after agreeing the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, your Lordships’ House then voted to remove the substantive deprivation of citizenship clause from the Bill. In consequence, the noble Lord’s amendments were also removed and the schedule was left as an orphan, with no clause to establish it as part of the Bill. I have therefore given notice of my intention to oppose the question that Schedule 2 be the second schedule to the Bill, to ensure that the Bill is consistent.
I also note the 11 tidying-up amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, and my noble friends Lord McColl of Dulwich and Lady Stroud. The Government will not oppose these amendments, but we will doubtless return to consider both them and the substantive clauses they amend at ping-pong. May I just say something about my noble friend Lord McColl? I had noticed that he did not seem very well recently, and I am sure the whole House will join me in wishing him a speedy recovery.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about a modern slavery Bill, I say: as soon as parliamentary time allows. I cannot give an exact date to the noble Lord. As for guidance being available before ping-pong, I will certainly let him know the intended timetable for the guidance.
On the point about the LCM for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the provisions of the Bill that have Ukraine-wide application are strictly reserved matters but I say to noble Lords that officials will continue to engage on the specifics of operationalisation.
Lord Rosser
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 55 at report stage which removed an inserted subsection that would have created an offence for ‘arriving’ in the UK without entry clearance.
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 55 at report stage which removed an inserted subsection that would have created an offence for ‘arriving’ in the UK without entry clearance.
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 55 at report stage which removed an inserted subsection that would have created an offence for ‘arriving’ in the UK without entry clearance.
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 55 at report stage which removed an inserted subsection that would have created an offence for ‘arriving’ in the UK without entry clearance.
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 55 at report stage which removed an inserted subsection that would have created an offence for ‘arriving’ in the UK without entry clearance.
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a minor drafting amendment to remove a definition of a term not used in inserted section 11B of the Immigration Act 1971.
Lord Rosser
Member’s explanatory statement
This tidying-up amendment is consequential on Amendment 66 at report stage which left out a Clause.
Lord Rosser
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a tidying-up amendment.
Lord Rosser
Member’s explanatory statement
This is a tidying up amendment. This subsection disapplied a Clause of the bill (Clause 64 at Lords Report Stage) to children. However that Clause was then removed and replaced by a subsequent amendment. This amendment corrects this Clause for the updated version of the bill.
Member’s explanatory statement
Schedule 2 was inserted by amendment at Report Stage, but was introduced by what was then Clause 9, which was then removed from the Bill. The Schedule now has nothing in the Bill to introduce it, and the provisions in it are wholly dependent on the amendments to the British Nationality Act 1981 that were made by Clause 9: it does not make sense on its own.
Baroness Stroud
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment leaves out paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 4 to the Bill, which would amend section 77 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (no removal while claim for asylum pending). It is consequential to Amendment 35 at Report Stage which was agreed on division.
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is consequential to the amendment to leave out paragraphs 1 and 2 of Schedule 4. It is consequential to Amendment 35 at Report Stage which was agreed on division.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, if I may, I will just detain the House a little longer to mark the end of this Bill’s passage through your Lordships’ House. It has been very wide-ranging. It has had five thorough days in Committee and three days on Report. During this time, in response to the terrible situation in Ukraine, we have added important measures to the Bill which introduce new visa penalty provisions for countries posing a risk to international peace and security. I was very pleased to see support for these measures across the House.
I was not so pleased, though, by the removal of some important measures, the aim of which was to find a long-term solution to long-term problems in our asylum and illegal migration systems which successive Governments have faced over decades. Those amendments will now be considered in the other place and no doubt we will debate them soon.
Notwithstanding that, I want to take this opportunity to recognise the contributions of those who have supported me in steering the Bill through the House. In particular, I thank my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton, my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and my commendable noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom for sharing the load from the Front Bench.
I also express my thanks to all noble Lords who stayed up very late on a number of occasions and thank Members on the Front Bench opposite for their engagement on the Bill, accepting that there have been some areas of disagreement between us. I thank in particular—because I cannot thank everyone—the noble Lords, Lord Coaker, Lord Rosser, Lord Paddick and Lord Anderson of Ipswich, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee.
I also extend my thanks to officials at the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice, as well as lawyers and analysts, not only in those two departments but across government. On my behalf and my ministerial colleagues’, I extend our thanks and appreciation to all of them for their professionalism over the past months. I also thank the teams in our respective private offices.
There should be no doubt about the merits of the Bill’s ultimate objectives, namely to increase the fairness and efficacy of our system, to deter illegal entry into the UK and to remove more easily from the UK those with no right to be here. That is what the British people voted for, it is what the British people expect and it is what the Government are trying and determined to deliver. In view of the crises now confronting our world, it is surely now more important than ever that the Bill moves swiftly to become law. On that note, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
I will not detain the House for long but I think that I ought to say a few words; first, to thank the Minister, in particular, for the number of meetings that I know she has held—I suspect that she has lost count—and her willingness to respond in writing and in some detail on issues that have been raised, which is certainly appreciated. I also thank the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and Lord Sharpe of Epsom. I will not comment too much about people who stayed late since I probably fell rather short in that regard myself. Some of us made sure we left in time to get last trains, but not everybody did.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, following the invasion of Ukraine, it has been interesting to note how the arguments of some noble Lords have acquired a hollow ring. We were implored to listen to public opinion to restrict immigration, but this Bill is not about restricting the over 90% of immigration to the UK that is nothing to do with refugees. This Bill is targeted at asylum seekers like those fleeing Ukraine, who, in recent years, accounted for about 4% of immigration to the UK, and it is aimed at victims of modern slavery: people being trafficked and exploited by ruthless people smugglers as well as many being exploited in this country who were born in the UK.
Public opinion shows that British people welcome refugees; this Bill shuns them. It is consistent with the Government making another grave mistake in using the new-found freedom from the European Union to place barriers in the way of Ukrainian refugees instead of waiving visas as the rest of the EU has done. To paraphrase the Irish Prime Minister yesterday, we can deal with any security issues once they are here—the priority is humanity.
I thank my noble friends Lady Hamwee and Lady Ludford, without whose support I would not have made it through this ordeal, as well as the Labour Front Bench and Back Benches, our respective support staff, Elizabeth Plummer and Grace Wright, and all those organisations and individuals who have supported us in opposing this truly dreadful Bill, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb and Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
I thank the tripod of Ministers—the noble Lords, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar and Lord Sharpe of Epsom, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton—for supporting the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, who has striven uncomplainingly through unreasonably long sittings due to the mismanagement of the timetabling and the deliberately unco-operative attitude of the Government. This House should not have been debating issues of this gravity at 3 o’clock in the morning or voting on them after midnight.
The elected House passed this Bill and, therefore, sadly, so must we. Hopefully, we have taken some of the sting out of it. In the light of Ukraine, simply because it graphically illustrates the barbaric nature of this Bill, we now ask the other place to think again and to leave in place the improvements that we have made. We on these Benches earnestly hope that it will.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I place on record my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford. She has heard a lot of complaints about the things that Members of your Lordships’ House disagree with, and I associate myself with some of those complaints, but this Bill has been something of an endurance test. At a quarter to one in the morning last week, as we debated citizenship fees, I thought that maybe this was not the way to conduct parliamentary business. However, I was particularly pleased that, during the course of our proceedings, the noble Baroness was specifically recognised and raised to the Privy Council; it was a just reward for the way in which she serves your Lordships’ House.
I notice that the noble Lord, Lord Patten of Barnes, has been listening in the Chamber this afternoon. He spoke in our debate last week about the position of young Hong Kongers. Along with the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, the noble Baroness was incredibly helpful in incorporating into this Bill something that will really benefit young people in Hong Kong who, born after 1997, were not part of the BNO scheme that their parents had been part of. I have already seen emails from people in Hong Kong expressing their thanks to your Lordships’ House.
Finally, I extend my thanks to Members from all sides who supported my amendment on providing safe and secure routes out of genocide in various parts of the world. I hope that that will not be lost in the maelstrom as we now proceed to ping-pong but will be given serious thought, and that maybe further discussion can take place as this Bill now proceeds to another place.
Baroness Stowell of Beeston (Con)
My Lords, I join the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, in his comments about my noble friend the Minister, on her effective stewardship of this Bill and the recognition that she has recently received in becoming a member of the Privy Council.
I would like to add a slightly different perspective from that of some noble Lords who have spoken in this stage of the legislation. I support this Bill. I have not contributed to a great extent during its passage, but noble Lords may have noticed that I have spent a lot of time listening to the debates during its period in your Lordships’ House. Although I support the Bill, I do not do so blindly. I am a great believer in the parliamentary process, and I have always taken the view that the process of scrutiny always improves legislation. The Bill leaves this House to return to the other place stronger than when it arrived. I commend many noble lords who have worked to achieve that, including my noble friend the Minister and her colleagues on the Front Bench.
However, I will make a couple of other observations. One of the things that I have found a bit concerning in listening to some of the debates during this Bill’s period with us is the way in which some noble Lords in bringing forward their amendments, or those who have supported their amendments, have sought to suggest that people who are kind are people who will support them—in a way, trying to define those who oppose the Bill as the only people who speak for those who are kind and generous when it comes to those who come to our country in their time of need. As the Minister said earlier, it is important for us to recognise that the need and desire for stronger immigration controls, and the generosity of spirit of the British people to refugees and to asylum seekers, are not mutually exclusive. Actually, a lot of people feel strongly that it is because of stronger controls that people feel able to be that much more generous in the way they feel they want to be to those in need.
So, whatever happens when the other place considers the amendments that have been made in your Lordships’ House and sends the Bill back to us, I hope that when we get to that stage in the passage of this legislation we will all refrain from trying to monopolise or reserve for ourselves a definition of kindness that is not embracing of those who also want to see stronger immigration controls.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, this has been an incredibly tough Bill, not only because of the stamina necessary to take us through the very long hours—and sometimes the very long speeches—but because it has sometimes been emotionally draining. It was almost worse than the policing Bill, which I really thought was the worst Bill. On the other hand, we have had some great speeches.
I thank everyone who has thanked us. We have put quite a lot of energy into this, and at the same time we are well aware that it is the whole House that has made a real difference.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Tuesday 22nd March 2022
(2 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Amendments as at 22 March 2022 - (22 Mar 2022)
16:19 - The House divided: - Ayes: 318 / Noes: 223 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 313 / Noes: 231 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:47 - The House divided: - Ayes: 318 / Noes: 220 - Question accordingly agreed to.
16:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 232 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:11 - The House divided: - Ayes: 302 / Noes: 232 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:25 - The House divided: - Ayes: 305 / Noes: 230 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:37 - The House divided: - Ayes: 313 / Noes: 227 - Question accordingly agreed to.
17:49 - The House divided: - Ayes: 317 / Noes: 220 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 307 / Noes: 217 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:32 - The House divided: - Ayes: 300 / Noes: 221 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:44 - The House divided: - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 219 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:55 - The House divided: - Ayes: 291 / Noes: 214 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:07 - The House divided: - Ayes: 298 / Noes: 216 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 10, 12 and 26. If they are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
After Clause 4
Provision for Chagos Islanders to acquire British nationality
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 1.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 1.
Lords amendment 4, Government motion to disagree, and Government amendments (a) to (f) in lieu.
Lords amendment 5, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 6, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 7, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 8, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 9, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 52, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 53, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 10, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 11, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 12, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 13, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 14, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 15, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 16, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 17, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 18, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 19, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 20, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 54, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 2, 3, 43 to 51 and 21.
Tom Pursglove
Mr Speaker, may I begin by joining in, on behalf of the Home Office, your tribute to PC Keith Palmer, who lost his life five years ago today? All of us who were in the House will never forget that day. It was an enormous tragedy; he died in the line of service, protecting our democracy and the people in this place. We will be forever grateful to him and his family, and our thoughts are very much with them today, and with everybody caught up in that terrible tragedy on Westminster bridge.
This country has a long and proud tradition of providing sanctuary to those in need. The British people are generous and compassionate, and we only have to look around us to see that compassion in action right now. I think I speak for the whole House in thanking everyone stepping up to support people fleeing the conflicts in Afghanistan and Ukraine.
This Bill is about delivering a long-term solution to the long-term problems that have beset the asylum system over decades. It has three central objectives: to make the system fairer and more effective so we can better protect and support those in genuine need; to deter illegal entry, breaking the business model of evil criminal trafficking; and to make it easier to remove those with no right to be here.
The reforms we are introducing through this Bill have been debated at length both in this House and the other place, and I want to put on record my thanks to all Members for the rigour with which they have scrutinised the measures we have proposed. I also want to say that as the Bill has progressed through Parliament, this Government have been listening carefully to the questions and concerns raised not only by Members but by the many organisations, communities and individuals who have been carefully following its progress.
We have amended the Bill to clarify that new measures to tackle people smugglers will not criminalise those acting under the direction of Her Majesty’s Coastguard. We have also introduced an amendment to resolve the lawful residence issue that has troubled many individuals with indefinite leave to remain under the EU settlement scheme and who wish to naturalise but have not previously held comprehensive sickness insurance.
In response to the appalling situation in Ukraine, we have added new powers to enable us to impose visa penalties on countries posing a threat to international peace and security or whose actions lead, or are likely to lead, to armed conflict or a breach of humanitarian law. We have also announced an expansion of the Hong Kong British national overseas route, which will enable individuals aged 18 or over who were born on or after 1 July 1997 and have at least one BNO parent to apply to the route independently.
Before going further, I would like to say something more about the situation in Ukraine, in particular the calls we have heard in respect of unaccompanied children. We of course recognise the deeply troubling circumstances faced by all Ukrainians who are caught up in this conflict, and we of course acknowledge calls for support to Ukrainian orphans and unaccompanied children. However, the UK cannot act unilaterally on such matters, and the views of affected Governments must be taken into account. The Ukrainian Government have been clear that children must not be taken into care without the prior agreement of their authorities; we cannot simply transfer unaccompanied minors to the UK without first securing their authorisation. It may be in the best interests of many children to remain in the region given that it is common for those labelled as orphans by the media who are in the Ukrainian care system to have living parents, and ultimately their Government, whom they are not fleeing, should have the final say on these matters.
We are working urgently, however, with the authorities in Ukraine and Poland to secure the final agreements needed to bring to the UK a group of over 50 Ukrainian children, known as the Dnipro kids, who have escaped the brutal war and are currently in Poland. I recognise that many Members are following that issue closely and have a keen interest in it, and Home Office Ministers will keep the House updated. This is a complex case, and it is absolutely right that we wait for the appropriate checks and written permissions before bringing these children to the UK. The Home Secretary and her counterparts in the Ukrainian, Polish and Scottish Governments are united in their determination to ensure these children get the right support and the care they need.
However, I remind the House that our Ukraine family scheme also provides an immediate pathway for those Ukrainians, including unaccompanied children subject to safeguarding checks, with family already settled in the UK to come to our country. We would expect most children to apply in family groups, such as a parent with a child, but I can assure colleagues that this scheme is designed to allow as many people as possible to come to the UK and to give them immediate access to the support they need. We must do nothing less.
Returning to the Bill, Members will have seen that many amendments were proposed and agreed to during its passage through the other place, including some proposed by the Government. The Government have carefully considered each of the non-Government amendments, and I would like to explain what we have concluded and why. But before doing so, I would like to offer an apology to the House for the late publication of the updated explanatory notes. Manuscript copies of the updated notes have been distributed, but I accept that they should have been published online on Friday, and I am sorry that this did not happen—for that discourtesy I genuinely am apologetic, Mr Speaker.
On amendment 1, relating to access to British overseas territories citizenship and British citizenship for Chagossians, I again place on record my sympathy with the Chagossians for how they were treated in the 1960s and 1970s. I also want to place on record my admiration for the way in which Members from across the House have championed their cause, in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Henry Smith), who has been a consistent and tireless advocate on this issue for many years; he has run an exceptional campaign. We have listened carefully to the concerns raised in both Houses and in the Chagossian community on the difficulties faced by Chagossians in accessing British nationality. These difficulties have arisen from the unique historical treatment of those who were removed from the British Indian Ocean Territory in the 1960s and 1970s and the limited recognition of those circumstances in British nationality law. Given that, the Government have concluded it would be appropriate to take action in this Bill, consistent with our other measures designed to correct historical unfairness in nationality law, and will put forward an amendment as such. This will mean there is a new route to British nationality for direct descendants of the Chagossians removed from the British Indian Ocean Territory. In doing that, we are satisfied that the Chagossian diaspora is unique and we are not setting a precedent that would undermine the general principles governing the acquisition of British citizenship by descent. Further details will follow in due course, and I want again to say a huge “Well done and congratulations” to my hon. Friend for helping us to bring about this important change.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
This is, I think, at least one small point of agreement, but can the Minister explain why the amendment passed in the House of Lords is not acceptable in that form to the Government, and in particular whether the provision in the amendment that no charge will be made for Chagossians applying for citizenship will be retained somehow?
Tom Pursglove
The direct answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is that we judged that the amendment tabled in the House of Lords is technically deficient. I can confirm, however, that this route is free and there will be no good character requirement associated with it. We think the way this is presented in response to the Lords amendment is the correct way to progress and that it recognises the broad agreement for this, delivering on precisely what this House and the other place wish to see. I think we can all come together and be very pleased about that.
Amendment 4 removes the clause from the Bill that contains our proposals regarding notification requirements for those who are subject to a deprivation of citizenship decision. Deprivation is necessary to protect the public from those seeking to do serious harm, such as terrorists, or those who acquired their citizenship by fraudulent means. I again emphasise that the underlying deprivation of citizenship power is a century old, is only used in a small number of cases, is never used to target people because of their ethnic or religious background, and always comes with a right of appeal. The changes we want to make do not change any of that. This measure is simply about how we notify someone of the intention to remove their citizenship. It is necessary in order to ensure that we are able to use this power where we cannot contact a person; for example, because they are in a warzone. When contact is made, that person will be able to appeal the deprivation decision as usual.
We have considered very carefully amendments to the deprivation of citizenship clause tabled by Lord Anderson of Ipswich and agreed to in the other place. Lord Anderson’s amendments provide more clarity on the reasons for not giving notice of a deprivation decision, as well as introducing a degree of judicial oversight of the decision not to give notice. We are content that the original intention of the clause is not altered by these amendments, and we are satisfied that the amendments will enable us to protect the rights of the individual while delivering on our security objectives.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I thank the Minister for taking the time to meet me and other colleagues with large ethnic minority communities in their constituencies, such as the Pakistani Kashmiri community that I am proud to have in Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, and for giving that clarification and accepting the Lords amendments. They will help to ensure that it is made clear to people in that community that they should not fear, despite some of the misinformation produced by certain Members of the House outside the Chamber.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point and for the engagement I have had with him on these matters throughout the passage of the Bill. I genuinely hope that the amendments in lieu we propose today, which draw on the sensible and reasonable suggestions made by Lord Anderson in the other place, will help to provide reassurance about oversight and the nature of the mechanisms. The way in which some individuals have sought to present the issue in the public narrative is regrettable, but I hope that people will recognise that it is about protecting the British people from high-harm individuals, some of whom are in a war zone and have no regard whatsoever for the harm that they would cause on the streets of our country. We are exceptionally mindful of that. The first responsibility of any British Government is to keep the British people safe. The amendments will help us to do just that.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I entirely support what the Minister is saying. Does he agree that citizenship of this country not only accrues rights but demands responsibilities? When people shy away from those responsibilities and ally themselves with a cultural value set so alien to ours that we cannot even recognise it, that must have consequences.
Tom Pursglove
I agree with my hon. Friend’s assessment that citizenship of this country comes with rights and responsibilities, and with recognition and acceptance of important constitutional principles including the rule of law. Those are all fundamental and central to the way in which our society has developed and is crafted and on which it stands. They are important principles that we all accept are crucial.
Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)
For the record, just so that we are all absolutely clear, we on the Government Benches, as elsewhere, strongly support the full integration of every community and British passport holder. The Government amendment will make it absolutely clear above all to Muslims of all places of origin and above all those born and bred in the UK that there is no threat to them whatsoever.
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend puts it better than I could. He has stated with crystal clarity the nature of the change, which I believe is enhanced and improved by accepting the sensible and pragmatic amendments tabled by Lord Anderson. It is also worth saying for the benefit of the House that taking out of the equation the issue of citizenship being obtained by fraud, the provision relates to 19 cases a year on average, and the changes we are making through the Bill do not alter the qualification, so no additional individuals will be brought into scope. The changes relate purely to the matter of notification.
On a procedural note, I should say that although Lord Anderson’s amendments were agreed in the other place, they were deleted when peers agreed to remove the substantive deprivation of citizenship clause from the Bill. The Government are therefore retabling the substantive clause, as amended by peers to include Lord Anderson’s amendments. I hope that meets with the favour of the House. It acts on and reflects the desire expressed for greater safeguards and greater clarity on these measures.
Amendment 5 inserts a clause specifying that nothing in the part of the Bill to which it applies authorises any policies or decisions that are incompatible with the 1951 refugee convention or the 1967 protocol relating to the status of refugees. It is the clear position of this Government that everything we are doing is compatible with all our obligations under international law. We do not think it is necessary to set that out on the face of the Bill. The Government therefore do not agree to the amendment.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
The Minister will be aware that there is a massive range of legal opinion and that the opinion of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is that that is not the case at all when a lot of what is going on in part two of the Bill is in flagrant breach of the refugee convention. If the Minister is so certain that the powers do not breach the refugee convention, what is the harm to him of accepting the amendment?
Tom Pursglove
We do not see a need to augment the Bill in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggests. A plethora of opinions are expressed in the House and more generally when we debate the nature of what is proposed and whether people think it is the right thing to do. We are clear as a Government that we think that the package of measures we are introducing through the Bill is a proportionate response to the issues we face and will fix the broken asylum system in particular. We are also clear—and I have been clear on many occasions in this House and through the various iterations of the Bill—that we will at all times live up to our international obligations.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
History suggests that the day will come when the hon. Gentleman’s party is not in government, and it is eminently possible that there will one day be a Government who wish to depart from our obligations under the 1951 convention. Is that not why it is a good idea to have such a provision on the face of the Bill?
Tom Pursglove
Any Government in such circumstances could amend the primary legislation to remove that requirement. I also make the crucial point that we have an independent judiciary in this country, and it is open to people to bring points of challenge where they believe that there are grounds for doing so. It is fair to say that that is a regular occurrence in our society and a cornerstone of how our government, politics and society have evolved over centuries. No doubt that will continue to be the case, but let me again be very clear that the Government have acted and will continue to act in accordance with our international obligations. I must be very clear on that point.
Lords amendment 6 removes the clause from the Bill that establishes our differentiated approach to those who are recognised as refugees. That is an essential and fundamental part of our plan to deter people from making dangerous and unnecessary journeys to the UK. We therefore cannot agree to the amendment, which will simply encourage people to continue to risk their lives at sea.
Tom Hunt (Ipswich) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that amendment 6 is a huge slap in the face for all those people who play by the rules and engage in proper legal processes to get to this country, whether they are a refugee or not?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend and I have had many conversations about this topic over recent months and he makes a genuine point that individuals coming to this country illegally makes it more difficult for us to help genuine refugees in the way that we all want to. We see that reflected in the generosity of spirit shown across the country as people offered help in response to the Afghan crisis and to what we are seeing unfold so tragically in Ukraine. There is an outpouring of emotion and wanting to help, but there is also genuine concern about people putting their lives in the hands of evil criminal gangs, and paying significant sums of money to those gangs, which have no regard for human life and are willing in effect to play roulette with the safety of the people they are transporting.
Lee Anderson (Ashfield) (Con)
The Minister may be aware that at present Opposition Members, especially Labour Members, are struggling to tell the difference between a man and a woman, so it is no surprise that they are struggling to tell the difference between a genuine refugee and an economic migrant. Would it not be wise of the Minister to remind those on the Labour Front Bench what the difference is?
Tom Pursglove
I certainly think that my hon. Friend’s constituents and mine, and people across the country, feel strongly—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) is chuntering from a sedentary position, but I will make the point that, no matter where they are in the country, people feel very strongly that individuals should not put their lives in the hands of evil criminal gangs, whose only motivation is to turn a profit by taking greater and greater risks with the lives of the individuals they are putting in small boats. I would argue that we, as a Government and in this House, have a duty to stop that happening. That is precisely what the measures in the Bill are designed to do, while at the same time providing safe and legal passage for people who require sanctuary to come to this country, and enabling us to care for them properly when they are here. That is an absolutely humane and decent stance to take, and one that I will continue to passionately defend.
Amendment 7 would change our approach to allowing people who are claiming asylum to work by reducing the period in which claimants may not work from 12 months to six months, as well as removing the condition restricting jobs for those who are allowed to work to those on the shortage occupation list.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
It seems that amendment 7 goes to the heart of what we are talking about today. Does the Minister agree that the Bill, taken as a whole, is a package, and that if we start amending it in this way to facilitate economic migration, we will end any chance we have of stopping cross-channel migration, stopping the evil criminal gangs and taking back control of our borders? This is a package, and I am afraid we have to vote down all the amendments.
Tom Pursglove
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who is a passionate advocate of taking action to address those concerns. I argue that this is a package of measures that come together. There is no one single intervention that will solve this problem. We must have a robust and proportionate approach to tackling, for example, very dangerous channel crossings—in November, we saw a tragic loss of life that none of us wants to be repeated—while also ensuring we have safe and legal routes by which people can come to this country to get the sanctuary they need when they find themselves in desperate circumstances. That is what I believe the Government are delivering.
The right to work, while well meaning, would undermine our economic migration scheme and allow people to bypass it over and above those who follow the proper process by applying for visas and paying relevant fees to work in the UK. We cannot allow that to happen. I must therefore advise the House that we cannot accept the amendment.
Amendment 8 prevents third country inadmissibility measures from coming into force until formal returns agreements are in place. We expect to work with our international partners to tackle the shared challenges of illegal migration. We continue to seek effective returns agreements to ensure that people can be removed from our country when they have no right to be here. In the meantime, we want to continue resolve cases where we can on a case-by-case basis.
As I have said many times before, those in need of protection should claim in the first safe country they reach. That is the fastest route to safety. The first safe country principle is widely recognised internationally.
Patrick Grady
Will the Minister explain to me how the United Kingdom can ever be the first safe country of arrival for someone fleeing a war zone or a natural disaster. If you leave without all your paperwork, how can you ever get to the United Kingdom before anywhere else when we are surrounded by water?
Tom Pursglove
We have many resettlement routes whereby people can come to this country. I have said this several times in the House, and it bears repeating now, that people getting in small boats to come to the United Kingdom are coming from perfectly safe countries at great risk, and they are lining the pockets of evil criminal gangs, which funds wider criminality, when there are fully functional and appropriate asylum systems, where people can gain help and support, that they are leaving to make those perilous journeys. It is also important to point out—I recognise that the hon. Gentleman is a particularly keen advocate of the European Union and wishes we were a member of it—that it is a fundamental feature of the common European asylum system that people should claim asylum in the first safe country they reach. Without any enforcement of that, we simply encourage criminal smugglers to continue to exploit vulnerable migrants and leave flows of migrants across Europe, which culminate in the dangerous channel crossings. The Bill’s inadmissibility measures are an essential part of our approach to enforcing the safe first country principle, and for that reason we cannot agree to the amendment.
Tom Pursglove
I am conscious that I need to make some progress, so I will continue for now. I have been quite generous, and I will see how I get on in the next few minutes.
Amendments 9, 52 and 53 would delete from the Bill provisions that would make it easier to remove an individual from the UK while their asylum claim is pending. We have said repeatedly that while people are dying making dangerous and unnecessary journeys to the UK, we must consider every option to discourage people from funding criminal gangs and putting their lives at risk by crossing the channel. That includes the option of processing of asylum claims overseas. We must ensure we have the flexibility to do everything we can to disincentivise people from putting themselves and others at risk and lining the pockets of people smugglers. That is the clear rationale for this policy. I want to make it absolutely clear again that unaccompanied asylum-seeking children will not have their claims processed overseas.
Stuart C. McDonald
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. He talked about unaccompanied asylum-seeking children, but that means he is not ruling out other children being placed in awful offshore detention facilities. Will he publish an economic impact assessment on how many billions of pounds this will cost the taxpayer? It has been promised for months.
Tom Pursglove
I am not going to get drawn into listing all other possible exemptions to removal in that way, but I set out on Report that, for example, family groups would not be separated, because that would clearly not be in accordance with our international obligations. Clearly, much will depend on the particular circumstances of the countries we are working with. We always work in the asylum system and in the immigration space on a case-by-case basis, but I want to assure hon. Members that we will continue to uphold our international obligations and ensure that any removal is compliant with our obligations under the refugee convention and article 3 of the European convention on human rights, which protects against torture and inhuman and degrading treatment.
I am aware that there has been speculation recently about the potential costs of, and possible locations for, overseas asylum claim processing. I cannot give a running commentary on negotiations, nor share information that could tie the hands of the negotiators. I only say again that the provisions are an essential part of the suite of measures that we are introducing to deliver our objective of discouraging unwanted behaviours, such as making unnecessary and dangerous journeys, and we therefore cannot agree to the amendments.
Amendment 10 creates a more generous approach on family reunion for those who are already in Europe, which we do not consider fair. There is already generous provision in our rules for family reunion, under which more than 40,000 people have been reunited with family members in the UK since 2015. This is a single global approach to family reunion, which does not encourage what are often dangerous journeys into Europe, facilitated by smugglers and traffickers. We therefore cannot support the amendment. Similarly, amendment 11 would commit the UK to resettling at least 10,000 refugees each year.
Our view has long been that the number of refugees and people in need of protection that we resettle each year must be based on our capacity, our assessment of the international situation and our ability to care for people properly when they come to the UK. I understand that hon. Members are seeking assurances that our doors will remain open to those in need, but I respectfully suggest that what is really needed to deliver refugee resettlement is not a number but an approach—an approach that is compassionate and flexible. That is exactly what the Government are delivering through our new plan for immigration.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Coming back to amendment 10, which the Minister is grouping together, he just said that we already have a very generous family reunion scheme, but is it not the case that our current family reunion scheme is considerably less generous than the Dublin III arrangements we had pre-Brexit? If we are genuinely to accommodate a lot of children who have lost their parents and for whom their last surviving relative may be an aunt, uncle, brother or sister who has made it legally to the UK, we need to expand the scheme.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. This is an area that he is very passionate about and has a considerable knowledge of. He will recognise that we have a global approach to family reunion, which is an important distinction when compared with Dublin III. It would be useful for us as Ministers to meet him, as a former Children’s Minister, to discuss his ideas. As I say, I know he takes a passionate and keen interest in these matters. Family reunion is something we continue to be committed to. As I said in my opening remarks on the situation in Ukraine, it is an area where, for example in response to that crisis, we are constantly reviewing what we can do to assist with that issue and challenge. The Dnipro Kids situation illustrates the work we are doing in that space. Of course, there has to be agreement with the Ukrainian Government and the Polish Government to progress on that, but it shows the pragmatic approach we are willing to take on these matters to be responsive to crises as they arise and to ensure that we do our bit to try to support those children wherever we can.
I do not wish to detain the House for longer than necessary, but I think it would be helpful for me to set out the safe and legal routes that we have to the UK. The UK resettlement scheme, which was launched in February 2021, prioritises the resettlement of refugees, including children, in regions of conflict and instability. The number of refugees we resettle each year depends on a variety of factors, including local authorities’ capacity to support refugees and the number of community groups willing to take part. There were 1,131 refugees resettled in the UK through that scheme in the year ending December 2021.
Tom Pursglove
I have given way to my hon. Friend already and I am keen to make some progress, because I am conscious that a lot of Members want to speak.
The community sponsorship scheme enables local community groups to welcome refugees to the UK and provide housing and support. In the year ending December 2021, there were 144 refugees resettled through that scheme.
The mandate resettlement scheme was launched in 1995. That global scheme resettles refugees with a close family member in the UK who is willing to accommodate them. Since published statistics began in 2008, there have been 435 refugees resettled through that route, as of September 2021.
Refugee family reunion allows a spouse or partner and children under 18 of those granted protection in the UK to join them here, if they formed part of the family unit before the sponsor fled the country. There is discretion to grant leave outside of the immigration rules for extended family members in exceptional circumstances. We have granted over 40,000 refugee family reunion visas since 2015, of which more than half were granted to children. In 2021, there were 6,134 family reunion visas issued, which was an increase of 28% on the previous year. Again, more than half were issued to children.
In August 2021, we announced the Afghan citizens resettlement scheme, one of the most generous schemes in our country’s history. That scheme will give up to 20,000 people at risk a new life in the UK, including women and girls, members of ethnic or religious minorities and people who are LGBT+.
In addition, under the Afghan relocations and assistance policy, current or former locally employed staff who are assessed to be under serious threat to life are offered priority relocation to the UK. Through that route, we have relocated more than 7,000 locally employed staff and their family members since April 2021, in addition to 1,400 former staff and families who were relocated under the previous ex gratia scheme for Afghan interpreters.
The Ukraine family scheme, which was launched on 4 March, allows British nationals and people settled in the UK to bring family members to the UK. That covers immediate family members as well as parents, grandparents, children over 18 and siblings, aunts, uncles, nephews, nieces, cousins and in-laws. Individuals will be granted leave for three years and will be able to work and access public services and benefits. As of 20 March, 61,100 applications had been started, 31,500 had been submitted and 10,200 visas had been issued.
The Homes for Ukraine scheme, which was launched on 14 March, will allow individuals, charities, community groups and businesses in the UK to bring Ukrainians to safety, including those with no family ties to the UK. There will be no limit on arrivals and, again, those who come here will have access to public services and benefits.
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
May I clarify a point on the two-tier system to which the Minister is asking the House to agree? If a Ukrainian who has relatives in the UK comes here, we will accept them. If a refugee from Ukraine comes here on a sponsorship scheme, we will accept them. What if somebody from Ukraine just turns up? Will they be removed to a safe country that they have come from? Will they be removed to a third country that they can apply from? What will we do for those Ukrainians who flee from the murderous despot Putin and come here by an irregular route? Do they have to come on an inflatable?
Tom Pursglove
Let me be very clear: there is absolutely no reason why any Ukrainian should pay an evil people smuggler to come to be safe in the United Kingdom. I have set out the detail of our two generous schemes, which are uncapped and wide in capturing people’s many and varied circumstances. I would not want anybody—this applies to any group—to put their life in the hands of evil criminal gangs who have only one regard, which is to turn a profit, putting those individuals in great danger. We have had many debates about the nature and construction of the Ukrainian scheme and I am confident that there is no reason why people should resort to that means of travelling to the United Kingdom. Nobody should encourage Ukrainians, or anybody else for that matter, to make those perilous journeys.
Tom Pursglove
I have given way to the hon. Gentleman a few times and I want to conclude my remarks.
Stephen Kinnock
The Minister is being very generous. He gave detailed numbers on how many visas had been granted in all the schemes that he read out. I note that he did not include the number of visas granted under the Homes for Ukraine scheme. Will he update the House on how many visas the Home Office has issued under that scheme as of today?
Tom Pursglove
I am afraid that I do not have those figures to hand, but we hope to be able to say more on that very soon. It is the early days of that scheme but we have seen an overwhelmingly generous response from people offering sanctuary in their homes, and we want to take up those offers. I look forward to being able to say more about the figures on early implementation as soon as we can.
I understand the concerns raised by right hon. and hon. Members, but I hope that those schemes speak of our willingness to respond to international crises with compassion and to support higher numbers of refugees and people in need of protection when necessary. That is our approach, so we do not think that it is necessary to put a number in statute.
I understand the rationale behind Lords amendment 12, which relates to grants of asylum connected with cases of genocide. We, of course, stand by victims of genocide. Whether or not a determination of genocide is made, the UK is committed to seeking an end to serious violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. We are also committed to preventing the escalation of any such violations and alleviating the suffering of those affected, but it is not practical for us to be bound to consider asylum claims in British missions from the very large number of individuals overseas who might like to come here. Even with a cap on the number of individuals, we can expect many thousands of applications, which UK caseworkers would need to assess individually to determine whether each individual belongs to the specific group found to be at risk. We do not think that is practical.
Brendan O'Hara (Argyll and Bute) (SNP)
To clarify the Minister’s point, is he saying that the opposition to Lords amendment 12 is on an administrative rather than a humanitarian basis? He seems to suggest that there may be too many people coming for the British embassies to handle. Surely that is no basis to turn our backs on people who are victims of genocide.
Tom Pursglove
I do not accept the hon. Member’s characterisation of those remarks for a minute. My primary concern is twofold: to ensure that staff, for example, in British missions are safe and not put at risk; and to ensure that individuals turning up at British missions are also not put at undue risk, considering the sorts of circumstances that we are talking about in such debates and the lengths to which some countries will go to persecute individuals when genocide is relevant. Our approach is better: to develop bespoke schemes as circumstances arise with similar accessibility to the schemes that I described. We would argue that that is the right approach.
I do not understand the rationale behind Lords amendments 13 to 19. They would delete the new offence of knowingly arriving in the UK without a valid entry clearance, and that could make it impossible to take enforcement action against someone who has arrived in, but not technically “entered”, the UK without clearance. That would compromise our plans to enhance the security of our borders, so we cannot accept those amendments.
Similarly, I cannot say that I understand the rationale behind Lords amendment 20, which would compromise our plans to enhance our ability to prosecute people smugglers. It would do that by preserving the status quo in legislation, which means that prosecutors have to prove that people smugglers are acting for gain. Time and again, however, that requirement has been found to have significant operational limitations. We need to remove it to ensure that the lives of vulnerable people are not put at risk by the actions of people smugglers and that traffickers are brought to justice for the misery that they inflict.
Tom Pursglove
I have already taken one intervention from the hon. Gentleman and I want to conclude my speech quickly.
Lords amendment 54 would mean that powers set out in the part of the Bill to which it applies
“must not be used in a manner or in circumstances that could endanger life at sea.”
I take this opportunity to again place on record my admiration for the incredibly brave individuals who engage in rescue work. I also want to make it absolutely clear that our priority is always to save and preserve lives. We are proud of our heritage as a great seafaring nation and will always lead the way globally in complying with our relevant domestic and international obligations, including those under the UN convention on the law of the sea. We do not think it necessary to put those commitments in the Bill and we therefore do not support the amendment.
I wish to speak in favour of Government amendments 2 and 3, together with amendments 42 to 51. The amendments will resolve the lawful residence issue for individuals with indefinite leave to remain under the EU settlement scheme who wish to naturalise, but have not previously held comprehensive sickness insurance.
The problem is that those who wish to become British citizens based on a period of residence in the UK need to have been in the UK lawfully—for five years, for most people—before making their application. Unfortunately, a number of European economic area nationals or their family members do not currently meet that requirement because they did not hold comprehensive sickness insurance, which was a legal requirement for those who were in the UK as students or as self-sufficient persons. They could still be granted indefinite leave to remain, also known as settled status, under the EU settlement scheme, which did not have a lawful residence requirement, but they would not technically meet the requirements for citizenship.
Stephen Kinnock
May I associate myself with the Minister’s comments about PC Keith Palmer, who died in the line of duty and whose tragic passing this House will never forget?
The Bill has been introduced against the backdrop of an asylum and immigration system that is simply not fit for purpose. The British people want and deserve a system that is fair, compassionate and orderly, as has been made abundantly clear by the fact that more than 150,000 households have signed up to house refugees fleeing the horrors of Putin’s barbaric war. But from the Windrush scandal to the botched Afghan resettlement scheme and the shambolic response on Ukraine, the Home Office has consistently failed to live up to the standards that the public rightly expect from their Government, so we should not really be surprised that the Bill not only fails to meet any of the challenges that our migration system faces, but actively makes the situation worse. That is why the Opposition rejected the Bill in its entirety on Second Reading; it is why we support every one of the Lords amendments, each of which seeks to mitigate the worst excesses of this dreadful legislation. The fact that the Government were defeated fully 19 times in the other place is proof positive that this appalling legislation is not fit for the statute book.
I turn to the specific reasons that our asylum and immigration system is so comprehensively broken. Let us start with the most visible example: the small boats crisis in the English channel. The number of desperate asylum seekers risking their lives by crossing the channel on small boats has increased from 299 in 2018 to an eye-watering 28,526 in 2021, of whom more than 3,000 were children. Yet Conservative Ministers have failed to engage constructively with their French counterparts to tackle the people traffickers, so the Home Secretary has now resorted to criminalising vulnerable refugees who are fleeing war-torn countries such as Ukraine.
Janet Daby (Lewisham East) (Lab)
I have spoken to asylum seekers who have told me about how children come to this country: it is often their parents who are giving the money to traffickers, and they have no idea how the journey will commence. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government simply seem totally unaware of that point and have not included it in their consideration at all?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are many dreadful aspects to the whole story, but the impact on children who are utterly innocent and deserve nothing but our compassion and care, but who are not being treated with either of those values and principles, should make the Government hang their head in shame.
Tim Loughton
I completely agree that the situation with boats coming across the channel is wholly unsatisfactory, but the hon. Gentleman has just accused the Government of failing to engage satisfactorily with the French authorities. Giving £54 million to the French to do something about this; making constant requests, which have been rebuffed, for meetings with the French Interior Minister and others—where have the Government not tried to engage constructively? How would the hon. Gentleman’s party have engaged constructively? What are his practical suggestions to do something about this, rather than the grandstanding that he does every time he is at the Dispatch Box?
Stephen Kinnock
I guess what matters is results and outcomes. The Government’s attempts to engage have clearly failed; the hon. Member will have his own view of why that may be, but I gently suggest that gratuitously insulting our European partners and allies on a regular basis, as the Prime Minister does, is probably not helping very much.
A particularly disturbing aspect of the Bill is that it seeks to criminalise a person who is seeking asylum for
“arriving in the United Kingdom without…clearance”.
That means that a Ukrainian person who had brought their elderly parents to our country in the early days of the war would have been criminalised under the Bill. Do the Government not comprehend the horrors from which refugees are fleeing? We should not seek to criminalise refugees who are desperately looking for a new home; we should go after the people traffickers. The Opposition therefore fully support Lords amendment 13, which removes the new offence.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle (Brighton, Kemptown) (Lab/Co-op)
My hon. Friend is making very good points. Is it not the case that the only way to apply for asylum in Britain is to come through an irregular route, because someone has no possibility of applying for asylum if they are not in Britain? Criminalisation is shutting off almost all legal routes to applying for asylum. In effect, the only way to get to the UK would be to make a false application first via a tourist route or another route, but the Government would then say, in a Kafkaesque way, “You have falsely applied, because you came in via the wrong route.” That is particularly pernicious, is it not?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The whole thing smacks of a kind of bureaucratic trickery whereby every option is blocked off by some additional piece of bureaucracy. The Bill should have been an opportunity to unlock some of that, but instead it leaves us in stalemate.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Appositely to the remarks of the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) about where people claim asylum and how it is processed, the Bill will allow a claim to be processed elsewhere before people get here. Based on what the hon. Gentleman says, that will be a positive move, will it not? It will also mean that people who are travelling through safe countries where they could claim asylum can do so there and have their claim processed there.
Stephen Kinnock
I think that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to offshoring, but as we have seen, offshoring does not work: it is costing millions and millions in Australia and every expert is panning the idea. If I have understood his intervention correctly, I am afraid that it is simply a non-starter.
The Opposition support Lords amendment 6, which removes the Government’s attempt to introduce differential treatment of refugees based on method of arrival. For instance, if a Ukrainian citizen were to flee and travel here across Europe while waiting for a Government visa office to open or a safe route to be provided, clause 11 would make them a second-class refugee. To be a first-tier refugee, they would have to have taken an aeroplane directly from Ukraine. That absurd technicality shows just how unjust the proposal is.
Jonathan Gullis
I am getting rather confused. The Labour party seems to be saying that we should not remove pull factors that mean that people are willing to risk their lives crossing the English channel and put money into the hands of the people smugglers. What has happened to the Labour party? Back in 2004, Baroness Scotland, a Labour Minister, said that
“a person should seek protection in the first safe country where they have the chance to do so.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 April 2004; Vol. 659, c. 1684.]
What happened to that Labour party?
Stephen Kinnock
What is required is a properly resourced and competent processing system, so that when people come here they can be processed quickly. That would resolve many of the issues to which the hon. Gentleman referred.
Arguably even more astonishing is the fact that clause 38 appears to criminalise the good Samaritans who want to save lives in the channel by removing the “for gain” clause, meaning that it is not just profiteering people traffickers who are deemed criminals, but good, honest people trying to rescue drowning refugees. Lords amendment 20 reintroduces the “for gain” wording, a move that we fully support.
That brings me to the so-called pushback policy. Pushing back dinghies may well mean condemning refugees, including innocent children, to their deaths. This is an utterly barbaric proposal which, again, contravenes the law of the sea. We therefore support Lords amendment 54, which adds language to schedule 6, stating that these enforcement powers must never put lives at risk.
Profound concern has been expressed about the Bill’s failure to comply with the United Nations refugee convention. The United Nations high commissioner for human rights, among others, has criticised the legislation for undermining the human rights of refugees in a range of different ways. At a time when authoritarian regimes such as Russia and China are riding roughshod over international laws and norms, we must show that Britain, as a leading liberal democracy, is ready to lead by example. Britain must show that we stand with refugees and stand up for international law. We therefore support Lords amendment 5, which would add a new clause stating that nothing in the Bill must authorise policies which do not comply with the refugee convention.
Gary Sambrook (Birmingham, Northfield) (Con)
Would the hon. Gentleman like to tell the House what safe and legal routes the then Labour Government opened up after the second Iraq war? I may be able to help him with the answer: I do not think there were any.
Stephen Kinnock
The safe and legal routes are not working properly, and they need to be made to work more effectively. We currently have thousands of Afghan refugees stuck in hotels. Let us put in place a system that actually works. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that looking forward is more effective than looking back.
Another stark failure of this Government has been the asylum waiting lists that are keeping refugees in limbo and costing the taxpayer dear. There are now over 100,000 people awaiting initial decisions on their asylum applications, with an astonishing 61,864 having had to wait for six months or longer. These failures are less about capacity and more about a distinct lack of competence. The numbers of asylum seekers are fewer than the UK’s recent peak, so the Home Office should be able to cope. However, under this Home Secretary the system simply is not working.
Lords amendment 7 offers a sensible proposal which could minimise the damage caused by the backlog, as it would give asylum seekers the right to work if their case was taking longer than six months. That would allow dignity to asylum seekers, who could then earn their way and contribute rather than being completely disempowered and excluded from the labour market. The Lords amendment would also prevent asylum seekers from being forced into the dangerous net of the black-market economy just to survive, which is so often more attractive to them than relying on £38 per week from the Government. Moreover, the Government have already said that all Ukrainians can work here as soon as they arrive, so why is it a problem to allow other individuals and families fleeing terror the same opportunity? If the Government are worried about being seen to give asylum seekers work, they should fix the system so that applications are processed within six months. We are pleased to see that more than 66 Conservative parliamentarians, including 27 members of this House, have signed a letter to the Home Secretary expressing support for Lords amendment 7, and we encourage Ministers to see the light and follow suit.
The introduction last year of “inadmissibility’’ has only led to further delays. Because the Government have failed to renegotiate a single returns policy with any country, labelling asylum seekers as “inadmissible’’ for processing is effectively meaningless, as the asylum seeker in question cannot be returned. This simply adds six months of bureaucracy, uncertainty and confusion for the refugee, and a huge cost to the British taxpayer. Of the 8,593 “notices of intent” to deem people inadmissible that were issued in 2021, incredibly, only 64 were upheld. This policy simply increases the enormous backlog further and is a complete waste of money, so we support Lords amendment 8.
Let me now turn to perhaps the most unhinged element of the Bill, the so-called offshoring provisions which allow—theoretically at least—asylum seekers to be sent to faraway lands for processing. The latest ludicrous suggestion is that Ascension Island, 4,500 miles away in the South Atlantic, should be used for the purpose. That is utter nonsense. It is operationally illiterate because it is utterly impractical, and it is economically illiterate because it would cost an eye-watering amount of taxpayers’ money.
Tom Pursglove
May I make it clear, for the benefit of the House, that the suggestion about Ascension Island is untrue?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the Minister for that intervention.
Offshoring in Australia costs roughly $1 billion a year, for about 300 people. Experts in Australia have also said that it is not effective as a deterrent, and that the vast majority of those offshored are now back in Australia as a result of mental and physical suffering.
Stephen Kinnock
I do not think we are in control of which messages get out and which do not. This is about results and consequences, not about the process. If the process is not working, it needs to be fixed.
Rather than being fair, compassionate and orderly, this process would be cruel, demeaning and costly. This is why the Labour Party supports Lords amendment 9, which removes offshoring from the Bill. While we are on the topic of fairness and compassion, I should note our long-standing support for Lords amendment 10, which would allow unaccompanied children in Europe to join family members who are living lawfully in the UK. At this point I should also note my personal dismay at the Bill’s approach to victims of modern slavery, which, again, utterly contravenes the principles of fairness and compassion. I look forward to hearing the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) on that subject later today.
What is abundantly clear is that little to no resilience is built into Britain’s asylum system. It is simply failing to adapt and keep pace. It is also utterly inflexible at each point in the process. Ukrainian refugees are having to fill in 50 pages of paperwork in order not to be turned away; that is far beyond the necessary security checks. We have 100,000 person-long asylum waiting lists, and 12,000 Afghan refugees are stuck in hotels. Lords amendment 11 is a useful first step and one that we support, but with Putin’s barbaric actions moving the goalposts almost every day, we suggest that the Government should move further and faster in delivering a resilient system with the capacity that is required to adapt. A Government who fail to plan are a Government who plan to fail, and Lords amendment 11 would at least go some way to forcing this Government to plan and to build capacity.
Finally, while we feel that the concessions given on clause 9 are a welcome step forward, we remain unconvinced that the fears of innocent citizens who feel at risk from this policy have been allayed. It is still too vague, and we will be pushing Lords amendment 4 to a vote.
Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)
Only after outrage over pushback have the Government been forced to concede on some of the most chilling aspects of this racist, divisive and discriminatory Bill, including through the removal of some of the carte blanche powers that were previously given to the Home Secretary. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that there are still similar concerns about due process, and in particular about the notion that people can be stripped of their citizenship just because of our relations with another country?
Stephen Kinnock
I congratulate and pay tribute to my hon. Friend and other colleagues who have led a passionate and powerful campaign on this issue. There are 324,963 signatures to a petition about clause 9, and I pay tribute to all those who have campaigned on it. We will be voting for Lords amendment 4 today.
Tim Loughton
At the start of the hon. Gentleman’s speech, I asked him what practical solutions his party had put forward, particularly to combat the journeys across the channel. He has skipped through a great many Lords amendments, in each case opposing Government suggestions and putting nothing in their place. May I give him one final opportunity, before he sits down, to tell us what practical measures his party is proposing to deal with the illegal and dangerous boats coming across the channel? So far, he has not come up with a single practical suggestion.
Stephen Kinnock
We are supporting every one of these amendments, almost all of which contain practical suggestions. That is the policy of the Labour Front Bench. On the broader point, one thing we would do is not have a party leader who regularly and consistently insults our democratic partners and allies. On that basis, we would negotiate a successor to Dublin and get constructive engagement with the French on security in relation to people smugglers. This is about grown-up politics, as I am sure the hon. Member would agree.
I would like to end by paying tribute to the noble Lords and Baronesses Coaker, Stroud, Lister, D’Souza, Rosser, Judge, Pannick, Kerr, Kirkhope, Dubs, Alton, Neuburger and Ritchie for working cross-party in such a constructive and effective way to win so many votes in the other place. Let me be clear: this Bill reflects and represents a catalogue of failure on immigration policy and a combination of incompetence and indifference from a Government who are presiding over a system that is neither fair, compassionate nor orderly. It is a desperate attempt to distract from the Home Secretary’s failings, and it solves none of the challenges our immigration system faces. We know that many Members on the Government Benches are deeply uncomfortable with the content of this legislation. The British people want and deserve an asylum and immigration system that is fair, compassionate and orderly. Today, Members on the Government Benches can stand up for decency by joining us in the Division Lobby later this afternoon. Let us hope that they will do so.
Damian Green (Ashford) (Con)
I rise to support Lords amendment 11, but I want to start by thanking Ministers for their flexibility in accepting the logic of the amendment I moved at an earlier stage to extend the benefits of the British national overseas scheme to younger Hong Kong residents born after 1997. I thank all those on both sides of this House who supported it, and those in the other place who did so, notably Lord Alton, Lord Patten of Barnes, Lord Falconer and the Bishop of St Albans, as well as the non-governmental organisation Hong Kong Watch. Most of all, I thank the Ministers who have taken it on board and acted on it. That is a good result, so in the same spirit of pragmatic and sensible co-operation, let me try again with the Lords amendment that would set up a permanent safe route that crucially, from the Government’s own perspective, would remove a significant driver of the traffic in small boats across the channel.
I absolutely get that one of the Government’s key aims is to minimise and hopefully stop altogether this dangerous route of illegal immigration. I support them wholeheartedly in that aim. Been there, done that, when the traffic was in the backs of lorries, which was equally dangerous and also led to the deaths of innocent people fleeing trouble. It can be done; we can stop these routes. So why Lords amendment 11? The Government, and indeed the Minister in his opening remarks, have correctly asserted that people in need of protection must come to the UK via safe and lawful routes rather than making an illegal journey. However, those routes need to be available to people, and for far too many people, they are simply not available under the current system.
The Minister went through the details of the resettlement pathway, and in the explanatory notes to the Bill the Government assert that they intend
“to enhance resettlement routes to continue to provide pathways for refugees to be granted protection in the UK”.
But this resettlement route can be an effective response to the challenge of the channel crossings, of which there were about 28,000 last year, and break the model of the criminal people smugglers, only if it achieves two things. First, it must be accessible to meaningful numbers of people. Secondly, it must not be restricted to one geographic area. However, the Home Office data confirms that 87% of those arriving by small boats in 2021 comprised nationals from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen, for whom there is currently no alternative legal and safe route by which they can apply to get to the UK, so it is pointless the Minister saying that he believes in accessible routes. The people coming across the channel—he and I, and I suspect everyone in this House, want them to stop putting themselves at risk—do not have those routes available to them, and that is why we need this Lords amendment and a change to the Government’s proposals.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
The right hon. Gentleman is making a good point. I wanted to highlight the difficulty for Syrian Kurds, who often flee over the Turkish border. This Government believe that Turkey is a safe place for them, but many Kurds legitimately do not believe that it is a safe place for them to wait for resettlement, and they therefore continue their journey through Europe and eventually arrive in Britain. The Government’s proposals would make that harder. They need to provide decent routes, particularly for Kurds and other minorities that might find neighbouring countries hostile to them rather than receptive of them.
Damian Green
I find myself in rare, perhaps unique agreement with the hon. Gentleman on that point. I am sure that he and I will not want to see that happen too often.
Returning to the Government’s wider plan, the new plan for immigration states:
“The UK’s commitment to resettling refugees will continue to be a multi-year commitment with numbers subject to ongoing review guided by circumstances and capacity at any given time.”
If nothing else, Lords amendment 11 invites the Government to take a small step forward—I agree with the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) that it is a small step, but it is a significant step and I hope we will vote on it later—to strengthen their objectives with a concrete and predictable floor of 10,000 places. That would provide local authorities and civil society more widely with the certainty, time and space to plan and to deliver the capacity so that resettlement can be successful. I should pause and pay tribute to my own local authority in Ashford, which was very active in coming forward early for the Syrian resettlement scheme and has done the same with the Afghans. I also pay tribute to the civil society NGOs in my constituency that are doing the same with Ukraine. I suspect that that is reflected all around the country. There are lots of people out there who want to be generous.
Richard Graham
It seems to me that the Homes for Ukraine scheme offers a model that could be used for all sorts of other nationalities as well. There is no reason why we should have one lot of refugees who are being housed and able to work from day one while others are in hotels decided on by the Home Office and often planted on councils that are trying to do their best but do not have much accommodation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is a real opportunity for us to rethink how we accept refugees in our country now?
Damian Green
I do; my hon. Friend makes an extremely profound point. We are facing a crisis of a type we have not faced before, and we should use this opportunity to look at ourselves and our systems and ask whether we can do things differently. We should use the entirely justifiable outpouring that we have seen over Ukraine to set up a permanent system so that if we get something like this again—God forbid, but sadly it will probably happen—we will have the systems in place to make it is easier for people, particularly those who are fleeing persecution and death. The Syrian refugee scheme saw 275 local authorities—two thirds of the local authorities in this country—volunteering to resettle refugees. I think that proves the point that an ambitious and intelligently designed programme can meet the appetite of people in their own areas to help those who are fleeing persecution.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend recall that, following the 2003 Hillingdon judgment that clarified the responsibilities of local authorities in respect of refugee children, Bev Hughes, the then Minister at the Home Office, wrote to every local authority to inform them that the cost of supporting refugee children would be met in full? A year later, however, when the invoices were submitted to the Home Office, the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), who had taken on that ministerial responsibility, refused to meet those costs, thus undermining the confidence of local authorities to step up to the plate in that respect.
Damian Green
My hon. Friend, a former leader of Hillingdon Council, will be more expert on this matter than I am. In various phases, I have been on either side of the argument between the Home Office and local authorities, so I shall declare a position of neutrality on that, but he makes a valid point.
Lords amendment 11 is modest in its ambitions. It sets a number, which I have heard Ministers claim is a limit, but the amendment actually states:
“The Secretary of State must arrange for the resettlement in the United Kingdom of at least 10,000 refugees each year.”
So if the arrangements are there, the Secretary of State has met the terms. It is conceivable that in some years there will not be the need to resettle 10,000 refugees, but, sadly, looking around the world at the moment, I do not think that figure is at all unrealistic. This approach will have huge practical advantages because, as we have discussed, it will allow local authorities and others to plan ahead. As we see at the moment, this country is good at scrambling together a plan at the last moment, but for once let us do some proper forward planning.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), with whom I agree entirely. Let me start by echoing the comments of both the Minister and shadow Minister on PC Keith Palmer, whose incredibly bravery we should never forget.
It is appropriate to recognise that one or two slivers of progress have been made, for example, on BNO visas and Chagossians, but the fundamental problem is that the core idea at the heart of this Bill, which was appalling from its outset last July, remains at its heart: the idea that we should punish and dehumanise certain refugees so as to disincentivise others from coming here, all on the basis that they should stay in the first country they come to. I thought that that was a horrible idea at the time, but the subsequent events in Afghanistan and the further invasion of Ukraine highlight as never before how utterly misconceived and nonsensical the Government’s thinking was, because although most refugees do seek protection in the first country they enter, some will not, for a host of perfectly understandable reasons. The Government have recognised that, rightly, in their family scheme for Ukrainians. Of course it makes sense for Ukrainians to come to join a brother, aunt or grandparent here in the UK and not to stop in Poland or France, but this Bill will criminalise and undermine recognised refugees from Afghanistan or anywhere else who seek protection here motivated by precisely the same reasons. The Bill represents nothing less than this Government resiling from the refugee convention. The Tories are ripping up a 70-year-old convention exactly when we see that it is as crucial as ever; the Bill’s incompatibility, to lawyers out there and most people in here, is as clear as day. The Government know it as well, which is why they cannot even accept Lords amendment 5, a simple amendment that would require powers in part 2 to be exercised in accordance with the refugee convention. If the Minister is right and everything is absolutely consistent with the convention, no harm is done and there is absolutely no reason for the Government to oppose that amendment.
The House of Lords has done its best to make this Bill barely tolerable, but the Government are seeking to reverse almost every one of its eminently sensible proposals. The Government are not listening, whether to parliamentarians, international authorities or the public. Through their motions to disagree, the Government want to take us back to a Bill and a system that will see refugees criminalised with an offence punishable with up to four years in prison, conceivably with people who rescued them next to them in the dock. It is a system that would see people subject to offshoring while their claim is heard and processed. There is the ludicrous inadmissibility procedure that means nothing can happen while the Government pretend they are going to remove a person to a country they have passed through, despite having no returns agreement in place with it. Even once recognised as a refugee, an Afghan, Syrian or persecuted Christian convert, or whoever else, is going to be treated as a sub-class of refugee, with limits on recourse to public funds, no prospect of settlement and limited family reunion rights. In short, they will be unable to rebuild their life here at all, which is exactly the purpose of the Bill: deliberately making the asylum process awful. Those are just some of the most appalling aspects of the Bill that the Lords have sought to fix.
Let us consider this proposition: up to four years in prison for an Afghan or anyone else who takes an unauthorised route to get here. It is outrageous, so Lords amendment 13 and all the consequential ones should remain in place. What about this: penalising those who charitably seek to assist refugees? That is absolutely absurd, so we support Lords amendments 20 and 54 , which ensure that push-back powers are not exercised in a manner that endangers life. It is incredible that these things are even up for debate. We should not be ripping up the convention by making the unauthorised Afghan or Ukrainian arrivals second-tier citizens, deliberately destroying their prospects of rebuilding their lives. So Lords amendment 6, which deletes clause 11, must be left in place. It is hard to overstate how significant this is. As former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said, the provisions of clause 11 would
“threaten the integrity of the global asylum system”.
This is about denying recognised refugees their rights under the refugee convention and it is totally unacceptable.
Where is the Government’s draft guidance about how they will use these sweeping powers? Apparently it exists, but, like so much else in relation to this Bill, they have kept it to themselves. How will decision makers decide when to use powers to strip recognised refugees of many of their rights? Who will face the burden of proof as to whether the provisions should apply? What will the standard of proof be? Will decisions take into account the individual circumstances of the refugee, in the context of the particular countries they passed through? How much discretion will decision makers have not to treat recognised refugees in this frankly disgusting manner? Any exercise of these powers will be abhorrent, but we have little idea about how these sweeping powers will be used. That is another reason we should not be providing them to the Home Secretary.
The utterly obscene idea of offshoring asylum claims must be kicked into touch. All sorts of myths have been perpetuated about how this was successful—it was not; it has been abandoned by the Australians. It did not stop—it did not exceed 300 people— because message got out that it was not worth trying to get to Australia; it stopped because the whole process was at capacity within weeks of its being launched. So we support Lords amendments 9, 52 and 53. Frankly, if Members are still thinking of resisting these amendments, they are either not interested or are utterly indifferent to the grotesque suffering it has caused those caught up in the Australian scheme. We are talking about children self-harming; suicides and suicide attempts; a mental health catastrophe; and sexual assaults. If that is not enough, perhaps Members should consider the billions of pounds such a system will cost, while achieving nothing. Yet the Home Secretary, who is now paying salaries to people responsible for the Australian disgrace, will not even publish her assessment of the costs. We have been promised the economic impact assessment repeatedly. The Home Affairs Committee was told it was to be published shortly, and that was last autumn. Here we are at ping-pong and it has been kept hidden. There must be a reason for that.
Stuart C. McDonald
I take into account all the evidence we heard on this matter in the Bill Committee—all the written submissions and the oral evidence we heard. Any assessment by anyone independent of the Government behind that scheme says that none of that was attributable to the offshoring and it was actually attributable to something else I do not like, which was push-backs, but push-backs in a completely different context to those—
Jonathan Gullis
We both served on the Bill Committee but we seem to have a very different recollection. George Brandis, the Australian high commissioner, talked about a three-part effect, with push-back, offshoring and deterring by having tougher sanctions for those who enter illegally all having worked in tandem with one another to deter people from making the journey. That is unlike what the hon. Gentleman is trying to portray, which is that one silver bullet was the magic answer—it simply was not. It is just a shame that only two local authorities in the entirety of Scotland take part in the asylum dispersal scheme, unlike Stoke-on-Trent, which is the fifth largest contributor.
Stuart C. McDonald
Conservative Members can continue to try to upset local authorities in Scotland and achieve absolutely nothing in doing so, but on the more substantive—
Stuart C. McDonald
The hon. Gentleman has made his intervention, so I am going to try to—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Members should not make interventions when they are sitting down—end of story.
Stuart C. McDonald
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me answer the intervention the hon. Gentleman made while he was standing up. As I said in response to the original intervention, other than what we heard from the politician who gave evidence to us, all the impartial expert evidence was that offshoring achieved absolutely nothing; it was not anything to do with a decline in the number of drownings. The second point to make, in relation to Scottish local authorities, is exactly the same point as has been made by the Conservative party leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council: the Home Office does not step up to its responsibilities because it does not fund local authorities to undertake this work.
Jonathan Gullis
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way after mentioning Stoke-on-Trent. The leader of Stoke-on-Trent City Council is annoyed about the asylum dispersal scheme because only a third of local authorities are currently part of it. The council is asking for other areas—such as the 30-plus local authority areas in Scotland—to step up and do their bit because our city of Stoke-on-Trent is now at the one in 200 threshold in terms of refugee versus local citizen. Instead of attacking Stoke-on-Trent City Council with some vague quote, let us get into the facts of the matter. If Scotland stepped up to the plate and did its bit, Stoke-on-Trent would not have to carry the burden for the rest of the country.
Stuart C. McDonald
Stoke-on-Trent City Council is among a group of councils that has taken the Home Office to court, and it protests about how the Home Office handles the scheme. In fairness to the Home Secretary, she agrees with the point I am making, which is that it is outrageous that local authorities have been left without proper funding to do their job. As I have said a million times in the House, once that funding is in place the hon. Gentleman will see other Scottish local authorities step up to the plate, just as every single Scottish local authority did in respect of the Syrian resettlement scheme.
Let us get back to offshoring, because none of what we were just talking about has anything to do with the fact that what offshoring achieved in Australia was self-harm, disastrous mental health consequences and all sorts of appalling torture and degrading treatment for the people there. Offshoring is going to cost billions of pounds, there is no sensible argument in favour of it and we need to get rid of it as soon as we can.
We also support Lords amendment 8, which means the Government cannot delay the consideration of asylum claims in order to attempt removal when in reality there is no prospect of removal happening. In itself, the amendment goes nowhere near far enough in the provision of safeguards against the inappropriate use of inadmissibility procedures, but it is better than nothing at all.
All the Lords amendments I have gone through are designed to prevent the Government from taking the broken asylum system and smashing it to pieces, but there are Lords amendments that also seek to improve the current broken system, which sees people having to wait months even to register their claim, and years to get a decision. Lords amendment 7 is a simple but powerful example. It allows asylum seekers to work after six months. The arguments have been repeated ad infinitum in this place and seem to us to be overwhelming. Nobody can fail to understand the significance of work to tackling poverty, the improvement of mental health and wellbeing and the aiding of integration. If people are left out of work for years—which is how long asylum claims take these days—how can they rebuild their lives?
The Government bang on about pull factors, but that argument is not only morally repugnant—in essence, “Let asylum seekers suffer to disincentivise others from coming”—but empty. The Migration Advisory Committee itself says that there is no evidence to back up what the Government say. Frankly, there is no evidence to back up virtually anything the Government say, which is why very little is ever published. We therefore pay tribute to all the campaigners behind Lords amendment 7.
Lords amendments 10, 11 and 12 represent three different forms of safe route that would enhance our protection system. Lords amendment 10, tabled by Lord Dubs, puts in place a form of family reunion for those in Europe, thereby repairing some of the damage caused by the end of our participation in the Dublin system. The Government recognised that family rules were far too constrained for Ukrainians; Lords amendment 10 is built on the same principle, with a particular benefit for unaccompanied children. With the demise of our participation in Dublin, we see more and more children getting into dinghies to join siblings or other relatives here, and the amendment would help to stop that. The Dublin system was not perfect but it was a lot better than our restrictive family reunion rules, which involve massive fees and impossible legal tests. Lords amendment 10 improves on all that.
Similarly, we support Lords amendment 12, which opens a safe route for people fleeing genocide—I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) will say more on that later—and we fully support Lords amendment 11, which ensures the regular resettlement of 10,000 refugees per year. For too long, the extent to which we have sought to meet our obligations to resettle refugees has been left to the whim of the Home Office. The Syrian scheme was a success, but the infrastructure that made it successful has been left to wither and—to put it politely—the Afghan scheme has barely started, despite the huge responsibility we have for those people. We get lots of rhetoric from the Government on this issue, but little delivery. We need a stable and predictable annual goal with a degree of flexibility, which is exactly what Lords amendment 11 delivers.
Finally, I turn to the one part of the Bill that is largely welcome: part 1. We warmly welcome the progress on the recognition of Chagos islanders as British overseas territory citizens, but questions arise in relation to the amendment in lieu, because unlike the original Lords amendment it does not include an entitlement for Chagos islanders to register as a British citizen at the same time. Were it not for historic injustices, that would have been made an automatic entitlement in May 2002. The Government’s proposals mean there will be only a discretionary route. What is the rationale for that? Will the Minister confirm that that discretion will be used in all cases of this type? Will he ensure that only a restricted fee is charged, as in other cases of historic injustice?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kevin Foster)
Just to help and to keep this short, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that our intention is to operate in the spirit of the Lords amendment—that is, there will not be a fee for registration—but I am more than happy to outline in some detail at another time exactly how the process will work.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is useful to hear that said from the Dispatch Box, so I thank the Minister.
Lastly, the provisions on stripping people of citizenship without notice were introduced at short notice in the Public Bill Committee, without any chance to hear or receive evidence on them. The provisions were frightening, and their lordships have exposed them for the utterly unfit provisions they were. Indeed, the whole episode has cast light on how unfit for purpose nationality laws have become, and in particular the ever-increasing powers of Ministers to strip people of their citizenship.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. As the House can see, a great many people wish to speak. I will try to manage without a formal time limit because it is not normal to have one at this stage of dealing with Lords amendments, but I will introduce a time limit if we cannot have a bit of discipline. If everyone speaks for around four minutes, all colleagues will have a chance to speak, so let us try to do it without a formal time limit.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
I will be as quick as I can, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Unlike the Opposition, I take the view that this Bill is a serious attempt to deal with an almost intractable problem. Nobody should challenge that point. Nevertheless, we are a great nation, and our greatness rests on the fact that we take a moral stance on most things. That is not a formula for softness but it is an argument for rigour in what we do. Lord Kirkhope’s amendment 9 strips out the Government’s plans to create an offshore asylum-processing system, and I believe he is right. Asylum offshoring would be a moral, economic and practical failure. Previous international experience shows that to introduce it here would be an unmitigated disaster.
The first problem with offshoring is an ethical one. To get a sense of the issue, we have only to look at what happened in Australia when it adopted the same approach in 2013. It meant that children, modern slavery victims and torture survivors could be detained offshore. The Refugee Council of Australia has documented gut-wrenching stories of sexual, physical and mental abuse in the processing facilities. A 14-year-old girl who was held offshore for five years doused herself in petrol and tried to set herself alight. A 10-year-old boy attempted suicide three times. Another child starved themselves near to death and had to be removed back to Australia.
Those were not isolated cases. In fact, there have been numerous reports of assaults and sexual abuse relating to Australia’s processing facility on Nauru. Between January and October 2015 alone—just a few months—there were 48 reports of assault and 57 reports of assault against a minor. That is what we appear to be trying to copy. We cannot risk creating a similar situation here. I ask the House to remember what happened to the views of migration around Europe when we saw the body of a drowned child on a Turkish beach. That is what would happen if such stories started to come out of a British offshoring facility.
The second problem with offshoring is its staggering cost. Australia ended up spending over £1 million per person detained offshore—around £4.3 billion for 3,127 asylum seekers. That is 25 times higher per head than what we spend now. We would expect to have many more applicants than Australia had. Last year alone we had 50,000 applicants. Despite what was said earlier, the Australians have learned the lesson. They have wound down their policy, shut down their processing centre in Papua New Guinea and have not sent any new asylum seekers there since 2014.
Mr Davis
The one that I was citing was Nauru, not Papua New Guinea, which turned it down itself and refused to take any more. That is the actual fact of it. By the way, I talked to Tony Abbott about this issue last week and will recount a bit of that discussion in a moment. Since that centre was closed, there were 92,000 asylum applications, so it is not as though the story went away.
There is also a major practical problem: where is this facility going to be? Will it be in Ghana, which referred to the policy as “Operation Dead Meat”? Rwanda? We have heard more on Rwanda today, and I will leave it to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) to talk about Rwanda, as he knows more about it than I do. Albania? Moldova? Gibraltar? All these places have all been talked about—none has said yes. Even if we do find somewhere, we will have to pay it a spectacular bribe to get it to take in our dirty washing; that is what it is, in effect. The Government are simply proposing shifting responsibility for our problems to another country. That does not fit with the behaviour of the great country that I believe we are.
Given the time limit, I will finish on this point. I spoke last week to Tony Abbott, who was Prime Minister of Australia for some of the time we are discussing. We did not talk primarily about this policy, but I asked him what was most effective. I am afraid that he rather agreed with what the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) said—that the really effective policy was pushback.
Frankly, what we have to deal with, in the Home Office and with our French allies, is a series of practical problems, alongside the legalities of how we handle the channel, which is not yet resolved either. What we cannot do is put aside ethical standards in order to drive people away from our shores.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
When people look back on this debate, I think it will be in the same way that we look back on debates around the Poor Law. They tried to solve poverty in those times by being cruel to the poor; I think that is what we are trying to do here. We are not addressing the real issues we face.
I fully concur with everything the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) said. I find it bizarre that we are even considering offshoring at this point in time; I think we all know that, practically, it is never going to come off—it is never going to happen—and this is a wasted debate.
I want to concentrate on employment rights. In my constituency, I have two detention centres, which house nearly 1,000 people. Most of them will be detained, but will then come into the community, and will eventually be allowed to remain. There are 1,700 asylum seekers in hotels in my constituency as well. They are not a burden—I welcome them. They may be a financial burden on local authorities and others—central Government need to support them—but, socially and emotionally, I welcome them completely.
The problem that these people have is that, most of the time, they are trapped in the system. Hon. Members just need to look at the figures from their own casework. Cases take at least six months or a year; I have dealt with cases that have been waiting for four or five years before there is a result. In the meantime, people are denied the right to earn a living. They are told to live off £5.40 a day, and that means they live in poverty.
Someone mentioned Syrian asylum seekers; those I have met are some of the most qualified people I have ever met. They have gone through universities and training; they have skills that they could use to give the country so much, and yet they are trapped in the system, living in poverty. And, tragically, what does living in poverty do, in some instances? People try different angles. Sometimes, unfortunately, they end up in criminality. This system, which refuses to allow people to exercise their skills and devote their talents to our community, forces them into poverty and, in some instances, criminality. All Lords amendment 7 said was, “Just allow these people to work—allow them to support themselves and their families, and to give something back to this country.”
Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)
As my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend will be aware of the number of asylum seekers in Feltham and Heston who face the challenges that he has outlined. As well as being more humane, allowing people to work would also allow them to make a financial contribution. He will have heard stories similar to those I have—of young people with degrees, who have been tortured, who have fled for their lives, and want nothing more than to start their lives again in a country that they want to call home.
John McDonnell
More recently, a calculation was made of the sort of financial contribution that would be made to the country if we allowed people to work six months after they applied for asylum. At least £200 million would be put into our economy. We are denying ourselves these people’s ability to create wealth. I went through the same process when refugee Ugandan families turned up here in the time of Idi Amin; hon. Members may remember that. I have to tell the hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) that Hillingdon, then under the leadership of Terry Dicks, whom the hon. Gentleman will recall, was not kind to those refugees at the time. However, eventually those Ugandan Asians settled, and they made a huge contribution to this society, including a massive economic contribution, because we allowed them to use their talents and take up employment. Often, they created businesses. They made a great contribution, certainly in west London, as my hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) can tell us.
I cannot understand the rationale for the Government’s approach. There is an argument that allowing employment will somehow add to the pull factor, but having to live off £5.40 a day is not the sort of pull factor that will attract millions to this country. We should look at the issue rationally, and recognise that the large number of people trapped in this poverty trap could contribute so much. That is why Lords amendment 7 needs to be looked at more rationally. Suffering cannot be part of our policy for dealing with the world refugee crisis—a crisis that will, as a result of climate change and other matters, become worse. We have to recognise that there will be movements of people. We have to accommodate that, and that is partly about making sure that those people are welcomed in a way that allows them to make an effective contribution to our society.
Janet Daby
I thank my right hon. Friend for making such a moving and significant speech about the plight of Afghan people. Why, in his view, are the Government not allowing Afghan refugees to make an economic contribution, although they absolutely could?
John McDonnell
I do not want to go over this too much, because other people want to come in on this debate, but there is a contradiction in our allowing Ukrainians, but not others, to work immediately. People can draw their own inferences from that. Inferences can be drawn from it that people in this House might not like. I ask hon. Members to contemplate that, to look at Lords amendment 7, and to think again. It is a beneficent amendment that will assist not only the individuals concerned but our wider community and economy.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. My plea for Members to limit themselves to four-minute speeches simply has not worked. I point out to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby), who intervened just now, that I consider that she has now made her contribution, because there is not enough time for everybody to get into the debate. We will now have a formal four-minute limit. I call Sir John Hayes.
Sir John Hayes
I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Disraeli observed:
“How much easier it is to be critical than to be correct.”
Many of the amendments put forward by the Lords are carelessly critical. They are veiled, as these things so often are, in a thin covering of assumed moral superiority, but surely it is not moral to oppose a Bill that tries to make the asylum system fit for purpose. Surely it is not ethical to conflate illegal immigration with the immigration of those people who diligently seek to come to this country lawfully and to surmount the hurdles we put in their path, and who, having done so, take pride in making the contribution mentioned by the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell).
Tim Farron
I think this is the worst bit of legislation that I have seen in 17 years—and there is some competition. Fundamentally, it is the worst bit of legislation because it is based on an utterly bogus premise, which is that we are swamped by asylum seekers. We are not. Compared with with the 27 members of the European Union, the UK is 18th when it comes to the number of asylum claims that are granted. For many reasons that we know all about, last year was a heavy year. There were 48,000 asylum cases in the UK, 96,000 in France, and 127,000 in Germany. That is a reminder that our problem is an entirely structural one—incompetence in the Home Office—not that we are “swamped”.
Lords amendment 7 is about the right to work. Why are we not granting asylum seekers the right to work? It is right for integration, learning the language, and the dignity of those people being able to support their family and to pay their way. There is a left-wing and a right-wing argument for saying yes to this; it is barmy to say no.
Lords amendment 6 is about having two tiers. This is the most appalling and repugnant part of the entire Bill. I assume that the Government have confidence in our asylum system, in which case we judge people on the merits of their asylum claim through the system, not through the utterly bogus, completely contrived and arbitrary notion of the means by which they got here. Let us remember that 89% of Iranian asylum seekers have their claims granted, 97% of Eritreans, and 96% of Sudanese, none of whom have a legal route. The only way that they can get here is by making dangerous journeys. Let us be very clear: this Bill is a traffickers’ charter. If Members vote for this Bill, they are voting for deaths in the channel, because they will be removing the right of anyone who is not Ukrainian, Afghan or Syrian to have a safe route here, which is an outrage. Conservative Members know that that is the truth. Then there is offshoring. We have the guarantee that it is not the Ascension Islands, so where is it? South Georgia? People from all parts of the House have already mentioned that offshoring is ridiculous. It is a pantomime bit of nonsense, and it is also inhumane and massively expensive.
People talk about the pull factor, for pity’s sake. Have the Government not worked out that there is no dastardly, lunatic policy they could introduce to protect this country from asylum seekers that rivals the fact that we are a flipping island surrounded by water. People come here not because of the pull factor, but because of the push factor—because of the outrages that they experience. The people here have no sense of what it is like themselves. This is the sort of nonsense that people invent to try to push through the worst piece of legislation that I have seen in 17 years.
I want to spend a moment talking about Ukraine and our offer to the refugees fleeing that appalling and murderous tyrant, Putin. There is a lot to commend in the fact that there is some kind of a scheme now, but let us remember that it is laden with admin bureaucracy. I was talking to a Kendal friend of mine who is Ukrainian by birth. Their friends have seven-month-old twins who do not have passports, so the online application is not open to them. They have to get themselves to the embassy in Warsaw, as that is the only way that they can get here. We are throwing up barrier after barrier after barrier.
Why do people want to come here? Why do they not stay in the first place they reach? There are loads of reasons—cultural ties, the Commonwealth, language. There is also the fact that we have a reputation, a glorious reputation; people want to come to the United Kingdom because they know that it is a place of tolerance and of liberty. It is a place where there is religious tolerance, where they can earn a living, and where they can raise a family in safety.
The simple fact is this: even this despicable Bill will not undermine Britain’s centuries-old reputation as a place of sanctuary. Whatever this Government do, they cannot sully our reputation much, because this country’s reputation and history are glorious and so is its future, despite this puny little Government.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron), even though, as is sadly often the case, he ruined some respectable points with absurd hyperbole. This Bill is not the living embodiment of meanness. It is actually a reasonable and proper attempt to try to deal with a system that has evolved to become very complex. It now has distinctions that are out of date because of our departure from the EU. Having worked with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on aspects of this Bill, I can say that it is in direct fulfilment of our manifesto commitment. There is no doubt in my mind about its importance and about the need for it to be passed.
There is, however, reasonable question to ask about the position of asylum seekers being able to undertake work after six months. I have long regarded as unnecessary the waste of not just lives but expenditure when asylum seekers have to stay in a state of limbo, often for years, before knowing whether their claim is to be accepted. It is unnecessary because people who are in this position have a contribution to make to our society. That is not particularly controversial or a view confined to political parties. It is supported by a broad coalition of people of all colours and none. Indeed, a YouGov poll showed that 81% of people who were asked agreed with the principle of allowing asylum seekers the right to work. As we reset the system through this Bill, we have an opportunity to do something that has the merit of being both practical and right. We are conferring the right to work on our friends from Ukraine who are arriving in our country after fleeing war and persecution, so why not do the same for others who are and fleeing persecution and seeking asylum?
After the Government did whatever it took to save millions of jobs during the covid pandemic, we now face a significant undersupply of workers. Allowing access to gainful economic activity for some asylum seekers achieves several things. It helps in some measure to answer that question about labour shortage. It will bring in revenue to the Exchequer—the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned a figure of £200 million, and the potential revenue is certainly in the hundreds of millions. When we put on the other side of the balance the fact that asylum accommodation costs £350 million a year, we can start to see why the numbers add up.
In my constituency, working with The Harbour Project in Swindon, which helps people in my dispersal centre to deal with the effects of the wait for resolution, I have seen for myself the effects on their mental health of having nothing to do. Even volunteering is different.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful for the constructive way my right hon. and learned Friend is making his case. If he is agreeable, I would be keen to meet him to discuss the issue and the arguments he makes, and to set out some of the work we are doing on transforming the speed at which asylum cases are processed, which I hope will also help to allay some of his concerns.
Sir Robert Buckland
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that offer, which I accept with alacrity. I would like to bring colleagues such as the noble Baroness Stroud, who did so much work on this issue, to meet him and officials to look into the detail of the volunteering question in particular. While we encourage asylum seekers to volunteer and they get reasonable expenses, even payments in kind for the volunteering they do are prohibited. There is a real issue there that is preventing many people from making a contribution to the local community, as I have seen for myself in Swindon.
We know the reality that many people under that pressure go off the radar. They end up being exploited, or even bound into modern-day slavery, and we lose them from the entire system. The effect of creating a right to work could deal a hammer blow to that type of exploitation.
I therefore welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister and urge the Government, in the spirit of co-operation, to look carefully at how we can do what other countries such as Denmark have started to do in allowing some asylum seekers the right to work. The Migration Advisory Committee has said there is no meaningful evidence to suggest that doing so would create a pull factor. The question is begged: if that is a pull factor, why do we have small boats now?
Olivia Blake (Sheffield, Hallam) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have help from the Refugee, Asylum and Migration Policy Project for my work in this area.
I have said throughout the debates in Parliament that this Bill is divisive. As my constituents reach across borders to help and house those fleeing the war in Ukraine, this Government are sowing division by making an insidious distinction between “good” and “bad” refugees—a division that we should all completely reject. That is why I rise today to support amendments 4 to 9, especially amendment 6.
Clause 11 makes a totally spurious division between group 1 and group 2 refugees that flies in the face of the 1951 refugee convention. The convention clearly states that refugees, wherever they come from,
“shall enjoy fundamental rights and freedoms without discrimination.”
The Government know that there are no visa or pre-entry clearances for someone wishing to claim refuge. There is no such thing as an illegal refugee in international law, yet that is exactly what the new group 2 category attempts to establish. All clause 11 seeks to do is lazily turn far-right talking points about asylum seekers and refugees into legislation, without seriously thinking through any of the consequences for the people involved.
For example, currently people fleeing war can apply for humanitarian protection leave. The protection grants them five years in the UK, access to the NHS and other public funds, an option to apply later for indefinite leave to remain and the right to work. However, the Government are scrapping humanitarian protection as we know it and aligning it instead with the new group 2 status, meaning regular visa reviews every two and a half years compared with every five, no recourse to public funds, no right to work, restricted family visa rights and no route to indefinite leave to remain. That is something I think many in this House have missed, and I hope they will reflect on it.
It is remarkable that in the middle of the Ukraine crisis, as thousands of people join the effort to support people from Ukraine, the Government are actually proposing that people running from the horrors of war should have fewer rights to come here. Those rights were brought in through an EU directive that became British law, and now the Government are using the smokescreen of this Bill to remove them, all by aligning them with a faulty two-tier refugee system.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a very interesting speech. Does she agree that the UN refugee convention was about our common humanity? I have heard a lot of talk about a “great country”, but what we see now from this Government is an attempt to split humanity into two tiers. That undermines the concept of human rights and of there being one, sole, universal understanding of what it is to be a human being. This Government are putting humanity into categories, and history tells us that that is a slippery slope and fundamentally wrong.
Olivia Blake
I agree—it is fundamentally wrong. That is why we should ensure that clause 11 is not included in this Bill. Clause 11 is out of tune with the hundreds of thousands of people who have come forward to help Ukrainian refugees. It is an affront to the 1951 refugee convention, and I urge hon. Members to reject it and to reject this Bill.
Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)
I rise to thank the Government sincerely for amendment 1, the Chagos nationality amendment. I particularly thank the Minister, the hon. Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove) for his comments earlier and his colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), who is not currently in his place, for meeting me and engaging on the issue of Chagos nationality justice and finally, after many years of campaigning, seeing the matter resolved by this Government. I am truly appreciative.
I express my thanks to hon. Members across this House, both present and past, and present and past members of the other place for their work over many years on this important matter. I also do not forget the many members of the Chagos islands community: those visiting Parliament today, those across this country and those in other parts of the world. They have suffered an injustice of approximately half a century and the Government today have gone a significant way towards ensuring that those people who are descendants of British subjects rightly have the ability to apply for British overseas territories citizenship, and therefore ultimately British citizenship if they so wish.
In conclusion, I repeat my appreciation to the Government. The second campaign that continues for the Chagos islanders is a right of return to their homeland, but I promise the Home Office that I will tackle the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office with that one, and conclude my remarks by expressing my appreciation to Home Office Ministers and officials.
Patrick Grady
I echo the words of the hon. Member for Crawley (Henry Smith); there is a small amount of consensus on the concession the Government have made today towards members of the Chagossian community. However, if the Government are at long last willing to listen to the House of Lords to correct that historical injustice, why are they not willing to listen to it on all the other points? It appears to be the exception that proves the rule.
We in the SNP hold no torch for their lordships’ House, but for those who are defenders of the Lords and stand up for the check it is supposed to provide on the decisions of the elected Chamber, why is everything else being dismissed out of hand? Why are the Government not willing to accept Lords amendment 5 and put the 1951 refugee convention into the Bill? They say they accept the convention and always act in accordance with—although of course the reality is very different. There is a gap between their rhetoric about respecting the convention and the reality that they want to turn arriving in the UK from a war zone into a crime.
That is why the House should also support Lords amendments 6 and 11. Ministers have yet to explain, despite having been asked several times in this debate, how the UK, which is surrounded by water, could ever possibly be the first safe country of arrival for someone seeking asylum without proper paperwork. Political human rights defenders from Eritrea are not provided with exit visas and passports by their Government. They have to run across the border at night in case they get shot, and then hope to God that they can get to a safe country such as the United Kingdom, where there is already an expat community. But then this freedom-loving, democracy-defending, global-Britain-is-great Tory Government want to turn them into criminals, which is exactly what they were fleeing in the first place. Exactly how putting asylum seekers into the prison system represents value for money for taxpayers is completely beyond me.
That is why the House should vote to retain Lords amendment 7 extending the right to work to asylum seekers. As if the current system is not dehumanising enough for individual asylum seekers, being denied the right to work actively harms wider society. Let them pay tax. Let them contribute to our economy and industries that are crying out for staff. Let them use their skills and talents to benefit everyone. I believe that even some Tory Back Benchers have finally been persuaded of this. I pay particular tribute to the Maryhill Integration Network, based in Glasgow North, for championing this amendment and becoming not just a provider of vital services to the local migrant population but an authoritative national voice on the rights of refugees and asylum seekers.
The House should also support the amendment tabled by Lord Alton, one of the finest minds and voices in the upper Chamber, that seeks to ensure that applicants for asylum who are at risk of being killed in a genocide can claim asylum in the UK. It provides exactly the kind of safe and legal route the Government say they want to see, and it was supported by former Tory Cabinet Ministers in the House of Lords. Yet once again the Government want to reject it. It is clear that this Government are determined to strip away from the Bill any vestige of compassion or recognition of vulnerability on the part of asylum seekers that the Lords have managed to shoehorn into it. Well, I hope the Government are made to work for it. I hope we divide on every single amendment before us and that when they have to cancel their dinners, receptions and all their other engagements this evening, they think about what it must be like to travel on a small boat and to be in the hands of people-traffickers. No one chooses that. No one is so desperate to come to the Tories’ land of milk and honey. People are forced into this kind of thing.
Patrick Grady
I will not give way because I am out of time, and this Government are out of ideas and out of compassion, as they have shown in recent weeks in response to the current situation. People in Scotland and people across the United Kingdom do not want to put up barriers to people fleeing war, famine and disasters caused by a climate emergency that we in the west created. They want to show solidarity and compassion. They want to say it loud and say it clear—that refugees are welcome here.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
I take a rather different view from the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady). I draw the House’s attention to my outside interests. I also want to make it clear that I think this is a most important piece of legislation and I completely agree with the aims of the Home Office. I congratulate the Home Secretary on her vigorous attempts to remedy a serious problem.
I want to raise three brief points. First, I point out to the House that when the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) agree so clearly, the Government should think carefully about whether they can move on the issue of 12 months coming down to six months.
The two Lords amendments I particularly want to raise, which would improve the Bill, are those tabled by Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate. They should be given very serious consideration. Lord Kirkhope was the Immigration Minister under Michael Howard, the former Home Secretary in John Major’s Government. Both are much respected and on the right of the Conservative party. Our former colleague Lord Kirkhope’s views are an important contribution to this debate. Furthermore, he has a long-standing interest and expertise in the handling of population movement in Europe from Calais to Moscow.
On amendment 11, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) has already made clear the huge benefits that would come in if it were agreed to. It is designed to break the people-smugglers’ business model. The Government are quite right: people fleeing terror and persecution should only come here by safe and legal routes. We will only stop people in desperation coming over the channel—that is, set up the settlement pathway the Home Office rightly refers to and break the smugglers’ model—if, first, we have accessible and meaningful numbers, and, secondly, we are not restricted to one geographic area. The Home Office confirms that 87% of the 28,000 arriving illicitly in 2021 came from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen, for whom there is currently no alternative legal and safe route to which they can apply to get to the United Kingdom. Endorsing resettlement is central to the Government’s new approach set out in the “New Plan for Immigration”, but Ministers have yet to bring forward any provision in legislation that would see the necessary safe and legal routes made available.
It is rarely popular among Conservatives to talk of specific targets. Any figure can be changed up or down by the Government to reflect international circumstances. I fear that we must do so if the Government’s laudable aim of stemming the dangerous flow of desperate people across the channel, exploited by evil traffickers, is to stop. The figure of 10,000 suggested by Lord Kirkhope equates to 15 per parliamentary constituency, or five families per local authority. The amendment makes it clear that this is inclusive of, not in addition to, the Afghan refugees, and having a target would enable local authorities to plan in a co-ordinated manner, as we have heard, and avoid the current system where so many Afghans whom we want to help are waiting to move out of inappropriate accommodation.
On amendment 9 and offshoring, this is the issue that Lord Kirkhope looked at so comprehensively before and reluctantly rejected. The Home Office is asking Parliament to grant it this power when it has no idea of where it would exercise it, when it could exercise it or if it can exercise it. We know that it would be incredibly expensive. Judged by the cost of Australian offshoring, the British taxpayer would face unprecedented costs per asylum seeker. It would be much cheaper to put each one in the Ritz and send all the under-18s to Eton. That would cost a great deal less than what is proposed. Much more sensible is to recruit and train several hundred new civil servants to process these claims more rapidly and, yes, to crack down on an over-lengthy appeals process exploited through unscrupulous lawyers.
Tahir Ali (Birmingham, Hall Green) (Lab)
Recently, I was sent hundreds of Valentine cards from pupils at St Dunstan’s Primary School in my constituency, to my surprise; it is more than I have ever received. In each card, handmade and written by a pupil, the message was clear: to stand in solidarity with refugees and vote against this draconian Bill. Primary school children were asking me to do the right thing. These young people want a society based on compassion, humanity and solidarity with those in need. They want their country and their communities to be safe havens for those fleeing war, famine and persecution. It is moving to see such displays of unconditional love and understanding from our young people, and I am immensely proud to represent these pupils. I only wish that an ounce of their compassion could be found among Conservative Members who will vote to support this inhumane Bill.
Make no mistake, this Bill is one of the most draconian pieces of legislation brought before this House in quite some time. Millions of people across the UK have recoiled in utter disgust at some of the provisions contained within it, and they are right to do so. Its timing could not be worse. We have all been given a stark reminder of the importance of providing support and assistance to those fleeing war. The situation in Ukraine is driving millions from their homes, many of whom have found refuge in neighbouring countries. However, those who have sought to claim asylum here in the UK have faced nothing but obstruction and bureaucracy. A cold shoulder has been given to the Ukrainian people by the Home Office. They are the latest victims of the long-standing hostile environment faced by those in search of safety.
Let us be clear that this Bill does nothing to improve the lives of those fleeing war and persecution—quite the opposite. Clause 11, concerning illegal entry into the UK, will criminalise those who do not arrive by regular routes, which for millions of refugees are simply not available. It will do nothing to support those who face perilous journeys after fleeing from their homes, and it seeks only to further punish those who are most in need of help. Furthermore, there are no serious measures in this Bill aimed at tackling people trafficking, or any provisions to ensure that safe and legal routes are made more widely available. Instead of measures designed to safeguard and support refugees, this Bill contains only provisions to further dehumanise and isolate them, with the suggestion of offshore processing facilities and the ability for them to be sent back to countries they have travelled through.
That is why I am standing with those pupils from St Dunstan’s Primary School in opposition to the Bill. I urge others to learn from their example and do the same. Edward from the school said:
“Rose are red / Violets are blue / Do you support refugees too?”
Holly said:
“Show your heart for refugees”.
Sam said:
“Roses are red / Violets are blue / I support refugees / How about you?”
Danny Kruger (Devizes) (Con)
With 20,000 Syrians, 18,000 Afghans, 100,000 Hongkongers and an unlimited number of Ukrainians—probably upwards of 100,000 are expected—it is just not the case, as the hon. Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Tahir Ali) just said, that there is not an ounce of compassion in this country for supporting refugees fleeing from conflict. It is simply not the case.
Of course there are difficulties, and there is too much bureaucracy in many cases, and we are all familiar with that. I do not think there is any individual to blame, whether Ministers or officials. The fact is that systems are often clunky and bureaucratic, and we need to improve that, but there is a factor that applies when we consider mass migration and asylum in our times. We are trying to manage hard borders in an age of free trade and mass migration. We are facing enormous pressures on our borders.
Beyond the remit of this Bill is our foreign engagement. We need to be more engaged. In other debates, we have discussed the need for further investment in our defences, in development spending and in our diplomatic corps. I also think we need to accept more refugees into this country in the years ahead—not more economic migrants, except for those who are highly skilled and able to make a significant contribution, but certainly more refugees.
I want to speak briefly in support of the sponsorship scheme that the Government have introduced, which is so good as a model. Rather than Government and councils being responsible for identifying migrants and admitting them into this country, we are inviting communities themselves to take the lead, and I find it surprising that Opposition Members, who object so strenuously to bureaucracy and faceless systems, want the Government to match refugees with sponsors. They think councils should be responsible for organising where people come and live. I think we have a better system that is self-organising. Members around the House will have noticed the inspiring example in eastern Europe of communities reaching out to refugees, which is all self-organising and shows that it does not need Government to match people.
How do we do this securely? It is totally wrong to say that anyone who breaks into the UK has a right to live here. It is a terrible incentive for people to take dangerous trips across the channel, it is unjust to legal migrants and refugees, and it is wrong for the citizens who live here. It is the essence of sovereignty that people cannot just decide to move here on their own initiative. We have a moral obligation to illegal migrants to save their lives if they undertake these dangerous journeys, to treat them with absolute decency when they get here and then to return them to the back of the queue. If possible, that means back to the last safe country they were in, and if necessary to a third country. The effect will be to deter this dangerous and illegal crossing.
We must do more to deter people smuggling, which is why I support the measures in the Bill to introduce stronger penalties for people who break into this country, much stronger penalties against the smugglers who bring them over, more power and resources for our Border Force, including opportunities to return to France if that can be done safely, and more power to remove illegal immigrants.
I will finish with two quick conclusions. First, I think we need more use of the community sponsorship route as the default model for refugee resettlement. I echo the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) earlier. I believe in the generosity and compassion of local communities in this country, and I believe that community sponsorship is the most effective way to accommodate refugees and asylum seekers in our country. Secondly, to ensure the security of our borders, I wonder whether we should consider a new Department for borders that looks after visas, asylum and security. A smaller and more effective operation might be better.
Claudia Webbe (Leicester East) (Ind)
The Bill is anti-refugee to its core. It lacks basic humanity and represents an acceleration of the Government’s deeply damaging demonisation of refugees and asylum seekers. Its callousness has been further illuminated by the situation in Ukraine. The Government must provide safe passage and refuge for displaced people, refugees and asylum seekers arriving from Ukraine and all theatres of conflict around the globe.
The outpouring of compassion and solidarity for people fleeing Ukraine has been inspiring, yet when we contrast that to how asylum seekers from non-European and non-majority white countries are treated by the Government, a worrying picture emerges of the inherent racism in how crises are reported, discussed and responded to. The sorrow and despair that we all feel for Ukraine should be identical to the sorrow and despair that we feel for Yemen, Palestine and Syria. The media class and the Government must recognise that every conflict is deserving of our solidarity and our compassion, so the UK must not only rapidly extend its support for people fleeing Ukraine but abandon its unbelievably callous refugee and asylum policy—starting by ripping up this Bill.
Many of the Lords amendments would improve the Bill. I especially support Lords amendment 4, which removes the licence given to the Home Secretary to deprive British people of their citizenship without informing them. I also support Lords amendment 5, which seeks to ensure that the Bill does not violate the UK’s shared international obligations under the refugee convention. Lords amendment 6, which removes from the Bill the power given to the Home Secretary to treat people differently according to the way that they arrive and claim asylum, must also be adopted to prevent a two-tier system that would limit protection for refugees due not to their need but to their method of travel.
I also support Lords amendment 7 on permission to work, yet I believe the six-month limit should be lifted and that people claiming asylum should be able to work regardless of how long they have been in our country. Lords amendments 8 and 9 are steps in the right direction, yet they do not go far enough to prevent asylum seekers from being transferred to other countries and processed offshore. Lords amendment 10, which would introduce a family reunion provision, is important, yet we must accept all people fleeing war, persecution and other horrors, not only those with family ties in the UK. I wholeheartedly support Lords amendment 54, which prohibits the use of new maritime powers contained in schedule 6 in ways that would endanger life at sea. That is an abhorrent proposal and we must fight tooth and nail against its ever being implemented.
Overall, although the Lords amendments improve important aspects, they do not go nearly far enough to rectify this irredeemable Bill. Time and again, the Government have chosen to turn their back on those seeking protection from war, torture or other awful acts. The Bill will compound the misery of people fleeing intolerable conditions. It must be scrapped.
Tim Loughton
I welcome the Bill, although not without reservation. The ridiculous caricature that we just heard from the hon. Member for Leicester East (Claudia Webbe) and from other Opposition Members helps absolutely nobody.
I very much welcome the offer to meet the Minister on my issue of family reunion. I welcome the flexibility that he and other Ministers have shown on the We Belong campaign by young people who have been in this country for many years and whose wish to become officially British will at last be speeded up. I do not welcome the litany of constant carping from Opposition Members, who have not offered a single practical solution to the serious problems that we are facing, particularly in the channel. They have had every opportunity to do so and they have failed on every occasion.
I support Lords amendment 7—I said that my support for the Bill was not without reservation—and I think there is merit in the six-month campaign. There is a waste of talent that is left in limbo in this country that we could put to good use. I also welcome Lords amendment 12—the genocide amendment—and the good work done on it by Lord Alton. As somebody who has been sanctioned by China for my support of the recognition of genocide, I would be expected to support that.
I will concentrate on Lords amendment 10—the so-called Dubs amendment. I have form in this area, and I am afraid that the family reunion scheme needs to be much better. The Minister said that there is already generous provision in our rules for refugee family reunion, and 40,000 people have benefited from that, but only since 2015 or over seven years. The Home Secretary did say some time ago that she wanted to see a generous equivalent replacement for Dublin III as we came beyond Brexit. I want to hold her to that promise, but I fear what is contained in the Bill does not hold water.
The Dubs amendment would expand family reunion so that unaccompanied children in Europe can easily join family members in the UK, such as their grandparents, aunts, uncles and siblings. At the moment, however, the UK’s refugee family reunion rules only cover children trying to reunite with their parents in the UK as long as a parent has refugee status or humanitarian protection, and the child was born before their parents fled the country of origin. This rule is limited so that it excludes most unaccompanied children and prevents them from uniting with family.
For some children, these are their closest surviving relatives. They may be aunts and uncles because they have lost their parents in a place of war. Refugees may have lost their parents before they left their country or on their journey to sanctuary, and siblings in this country may be the only link they have. We have seen the horrendous pictures from Lesbos of the camps there containing many unaccompanied children, where there are fires, predators and other dangers, and those are the young people we really should be concentrating on rescuing. In refusing one case, the Home Office said:
“You currently live in a shelter for unaccompanied minors… I note you have provided no evidence why this arrangement cannot continue”.
That is not a permanent solution.
The Government have also argued that there is discretion to allow family reunion outside the rules in certain circumstances, but it is not right that children who had a clear official route to safety and family reunion under the EU’s Dublin III regulation are now reliant on Government discretion. This discretion is rarely exercised, and the very few cases actually granted outside the rules are mainly done so only on appeal, which requires legal assistance. At best, children are left waiting months alone and separated from family, and at worst, they are prevented from safely joining loved ones at all.
I call on the Government to make good on the promises given by the Home Secretary as we moved out of the Dublin III regulation post Brexit. There has been a long hiatus, but we need to put that right and that is why I support Lords amendment 10 in doing that.
Janet Daby
I am grateful to be able to speak in this debate. Many amendments were passed in the other place, but for the sake of time, I will focus on Lords amendments 4, 9, 10 and 13.
I am pleased that Lords amendment 4 deletes clause 9, which I have spoken about before. Clause 9 is one of the most chilling parts of the Bill. I have had countless people write to me about this since the Government brought this Bill to Parliament. It would allow the Secretary of State to deprive a person of their British citizenship without notice, and it is right that the Lords chose to remove the clause entirely from the Bill.
Lords amendment 9 would stop overseas asylum processing. We have seen that this type of system is ineffective, inhumane and too expensive. As we have already heard from the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), and other Opposition Members, in Australia the offshore processing cost is estimated to be Aus $1 billion a year to deal with 300 migrants. I would like to add my voice to this by saying that I do not think it is in our country’s best interest to have overseas asylum processing.
On Lords amendment 10, Britain has a proud history of offering sanctuary to vulnerable unaccompanied children, but the Government ended the Dubs scheme and have not replaced it. I was proud that, last year, Lewisham Council was the first borough in the UK to be formally recognised for its work by becoming a borough of sanctuary. I encourage all boroughs to be boroughs of sanctuary, and I also thank all families across our countries for offering Ukrainian families a home.
In contrast, the Government are ignoring the treacherous journeys that these desperate people are making. Without safe, legal routes for family reunion, unaccompanied children are making the most dangerous journeys. The Government would be better targeting the traffickers, rather than the victims, if they want to stop people making these treacherous journeys. This amendment is therefore vital because it imposes a duty on the Government to allow unaccompanied children to be admitted to the UK.
I will end on Lords amendment 13. In the other place, Labour rightly voiced concerns that clause 39 would criminalise everyone who arrives in the UK to claim asylum. The clause will have wider implications for all asylum seekers, not only people making irregular channel crossings. It is time the Government recognised that they need to treat refugees humanely, not as a problem they need to solve by criminalising them.
Can the Minister therefore answer me this? If a Ukrainian family enters the UK without a visa in the hope of being granted asylum, will the Government’s proposal mean they are guilty of a criminal offence punishable by up to four years in prison? If so, it is ridiculous that we could be imprisoning people for fleeing a war started by Vladimir Putin—or any other war or natural disaster, for that matter.
Simon Hoare
To begin my remarks on a personal note, I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for having taken the time to talk to me about a number of amendments and for having approached the Bill with his customary calmness and friendliness and with respect for the House. It is always a pleasure to call my hon. Friend a friend, and he has handled this Bill incredibly well.
I served on the Committee stage of the Immigration Act 2016, and we should remind ourselves that Ministers told us then that that was the Bill to end all Bills and solve all problems, yet another one came along a minute or two later, so I have little or no doubt that we will return to many of these issues over the coming months and years.
This is also an opportunity to pause: all new laws and Bills set rules, guidelines, prohibitions and so forth, but that provides the House with an opportunity to briefly reflect on the enormous contribution of so many people not born in this country who have seen in this country a beacon of light and hope and decency, and who have made their way by all sorts of routes to put down roots and become part of our society. It is an opportunity to remind ourselves of the benefits of immigration and not to see it always through the prisms of prohibition and just say “It’s bad and must be controlled and stopped.”
I strongly support many of the Lords amendments on the right to work. My hon. Friend the Minister said he could not support that because it would be a disincentive to those seeking to abide by the rules to allow people to work, yet as others have mentioned, we are rightly allowing those from Ukraine to do so without anyone making that point. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), my right hon. Friends the Members for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis) and for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson) and indeed the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) all expressed very cogently and calmly the clear economic and socioeconomic benefits of allowing people to work, and I urge the Minister, even at this late stage of ping-pong, to rethink on that issue.
On offshoring, I first want to say that that is the most dehumanising word. It turns our fellow human beings into commodities to have this idea that we can move them from pillar to post. I do not find it at all palatable. The Minister is also asking us to sign a blank cheque. We have his word—and his word carries weight—that any countries involved with this would share our values, but that is not on the face of the Bill and there is no guarantee. We do not know where this offshoring would be located or how it would work, and we certainly do not know how much it would cost. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield said we might as well send them to Eton and that really would be a punishment, but there is no costing to this and we should not be offshoring; if people want and are trying to come here, we should have the decency, scope and capacity to deal with it here, in country. I do not see the link between putting people off coming here illegally and offshoring; we saw that in the Australian experiment, which clearly did not work.
A rethink on both those issues from the Minister would be helpful.
Brendan O'Hara
I rise to speak in support of Lords amendment 12, put forward by Lord Alton of Liverpool, who for decades has been the conscience of this place in dealing with matters of genocide. The amendment would enable the Bill to do three things: provide safe passage for victims of genocide; create a route to asylum that is not currently available in the UK; and help the UK Government meet their legal responsibilities under the UN genocide convention. Let me begin by declaring an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on the Yazidi people and vice-chair of the APPG on international freedom of religion or belief and the APPG for the prevention of genocide and crimes against humanity.
Amendment 12 has its origins in Sinjar and the Nineveh plains in northern Iraq, where in August 2014 Daesh terrorists attacked peaceful Yazidi communities. During its reign of terror, Daesh raped, murdered or sold into sexual slavery thousands of women, and sent young boys to its terrorist training camps. Daesh sought to completely destroy the Yazidi community and erase their ethnic and religious identity, culture and way of life. I have spoken many times in this House about the fate of the Yazidis, and in 2016 the House voted unanimously that what happened to them was a genocide.
Despite the overwhelming evidence of the atrocities and the fact they meet every single standard laid out in the 1948 convention on genocide, the Government still steadfastly refuse to create a safe or legal route to enable victims of genocide or those at risk of being victims of genocide passage to the United Kingdom. We have a legal and moral responsibility to say that that has to change. It cannot be right that the most abused communities in the world—whether they are the Yazidis, the Uyghurs, the Rohingya or whoever—cannot find safe passage to the United Kingdom.
Let us compare the UK’s record to that of Germany. Since Daesh launched its attack in 2014, 85,000 Yazidi people have been given sanctuary in Germany. In contrast, the UK has not taken in a single Yazidi from northern Iraq. Not one. The Government will say that they are considering eight applications from Yazidis from Iraq, but considering only eight applications from victims of one of the worst genocides in the 21st century is a shameful statistic. As we have heard so often in the debate, that is not an accident, because the system is deliberately designed not to recognise those fleeing genocide as a specific group that requires a bespoke solution. Minister, that has to change.
In conclusion, Baroness Kennedy was absolutely right to describe the Bill as
“an affront to human rights and civil liberties.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 5 January 2022; Vol. 817, c. 639.]
Regardless of the form in which the Bill passes tonight, it will continue to be an affront to human rights and civil liberties and an indelible stain on what is left of the reputation of the United Kingdom. If it has to pass, at least allow those who are suffering the most heinous of crimes at hands of some of the most brutal regimes a glimmer of hope that in their greatest hour of need they will find refuge here. I ask Government Members to consider this humanitarian amendment and make a change that will allow the most abused people to find refuge here in the United Kingdom.
Sir Edward Leigh
I commend the Minister for the moderate and sensible way in which he introduced the Bill and I urge him, when considering how we should vote on all the amendments, to be robust and to hold the line. When the Bill becomes an Act it will be crawled over by so-called human rights lawyers, and I believe that it is the bare minimum to try to deal with the scandal of channel crossings, which are putting so many lives at risk.
Let us pause for a moment and think about what we can agree on. The push factors are enormous, such is the misery in the world in places such as Yemen, Syria, Iraq and many other countries. There is no limit to the number of people who want to come here. Let us consider the pull factors. We have the most liberal labour laws in Europe. We speak English; we can do nothing about that. We have no national identity card, which I think will become increasingly essential in the modern world. People can vanish into the community, and we already have large communities from all over the world. The pull factors are enormous—in a way, President Macron has a point.
We have to ask people who oppose the Bill and seek to amend it, what is their solution? Everybody accepts that the cross-channel trade is appalling—it criminalises desperate people and lines the pockets of gangsters—but what is the solution? Such is the pull factor and the push factor that even if we did have offshore asylum claims for 2,000, 5,000 or 10,000, it would probably make very little difference to the number of people desperate to get into this country by any means at all.
I repeat that what we have in the Bill is the bare minimum to try to break the cycle of it being just about economically attractive to make the appallingly dangerous journey. We have to have a variety of measures in our toolkit. I do not know whether we will ever resort to pushback, although the Greeks have pursued it very successfully, and I do not know whether we will ever resort to offshoring, although the Australians have used it very successfully.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Ind)
I am sorry I have only recently come into the Chamber; I was at the Westminster Bridge event. Will the right hon. Gentleman reflect for a moment on the fact that there are 1 million refugees in Bangladesh, many hundreds of thousands in Uganda and over 1 million in Poland? Many countries around the world, which are very poor and have very little infrastructure, have taken in far more refugees than any European country. They are holding their hands out to support people. He appears to be moving in the opposite direction.
Sir Edward Leigh
I do not think that that is true. Actually, if we talk about our response to Ugandan refugees, Hong Kong and many other areas, we have been generous. We have to have a sense of proportion. Such is the overwhelming number of people who want to come here, we have to hold the line. If we did not, it would have a catastrophic effect on race relations. [Interruption.] Yes, it would, because people would be angry about it. They would think, “Why did I vote Brexit when I can’t even control my own borders? What are the Government doing?” The Government, to be responsible, have to respond by trying to deal with illegal cross-channel crossings. All the Lords amendments would just add to the pull factors. For instance, one amendment says that people should be allowed to work after six months. That is an extraordinarily attractive pull factor. I am afraid that the Government have to hold the line. My personal view is that until we are prepared to criminalise people who take the illegal route, until we are prepared to arrest them and until we are prepared to deport them, we will never have a chance of dealing with this trade.
The Bill is just the first step in trying to deal with this appalling problem. I ask those who support the amendments and oppose the Government today—I repeat the question—what is their solution? People are pouring across the channel every day. Sooner or later there is going to be a terrible tragedy. We have already had one tragedy in November. What is their solution? How are they going to stop that? How are they going to break the cycle used by criminal gangs? There is no solution, apart from what the Government are attempting to do today. It is a minimum solution. It is, actually, a humanitarian solution. It is about trying to prevent people from taking appalling risks. If we allow any of the amendments—any of the amendments—and if we do not hold the line, sooner or later there will be an even greater tragedy in the English channel.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
The wind-ups will begin at 12 minutes past 4, as the Minister has kindly agreed to truncate his wind-up to get more time in. We are going to a three-minute limit. At roughly 18 minutes past 4, we are expecting multiple Divisions.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
The events in Ukraine in the past month have shown how quickly millions of lives can be thrown into chaos by war and violence, and how individuals can find themselves dependent on asylum or sanctuary afforded by other countries. The British people, yet again, have shown themselves willing to offer financial support and to offer up their homes for refugees. I take issue with the comments of the previous speaker, the right hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), about the Bill. The Bill is absolutely appalling and inhumane. The British people I know are caring, compassionate and welcoming of all refugees, and we should welcome refugees from wherever they are fleeing violence, war and famine.
Unfortunately, the Government are completely out of touch with that sentiment in their new plan for immigration. The Bill cuts across everything that we should stand for in this country. It breaches international laws, violates basic principles of justice and runs completely counter to what is needed. It will cause greater inequity and harm communities.
David Simmonds
It seems to me that many of the criticisms that are levelled at the Bill are more matters of Home Office administration than of law. I was particularly grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who is no longer in his place, for accepting my earlier intervention in which I sought to make the point that the Labour party has a long history of talking a very good game in respect of refugees and asylum seekers but of not honouring its promises to those individuals in practice. We need to make sure that we all accept the broad responsibility of support for refugees.
Given the shortness of time, I will confine my comments to three enormously important areas. Having sat through a lot of scrutiny of this legislation on the Joint Committee on Human Rights, I think there is a valid concern about the two-tier system. As I understand it, the case from the human rights lawyers who advise the Committee is that it would not be a matter for the Government to demonstrate that safe and legal routes were available in general; it would be necessary to show that each individual refugee had access to a safe and legal route but chose to come to the UK by another means. I know that the Minister is aware of that question and I would like to hear from him how the Government propose to address that concern, so that we can be confident that the two-tier approach will genuinely achieve what we want it to, which is to break the business model of traffickers.
That links to the wider issue that a number of Members have highlighted: we have yet to see the necessary practical proposals that demonstrate where those safe and legal routes will be. We know that the Home Office has invested an enormous amount in digital technology—that has been put to good effect in respect of Ukraine—so that people can make their applications abroad. There are a number of other ideas about how that might happen, and the response to Syrian refugees demonstrated that, through resettlement, we can do this better.
In my view, the situation demonstrates the importance of supporting the existence of the ability to process claims offshore. Although I agree with several Members that the Australian system is simply bonkersly expensive when applied to the UK, the ability to administer the application process outside the United Kingdom is critical if we are to make safe and legal routes work, so I very much support the Government in introducing it.
Having made the point that a lot of the issues are about administration, I hope that the Government are listening to the point about right to work. It frustrates me as a Conservative politician that taxpayers’ money is being spent on supporting people whose skills could be put to good use in our economy. The Home Office has made some helpful steps in that direction. I hope that the message from both sides of the Chamber tonight will be listened to and that we will see some movement on administration as the Bill moves towards becoming law.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab)
I rise to support the Lords amendments. The deeply draconian elements of the Bill have been called out time and again. It is appallingly racist and divisive legislation that deliberately seeks to strengthen hostile environment policies and willingly flies in the face of international law. We have heard repeatedly in this House and in the other place about how it will criminalise refugees who are seeking routes to safety, arriving on our shores against tremendous odds, and how it will create refugee camps on faraway islands—hidden from view, inaccessible and outside regular jurisdiction.
The Bill seeks to expand the powers of the Home Office to unprecedented levels to permit the deprivation of citizenship at the flick of a pen—a move that will undoubtedly discriminate against black and immigrant communities, further deepening the hostile environment that has already proven so damaging. It seeks to criminalise the very act of seeking asylum by inventing “illegal” routes to accessing our shores and seeking safety and protection, creating a two-tier system for refugees that breaks our obligations under international law and the refugee convention. The list of deeply cruel and inhumane policies goes on.
Kim Johnson
No, thank you. Sit down.
We have already witnessed mass opposition to the very worst of the Bill’s proposals. I have nothing but the utmost pride in workers and volunteers in the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and our border forces and in the incredible work of the PCS union in defying the Government’s instructions to push boats back into the channel. The Trades Union Congress has called on the Government to go further by suspending deportation flights until they have addressed the miscarriages of justice in the immigration system, and by scrapping in its entirety this Bill, which will breach international human rights law and increase worker exploitation.
The Lords amendments are supported by the vast majority of Liverpool, Riverside constituents, trade unions, human rights organisations and international bodies that work to support refugees every single day. I am very proud that my city, Liverpool, is a city of sanctuary and is happy to support refugees, but we still have 730 Afghan refugees languishing in hotels.
I conclude by reminding hon. Members that there are 84 million refugees globally. Millions have been displaced because of conflict and persecution and are seeking safe passage, including Syrian Kurds, Afghans and Yemenis, who have suffered the world’s worst humanitarian crisis: 20 million are in need of humanitarian aid. I ask all hon. Members to support the Lords amendments and scrap this Bill.
Jonathan Gullis
Let us be very clear. Currently, illegal economic migrants are entering this country across the English channel from a safe mainland European country, France. That situation is totally unacceptable to the people of Stoke-on-Trent North, Kidsgrove and Talke, because they believe in fairness and they believe in doing things by the book.
People with a legitimate claim to come to our country to escape persecution and flee for their lives are being put at the bottom of the list because of people who are illegally entering our country via small boats—and what do the Opposition parties think? They support the Lords amendments, which would simply make it even easier for people to try to come across the channel, making a dangerous journey, risking their lives and putting money into the hands of criminal gangs. Let us not forget that 70% of the individuals who are currently making that channel crossing are men, predominantly single men in their 20s and 30s. Let us not forget that it is women and children who are most at risk: they are being left at home, where they are being persecuted.
The Labour party thinks that people in places like Stoke-on-Trent are racist because 73% voted for Brexit. It thinks that they are thick and uncompassionate, despite the fact that we are the fifth largest contributor to the asylum dispersal scheme in our United Kingdom. That is why Stoke-on-Trent kicked Labour out, and why the people there will not want it back any time soon. Labour does not understand that when people voted for this Government and elected, for the first time ever, a Conservative Member of Parliament for Stoke-on-Trent, North Kidsgrove and Talke, they did so because they wanted to take back control—which is what they did in 2016 when they voted for Brexit. The out-of-touch wokerati on the Opposition Benches are constantly obsessed with being popular with Twitter and Londoners, so this does not surprise me one bit.
As for the Scottish National party, only one Scottish local authority takes part in the asylum dispersal scheme. To be fair, it is Glasgow, the largest contributor to the scheme. Despite the pontificating, the grandstanding and the virtue-signalling, the fact is that the SNP does not stand up and help out as it should. It is about time that Scotland did its bit, went out and signed up. The Minister is on the Front Bench: let SNP Members go and sign the paperwork with him, and let us get refugees into local authority areas in Scotland. Stoke-on-Trent is doing its bit. It is about time that others, whether in the north Islington coffee bar elites or the Scottish National party-run local authorities, did their bit as well.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Alison Thewliss, whom I must ask to sit down at 4.12 pm.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
I must say to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Jonathan Gullis) that Glasgow is far more diverse and far more welcoming of refugees than he will ever be. We in Glasgow are proud to welcome refugees. We are proud of our diversity I have been inundated with emails from my constituents about this anti-refugee Bill, and not one of those emails has been in support of the Government’s position, or of this anti-refugee Bill which will punish people who are fleeing from war, persecution and female genital mutilation in countries around the world.
In the past seven years I have dealt with 1,853 immigration cases, and all of them have been riddled with Home Office incompetence and Home Office indifference to the plight of my constituents, whom I value and whom I want to be welcome in Glasgow. That indifference and that incompetence are deliberate. They are meant to make people feel unwelcome, and they run absolutely contrary to everything that my constituents stand for. I am very proud that those in Kenmure Street in Pollokshields came out of their houses when they saw the attempts to take people away in Home Office vans and said, “These are our neighbours—let them go.” Glasgow welcomes refugees, and we want nothing to do with this vicious Bill.
Tom Pursglove
With the leave of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker. Let me begin by thanking Members for their contributions to today’s debate. We have heard thought-provoking speeches from Members in all parts of the House. There can be no doubt about the strength of feeling on these important issues; there can also be no doubt that as a House, we stand united in our desire to support vulnerable people, in accordance with our long-standing tradition of welcoming those in need of protection. We perhaps just disagree on how that can best be achieved. Nevertheless, it is frustrating that criticism is often not matched by a credible alternative plan.
Let me touch on some of the issues that have been raised. The hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Brendan O’Hara) mentioned the plight of the Yazidis. I can confirm that we have resettled over 40 Yazidi people through both the United Kingdom resettlement scheme and, previously, the vulnerable persons resettlement scheme. The UK is firmly committed to protecting ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq. We raise this issue regularly with the Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government, and continue to monitor the situation of Yazidis and other minority groups in Iraq.
I also want to clarify the position with regard to illegal entry offences. I think it worth restating the position that I have consistently maintained in the House. This is not an attempt to prosecute every illegal entrant. Instead, prosecutions will focus on egregious cases: for example, cases in which an individual has entered in breach of a deportation order, or was previously removed as an illegal entrant or overstayer. We intend to take a firm stance in such cases, in order not to inadvertently reward such individuals with a grant of leave rather than punishing their abuse of the system. We are working closely with the police and our internal investigation teams to ensure that this policy is properly enforced, but is also proportionate.
It is misleading to say that genuine humanitarian rescues will be criminalised. We need to be clear about this to ensure that people are not concerned when undertaking those important activities. Individuals and organisations will be able to continue to rescue people in danger or in distress at sea, as they do now. It may be perfectly reasonable for people to be taken to the UK, depending on the circumstances—for example, the weather conditions, or a commercial ferry continuing its scheduled route. Decisions on whether to prosecute are taken by the relevant prosecution authorities in the UK, taking into account evidential and public interest tests. That is a well established process that applies to the law in this land in many areas. Before prosecutors make such a decision, a referral by investigators is required. To make that, investigators must believe that there is sufficient evidence to prove that the person concerned was not actually carrying out a rescue of someone in danger or distress. I cannot be clearer about this.
On the issue of the right to work, a number of colleagues have raised concerns and suggestions. One clear distinction I would like to make is on the point about Ukrainians and Afghans being in a position to work. Those individuals have come through safe and legal routes—bespoke routes—that the UK Government established to provide sanctuary. That is an important distinction. I refer Members to my earlier observations on the policy more generally, but I very much look forward to the meeting with my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) to ensure that we explore this and discuss thoroughly the concerns and views that colleagues are expressing.
On Lords amendment 11 and the 10,000 resettlement figure, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who so eloquently set out his case. We genuinely believe that flexibility is important in developing schemes and guidance. That is a position that I have maintained throughout the Bill’s passage. It will mean that we are able to develop bespoke schemes that take account of circumstances at any given time in the world, and that we are properly able to care for people in a responsible and managed manner. That is important, as is taking proper account of the capacity of local services at any given point in time. I would argue that the response to the Afghanistan and Ukraine crises demonstrates what can be achieved and why that approach makes sense and is better than having prescriptive schemes set down in legislation that are difficult to alter or remove should circumstances mean that they are no longer required. It is right to identify what routes are needed at any given point in time and then to resource them appropriately. We are of course looking at what more can be done, particularly around community sponsorship and global resettlement schemes, and I hope that that provides some reassurance about our intentions. I hear the observation that colleagues have raised today about generosity and ensuring that our schemes are comprehensive and meet the needs that exist—
Tom Pursglove
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 22.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 24, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 23, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 25, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 26, and Government motion to disagree, and amendments (a) and (b) in lieu.
Lords amendment 27, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 40, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 28 to 39, 42 and 41.
Tom Pursglove
We now turn to the remaining amendments. Amendment 22 relates to our plans for conducting assessments of age-disputed people. Scientific methods of age assessment are already in use by many European countries, and the Bill will bring us into line with them. Failure to ensure proper assessments creates obvious safeguarding concerns and, of course, can create a plethora of risks to the most vulnerable when we get it wrong. I know those concerns are shared across the House. This amendment creates numerous restrictions on our ability to use age assessments in practice.
First, I want to make it very clear there is no appetite to start conducting comprehensive age assessments where there is no doubt about someone’s claimed age. Such an approach would serve no purpose whatsoever and would take significant resources away from the main task of seeking to establish the age of those involved where age is in doubt. However, there is no question but that the system is being abused, and we need to put a stop to that.
Secondly, the amendment would require that only local authority social workers could undertake age assessments under the Bill. There is significant variation in the experience and capacity of local authorities to undertake these age assessments, which are a significant resource burden on them. The Home Office already leads on other vulnerability areas, with responsibility for making complex and significant decisions such as claims for asylum. For these reasons, we are seeking to establish a national age assessment board comprising qualified social workers employed by the Home Office who may undertake age assessments upon referral by a local authority. Local authorities will retain the ability to conduct these assessments if they wish to do so.
Thirdly, the amendment would ensure that scientific methods of age assessment are specified only if they are considered ethical and accurate beyond reasonable doubt and approved by relevant professional bodies.
Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)
The British Dental Association has highlighted specific concerns, on ethical, health and accuracy grounds, about using X-rays to assess the age of asylum applicants. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for listening to these worries, but I would be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister confirmed that the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee that has been set up to look at this process could include a practising dentist.
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that suggestion. I know that he has discussed this issue with the Home Secretary separately. I am not in a position to give him a firm undertaking today, but we will certainly take away and consider that particular point, and perhaps we could remain in contact on it. I am grateful for his input in relation to this aspect of the policy.
No one method of age assessment is likely to be accurate beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, this amendment sets an unrealistic expectation on what scientific methods could achieve. The expertise required spans a number of areas, and the independent Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee has been set up to advise on this complex topic.
David Simmonds
Does the Minister agree that the burden imposed by some of the risks inherent in uncertain age is quite a significant concern for local authorities? Does he recognise, as I do, that the current Merton-compliant age assessment process, which is considered the gold standard, is the result of a number of judicial reviews over the years that have included consideration of scientific method? Beyond that, does he welcome, as I do, the additional clarity that the Government will in future be able to use scientific methods that do meet the required ethical standards in order to assist local authorities and address some of the remaining uncertainty?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend, who speaks with real experience given his time as a distinguished local authority leader, raises an important point. Of course these ethical considerations are very important in relation to all this. I am acutely mindful of the enormous burden that age assessment has placed on local authorities over a number of years. Some local authorities do this work very well, but the situation is patchy. The capacity that exists, and the speed, thoroughness and ease with which this work is done, depends on where you are in the country. It is important that we are developing this national resource to help with some of this work so as to relieve some of the burdens. One thing I will certainly want the national age assessment board to do is reflect on the best practice that exists in local authorities around the country and bring together that model of best practice to make sure that we get this right.
Finally, the amendment would lower the current standard of proof for social worker age assessments from the “balance of probabilities”, which is long established in case law, to a “reasonable degree of likelihood”. Lowering this standard would require social workers to accept individuals as children whom on balance they believe to be adults. For the House’s benefit, it is important to note that there are safeguarding considerations that flow in either direction. Children being placed in adult settings is clearly not acceptable, and it is not good for adults to be placed in children’s settings either. For those reasons, we cannot accept the amendment.
I will turn to consider the amendments relating to modern slavery, beginning with amendments 23 and 24, which would omit from the Bill the clause that deals with late compliance with a slavery or trafficking information notice. I understand the motivations behind the concerns expressed by the noble Lords who tabled these amendments. This Government are completely committed to supporting victims of modern slavery and tackling perpetrators, but removing the clause would mean that we were unable to clearly set out the consequences of not complying with the slavery or trafficking information notice, which would not help decision makers or individuals involved in the process. It would also create a lack of transparency and certainty.
It is clear on the face of the Bill that where there is good reason for late compliance, there will be no damage to credibility. We have given repeated assurances that, in keeping with the approach taken in our current statutory guidance, “good reasons” will allow for things such as individual vulnerabilities or the effect traumatic events and coercive control can have on people’s ability to accurately recall, share, or recognise such events. I expect that work to be carried out through a trauma-informed approach, which will ensure that decision makers have the flexibility and discretion to appropriately consider “good reasons” without prejudging what that should cover. We therefore cannot agree to the amendments.
Amendment 25 would remove from the Bill the clause that deals with disqualification from modern slavery protections where an individual is a threat to public order or has claimed to be a victim in bad faith. It would replace the clause with a new clause that does not provide a definition for public order and, as a result, the Government would remain unable to operationalise the public order disqualification. That would mean we were unable to remove individuals who had committed serious criminal offences or who posed a risk to national security, despite it being in line with our international obligations to do so.
The Government have been clear that the disqualification will not be applied in a blanket manner. Rather, following a referral to the national referral mechanism, where an individual meets the public order definition or has claimed in bad faith, the specific circumstances and vulnerabilities of each case will be carefully considered. It is our view that amendment 25 does not fulfil the aims of the original clause and would not protect the modern slavery system from those who act in bad faith, nor protect our communities from those who present a threat to public order or a risk to national security.
Richard Fuller (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)
The Minister said that in those cases, there would be an assessment of the risk to public order. Has he made an assessment of what proportion of the cases, say in 2020, would have had these individual assessments based on the criteria presented in the Bill? He may not have that information to hand, but if he could reply to the House on that later, it would be helpful.
Tom Pursglove
I recognise entirely the interest that my hon. Friend shows in these matters. If I may, I will take that point away, ponder it and then comment on it specifically when I wind up the debate. I am grateful for the question, and I am happy to revisit that point.
For the reasons I have outlined, we cannot agree to amendment 25. Amendment 26 would remove the clause that provides leave to remain for victims of modern slavery or human trafficking and replace it with a new clause. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and to Lord McColl for their work in this area. We agree that confirmed victims should be granted leave where necessary to assist them in their physical and psychological recovery from harm caused by exploitation, to seek compensation in respect of their exploitation or to assist the authorities with investigations or prosecutions in respect of that exploitation.
The Government have already committed to providing all those who receive a positive conclusive grounds decision and are in need of specific support with appropriate tailored support for a minimum of 12 months, where necessary. That will be set out in guidance, but the amendment does not make the critical link between relevant exploitation and the grant of leave. That means that someone could be granted leave to remain on the basis of personal circumstances unconnected to their exploitation, or to pursue an unrelated compensation claim or to assist an unrelated investigation. For those reasons, we are not able to support the amendment.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
My hon. Friend will recall that last time we debated these provisions, we had an agreement that the Government in principle accepted the 12-month process. We expected to see it put in the Bill in the other place, but the truth is that the Bill has arrived back here after being amended by the Lords rather than the Government. I accept that Lords amendment 26, to replace clause 64, has a lot of other things in it.
The point of my amendment (a), which I know that I cannot vote on tonight because of ping-pong, is that we need to get that in the Bill. The key thing, after all, is that those who come through the NRM should get up to a minimum of 12 months, which would allow them to pursue prosecutions against the traffickers. They will lose that if the Minister does get it into the Bill, so will he now give me an understanding that that will be the case?
Tom Pursglove
My right hon. Friend is passionate in raising the issue and has done so constructively throughout the process. We are all cognisant of the need to ensure that we bring the evil individuals responsible for that criminality to justice. I refer him to the commitment that was made from the Dispatch Box by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean), on Report. Future legislation on modern slavery more generally is very likely to be in the offing. We are also happy to meet him—I know that the Home Secretary has spoken to him—to discuss his point in greater detail. We want to work through it carefully to ensure that we get it right.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
The key thing is whether the Minister is prepared to consider tabling an amendment in the other place that puts the 12-month minimum into the Bill. If he does that, it will send a huge signal that we are on the side of those who are most beaten up and traduced by the system of slavery, and it will put us back on the right course. I ask him to please give me that sort of commitment.
Tom Pursglove
My recollection of the earlier proceedings relates to putting the matter firmly in guidance, but as I say, we are happy to meet to discuss it. We want to get it right, and we are willing to consider the position with him following this debate. That is an undertaking to him on which we will certainly follow through.
Jeremy Corbyn
I support the points made by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), which we discussed on Report. He is right that 12 months is an absolute minimum for a victim to pursue the prosecution of a case. I hope that the Government will reconsider that and go for a much longer period, so that the norm will be that those people get a permanent right to remain and live in this country. After all, they are victims of appalling behaviour by some brutal people. We should support them and not put artificial hurdles in their way.
Tom Pursglove
The right hon. Gentleman definitely gets the tone right in highlighting the severity of the criminality perpetrated by individuals who, as I say, we all want to bring to justice.
Another point that I would make, because it is useful in the context of the debate, is that such matters are considered on a case-by-case basis and people are often awarded a period of leave that is longer than 12 months, which is beneficial for them. We would not want to see an adverse situation where people received less time than perhaps they would have done, given that individuals are receiving more after a case-by-case consideration that takes into account all the relevant factors. As I say, we are very willing to take the issue away and to engage with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green. We will have those discussions and conclude them accordingly. He should leave that with us and we will get that meeting organised as quickly as possible.
Lords amendment 27 inserts a new clause that relates to victims of slavery aged under 18. It would mean that victims under 18 could not be issued with a slavery and human trafficking notice. It would exclude that group from the new disqualifications from modern slavery protections, provide a blanket grant of leave to remain, and legislate for a specific reasonable grounds test for those whose exploitation took place under the age of 18 —yet not for other victims.
Before issuing a slavery or trafficking information notice, decision makers would not have information about an individual or their exploitation, including, crucially, their age when the relevant exploitation took place. Similarly, the reasonable grounds evidence gathering process is when information regarding the person’s exploitation is often identified, so only at that stage could decision makers know that the person’s exploitation had occurred before they turned 18. In practice, therefore, it would become unworkable to differentiate on the basis of the timings of exploitation. We know that children who have been trafficked need support, but what concerns us about this Lords amendment is that it would move us away from taking a case-by-case approach and could incentivise adults to claim that they are children. We therefore cannot support it.
I turn to Lords amendment 40, which concerns the operation of the electronic travel authorisation scheme in respect of individuals travelling to Northern Ireland on a local journey from the Republic of Ireland. We have been very clear in emphasising our continuing commitment to the Good Friday agreement and the protocol, and we would like to take the opportunity to reassure colleagues again that there will be no controls on the border between Northern Ireland and Ireland.
However, this amendment could result in an unacceptable gap in UK border security that would allow persons of interest or risk who would be otherwise refused an electronic travel authorisation to enter the UK legally, undermining the very purpose of the ETA scheme, which is to prevent the travel of those who pose a threat to the UK. It is important that, as now, all individuals—except British and Irish citizens—arriving in the UK, including those crossing the land border into Northern Ireland, continue to enter in line with the UK’s immigration framework to protect both the UK immigration system and the common travel area from abuse. This is a well-established principle of the operation of the common travel area and applies when travelling in all directions. The UK is entitled to introduce and change its own requirements in the interest of securing the UK border, and we will continue to liaise with the Irish authorities on matters of border security in relation to the common travel area. We therefore cannot support this amendment.
Stephen Farry (North Down) (Alliance)
First, would the Minister accept that great concern has been expressed by all parties in the Oireachtas—the Irish Parliament—and representatives from the Irish Government, who are very concerned about the impact the Bill will have on what are often daily movements on the island of Ireland by non-Irish nationals? Would he also accept that this is very damaging for the tourism trade on the island of Ireland, which is very much an integrated market, with people often landing in Dublin and then wishing to travel into Northern Ireland, and will prove to be a major obstacle in the way of those natural journeys?
Tom Pursglove
I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), was whispering in my ear at the same time, making the point that he has already had a meeting with the Irish Government to discuss this, and I know that that engagement is ongoing. He is also very willing to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this in greater detail, and we will get that meeting organised for him as quickly as possible to progress that.
I turn now to Lords amendments 28 to 39 and 42, which the Government have introduced in response to the crisis in Ukraine. They strengthen our visa penalty powers, meaning that we can impose penalties where a country poses a risk to international peace and security or when its actions lead or are likely to lead to armed conflict or a breach of humanitarian law. Lords amendment 42 means that these powers will come into effect as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, rather than two months after Royal Assent as we had originally been planning, so that we will be able to use them much sooner. I commend those amendments to the House, and I would like to think that they will be broadly welcomed.
Jeremy Corbyn
I understand the thought process behind these amendments, and I do not have any problem with that, but could the Minister assure the House that people wanting to come to this country from Russia or Belarus who have been taking part in peaceful activities to oppose the war and call for peace, and who need to get somewhere else, will not be prevented from coming to this country?
Tom Pursglove
The direct answer to the right hon. Gentleman’s question is that people will still be able to apply for visas in the normal way, so I hope that provides him with assurance.
Lords amendment 41 is a minor drafting amendment in relation to costs orders. It does not change the underlying policy, which requires tribunal procedure rules to be made setting out that the tribunal must consider whether to impose a charge or to make an order where prescribed conduct that is to be treated as improper, unreasonable or negligent has occurred. It simply clarifies that this requirement applies only in relation to the immigration and asylum chamber of the first-tier tribunal and of the upper tribunal. This will prevent any uncertainty from arising about the jurisdictions in which clause 77 should be applied, and I hope this clarification meets with the approval of the House.
With that, I conclude my remarks, and I will gladly pick up any points in the wind-up.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, I should say that I will need to impose a time limit, which will probably start off at five minutes. Apart from Members who have an amendment down, I will be prioritising those who did not speak in the previous debate.
Holly Lynch (Halifax) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to be responding for Labour to this second group of Lords amendment to the Bill, and I want to start by joining others in paying tribute to those who lost their lives or were injured in, and all those who responded to, the attack on Westminster five years ago today. I pay particular tribute to PC Keith Palmer and thank all those who work so hard to keep us safe every day.
I intend to keep my remarks tightly to the amendments before us, particularly Lords amendments 24 to 27, but I want to start by again expressing regret that modern slavery provisions have been included in a Bill on immigration. Members might remember that on Report I was intervened on only by Conservative MPs seeking to agree with me—which is certainly unusual—that the provisions in the Bill on modern slavery will only take us backwards. If this Bill passes unamended we will identify and protect fewer victims of modern slavery and identify and prosecute fewer perpetrators. That is not only our view: the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner has been fierce in her opposition to a number of the changes, and Caroline Haughey QC, one of the leading legal experts in this area, has said this Bill will
“catastrophically undo all that has been achieved in the 10 years since the first modern slavery prosecution.”
Lords amendment 27 seeks to exempt child victims from the most damaging of the Bill’s provisions and ensure that all decisions are made in their best interests. Throughout the passage of the Bill we have voiced our concerns that the Government fail to recognise that identifying victims of modern slavery or human trafficking is a safeguarding, not an immigration, matter. Last year, 43% of victims referred to the national referral mechanism were children, with 31% of them being British, and the rise in county lines gangs is believed to be one of the biggest drivers of the rise in child referrals.
This amendment must also be considered in light of what is currently happening in Ukraine and the reports by charity and aid agencies on the ground of the heightened risks of children being exploited and trafficked along the Ukrainian border and in neighbouring countries, such is the flow of people away from the Russian bombardment. If the Minister is not minded to strike part 5 from the Bill and work with the sector and us on genuine alternatives, he must protect children from the worst of the changes, which only put barriers between victims and the support and justice they need and deserve.
If the Government are to deliver on their own promise of smashing county lines, they must accept Lords amendment 27. The Government’s own existing statutory guidance states:
“Whatever form it takes, modern slavery and child trafficking is child abuse and relevant child protection procedures…must be followed if modern slavery or trafficking is suspected.”
Under the changes introduced in the Bill a child can access protection only if they disclose details of their trauma against a Home Office-mandated timeline, and can access NRM support only if they have no public order offences in their background. The Government’s own guidance rightly says that a child who has been trafficked must be protected, no ifs, no buts—which means no clause 63, no clause 66 and no clause 67 as a condition of support on recognition as being a victim. As a minimum, in order for the Government just to adhere to their own guidance and protect child victims of trafficking, they must adopt Lords amendment 27 to prevent changes that would leave children more vulnerable to criminals and traffickers.
In Committee, at the 12th sitting, the Minister stressed that the Government’s view was that it would somehow be unfair to establish a system that distinguishes between a child and an adult, and he has repeated that sentiment today. He said in Committee:
“To create a carve-out for one group of individuals would create a two-tiered system based on the age at which exploitation may have taken place”,
and went on to say that it
“would not be appropriate or fair to all victims.”––[Official Report, Nationality and Borders Public Bill Committee, 28 October 2021; c. 484.]
I am afraid that is just absurd: we differentiate between children and adults throughout domestic legislation, recognising the age-related vulnerability of children, and it is the very basis of the Government’s own age assessment proposals in the Bill. Child victims have rights to protection under the United Nations convention on the rights of the child and the Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings, and it is there in the Government’s own guidance. If the Minister is really trying to tell us that the Government do not like creating two-tier systems given what else the Bill does, we are simply not having it. I urge the Government to follow their own guidance, recognise that child victims of trafficking are victims of abuse and adopt Lords amendment 27.
Richard Fuller
To maintain the hon. Lady’s record of Conservative interventions that are somewhat supportive, is not what she has just said about that 48% the answer to the question I posed to my hon. Friend the Minister? Under the Bill as presented, the Home Office will be required to intervene in half the cases to make the very difficult judgment whether to exclude or not exclude. Does that not open us up to a huge amount of potential risk?
Holly Lynch
I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful contribution. As we learn more about county lines gangs and their operating model, we see more and more young people and children subject to the worst exploitation by some of the vilest criminal gangs. Those are the children who are referred into the national referral mechanism. They have been encouraged, exploited and forced to commit crimes as part of their exploitation, so if we are to bust those gangs they are the children we need to be looking after and supporting, and we need to support them through the prosecutions of their abusers. That 48% were criminally exploited, so we must ensure that children who have been victims of county lines gangs have protection.
It will drive more people underground and make it significantly harder for the police and authorities to investigate the perpetrators of human trafficking without the trust and support for victims in place. It also sends a clear message to perpetrators of human trafficking that they are free to exploit vulnerable people with a criminal record, knowing they will now be exempt from protection. Clause 62 represents a massive step backwards in our shared ambition to see more traffickers before the courts if it passes unamended.
Lords amendment 26 removes clause 64 and introduces a minimum 12 months leave to remain, and tailored support for all individuals who have been found to be confirmed victims of modern slavery. To demonstrate how difficult it still is to have your migration status resolved upon recognition of your exploitation, data obtained from the Home Office shows that in 2019-20 only 2%, or 17 out of 754, of child victims of modern slavery in the UK were granted discretionary leave to remain. The amendment would ensure that victims are provided with protection, support, security and stability to support their recovery in a way that promotes engagement with police and prosecutors. This proposal has gathered significant cross-party support, and I wish to highlight the work that has been conducted across the House and in the other place, specifically by the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) and Lord McColl. On the Labour Benches, we strongly support the amendment. Once again, it is frustrating that the Government have failed to listen and to act on the commitments they made in earlier stages of the Bill in this place.
Just last week, the Court of Appeal rejected the Government’s attempt to overturn the High Court ruling last October that granted thousands of victims of human trafficking leave to remain. During the court case, the Government stated that they want to ensure the Government are in keeping with the European convention on action against trafficking in human beings, yet that differs from what the Government have argued in both Houses. That would have a considerable impact, given that 91% of conclusive grounds decisions made in 2021 were positive, which means the Home Office deemed the individuals to be confirmed victims of modern slavery.
In conclusion, the amendments seek only to bring the Bill closer to adhering to the Government’s own guidance and best practice on supporting vulnerable victims of modern slavery and trafficking. There are others, but I have made the case for Lords amendments 24, 25, 26 and 27, all of which would significantly improve the proposed legislation before us. Lords amendment 22 also has our full support. The sector has been unified in its condemnation of the initial measures contained within that section of the Bill and there has been overwhelming evidence in support of the Lords amendments at every stage. The most recent number of referrals to the NRM was 12,727, representing a 20% increase in referrals compared to the previous year—the highest number of referrals since the NRM began. That is a deeply worrying trend and more must be done to tackle this abhorrent crime that continues to see shockingly low prosecution rates.
All sides of the House have worked to end the abhorrent crime that is modern slavery. We should be seeking to build on the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and on our commitments in that legislation. We want to work with the Government, as do the sector and the victims themselves. I therefore strongly urge the Government to think again and accept the Lords amendments.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I will not be very long, because what I am going to speak about is quite narrow and I know others want to speak.
Just before 2015, the Centre for Social Justice produced the report that persuaded the Government, of which I was a member, to be the first in the world to introduce legislation on modern day slavery. I could not have been prouder of this place when the Bill passed. It has been a signal that has gone around the world and others have followed suit. Let me put this issue into context. We should be pushing to make the Modern Slavery Act 2015 even more focused and even better, but my suspicion is that some are looking at it and saying, “This is full of ways to come in illegally through the backdoor.” I must say to my hon. Friend the Minister that I just do not think that that is the case here.
I am speaking to my amendments (a) and (b) in lieu of Lords amendment 26. I understand the Government’s concerns with the way it was framed in the other place, but I would rather have debated it at some length to try to ensure it was better written.
The point that I want to make is narrow. My amendment, which I know we cannot vote on, so this is a debating point, would add this key element: those who have got through the NRM, which is difficult enough as it is, are clearly victims of modern slavery and we therefore need to be generous to them. One of their problems, which we have discovered through all sorts of mechanisms, is that they have suffered trauma and real problems, and they are discombobulated and frightened. They therefore find it difficult to co-operate with authority. Many of them have fled authorities that are responsible for the penalties that they have suffered under, so they need more time.
The police say, “We need more time to settle such people so that we can get prosecutions.” We consulted on 12 months and the police were very clear, saying, “If you introduce 12 months as a minimum, we will get many more prosecutions. We will start to round up some of these gangs and we will get on top of this. At the moment, we cannot get individuals to give evidence. They are frightened that they will end up back on the street and that these people will get them.” There is a logic to this change that is in keeping with the aim of the Bill, which is to make sure that those who traffic people are arrested and prosecuted. That is what it is all about.
I have heard some say that there is an increase in the number of people coming into the NRM, which therefore suggests that this change will become a pull factor. First, whether we agree or disagree about the 12 months being a pull factor, relatively, the numbers are absolutely tiny compared with the number of asylum claims. Secondly, the 12 months cannot be a pull factor because there is already a period of time after the NRM anyway. Is the idea that someone is thinking “I will go after the NRM because I am an illegal and I will find a way of delaying that because then I get the extra 12 months.”? That is not the point. The 12 months are there because when someone is through that, they must be a victim of modern slavery. The debate is not about whether people are victims of modern slavery; they are victims of modern slavery. The question is what is the best way to treat them to ensure that they get the best outcome and that, in return, we get the best outcome in terms of prosecutions.
Let me make this point to the Minister—we debated this issue on Third Reading. I think that he and the Government get it, but that they get a certain amount of pushback about whether there is some kind of pull factor. The point about the pull factor has been made so often. It is a bit like “Dr Dolittle” and the “pushmi-pullyu” concept—it depends who people are getting this from and which angle they take.
The truth is that I am not even going to argue about pull factors. I will simply say that the purpose of this amendment, which we cannot vote on tonight, is to enable the Government to debate this issue with me carefully so that in the other place, they will table an amendment that enshrines the 12-month minimum in legislation. The guidance will take forever to come through and, anyway, it is not binding—it is guidance. Somebody who has a bad attitude will not stick to the guidance. They will go for de minimis and I do not want them to do that. De minimis should be 12 months in legislation. If we believe in this, it will be a beacon. We should be proud of what we are doing.
In conclusion, if I could get on bended knee, I would beg my Government—please, please—to think of putting back in in the other place a 12-month minimum after someone has completed the NRM. There are lots of things that I do not particularly like in the Bill, but if we can do that, I will take a self-denying ordinance and support the Government. I will do that just to get the 12 months in because such people deserve the best that we can give them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I think I will have to reduce the time limit to four minutes after the contribution from the SNP spokesperson.
Stuart C. McDonald
It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith), with whom I agree. I also agreed with pretty much everything said by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch), so I can be fairly brief.
The hon. Member for Halifax was right to say at the outset that, again, it is frustrating that the Government do not appear to be listening—not to their Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner, anti-slavery charities, medical professionals, social workers or survivors—and that everything is being seen through the prism of migration enforcement. The Government are undermining not just the refugee convention, but other international obligations including the European convention on action against trafficking in human beings.
The Minister said a lot of good things at the Dispatch Box, as he did in the debate on the previous group, but sometimes what he says bears very little resemblance to the provisions that are actually in the Bill. I have a lot of respect for him as a Minister, but he cannot ask us to legislate—to pass a Bill—based on how he wants it implemented. We have to go by what is in the Bill, which too often simply does not live up to what he is trying to sell us.
The SNP supports what their lordships have done to take out some of the most offensive provisions of the Bill and to improve protections for trafficking survivors. We believe that the Government’s motions to disagree will not only take out the positive reforms that their lordships suggested and restore some really regressive provisions that undermine modern slavery legislation across the UK, but reinstate challenges and hurdles for survivors of trafficking and slavery, especially children. The only beneficiaries will be those who perpetrate those awful crimes.
Tom Hunt
I intended to speak on the first group of amendments, but I have a lot to say about the second group as well, so I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate.
I welcome Lords amendments 28 and 29. It is good that we have a Government who take security in this country incredibly seriously. It is right that we are compassionate and generous when it comes to Ukrainian refugees, but I am sympathetic to the Government’s position of not completely waiving checks and of listening to the advice of the security services. I see Lords amendments 28 and 29 as an extension of the principle that the Government must protect the security of our country from individuals coming from countries deemed to be high-risk.
Lords amendments 30 to 35 amend clause 69—an incredibly important clause, in my view. I always hesitate to use the term “pull factor” because of some of the comments that have been made about pull factors, but I do think that one pull factor has been the ability of many people who have entered this country illegally, and who may or may not be legitimate refugees, to stay here. It is a case of, “Once you’re in, you’re in.” If we determine that an individual is not a refugee—if that person does not pass the tests—we must get them back to the country they came from as soon as possible. I therefore welcome clause 69 and think it should be protected from any potential amendments.
Let me be honest with the House: my view is that those who come here illegally should immediately be deported to the country from which they came. If someone wants to claim asylum, they ought to go through the correct procedure. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether that is the case.
In general, I think that the Bill is extremely important. In relation to the amendments and what we heard earlier today, I suspect that many other Members on both sides of the House have constituents who, while they are incredibly big-hearted, and in particular have a big-hearted attitude to the Ukrainian refugees—and indeed other refugees—see a distinction between them and people who enter the country illegally and who we should not assume are refugees. Some may not be, and I think it important for us to bear that in mind. I also think that those in the other place—I will be careful about what I say, and I will be very respectful of the other place—should tread carefully, because I think there is immense support for this Bill out there in the country.
Stephen Farry
I will restrict my comments to Lords amendment 40, which I originally tabled in this House with my colleagues the hon. Members for Foyle (Colum Eastwood) and for Belfast South (Claire Hanna). I was very pleased when the House of Lords took it up. I especially thank Baroness Ritchie and Baroness Suttie, and all those who spoke in favour of the amendment at that time.
I believe that the system of electronic travel authorisations is essentially unworkable in the context of the island of Ireland. I know that the UK Government have received representations from the Irish Government, and they will also be aware of the cross-party opposition to this proposal in the Irish Houses of Parliament, the Oireachtas. It is important that we listen carefully to those voices and take account of the considerable concern felt in Northern Ireland about this measure.
Of course the common travel area applies to Irish citizens, but we are now talking about citizens of the European economic area who previously had freedom of movement and about all the other non-Irish residents of the island of Ireland having to apply for an ETA in due course. The Government may say that this is a simple process and there is no intention of introducing routine border checks; I recognise that they have been clear about that. None the less, it will be a new bureaucratic process. People may either forget to apply for their ETAs or forget to renew them, and some may even be placed in a degree of legal jeopardy. Someone who is in Northern Ireland without an ETA and has to interact with the UK state, perhaps for healthcare reasons or in the event of a traffic accident, will potentially be in a position of some uncertainty, and there may well be repercussions from that.
There are three instances in which this could become a problem. There are tens of thousands of movements each day on the island of Ireland involving Northern Ireland citizens—for the purposes of work or education, for example, and because people living in one part of the island may have business in the other jurisdiction. People who do not intend to do any business in Northern Ireland often have to travel through it to get from A to B. The quickest route from Dublin to Donegal is through Northern Ireland on the A5, and even someone making a very localised journey from Clones or Cavan town, for example, will cross the border four times in the course of that short journey. This could become fairly absurd.
There is also the question of tourism. The island of Ireland is very much a single market for tourists. Many people come to the south, and then want to come to Northern Ireland to see all our wonderful attractions and take advantage of our great scenery. We can foresee a situation where tourists are not aware of the requirements, or where tour operators have to go through bureaucracy in order to ensure that their passengers on bus tours, for example, are fully compliant with this new law. That may well put some people out of the market or persuade them not offer that type of service. That would be a huge loss to our tourism sector, which is a key aspect of the Northern Ireland economy. The movements that happen at present on the island of Ireland are not a threat to UK security. I encourage the Government to reflect on this further and talk more to the Irish Government about finding a resolution.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
Order. I am afraid that I have to reduce the time limit to three minutes.
Richard Fuller
I want the UK to be known as a place of refuge and justice as well as a place of opportunity and freedom. When examining immigration Bills over the years, I have always looked to see where there could be an issue of moral hazard in what is being proposed and the changes being made. In this Bill, my eyes were immediately drawn to clause 62 and to Lords amendment 25. The title of clause 62 is “Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection”. The clause is replete with moral hazards in whatever actions the Government might take. As it happens, I do not think that the Government have got the balance right, but I am also not sure that the Lords amendment is quite right.
My request to the Minister, who is ably managing the Bill, is to continue the conversation with their lordships on this provision, because of the risks of moral hazard. For example, is it really right that we should continue to include taking away this protection from children? Is it right that we should continue to have a provision that someone who in their past has undertaken a crime under duress should be liable to the protections being taken away? The Minister has argued that it is important to define this, so that the issues of public order can be applied, and I see some relevance there, but why is it important to rely so heavily on information that relates to an individual’s past, rather than take into account their circumstances and the potential risk they pose today? That balance has not been struck correctly.
The noble Lords Coaker and Randall in the other place sought to correct that by trying to draw a tighter definition about the risks, stating that there has to be
“an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat”,
but I think they have overcooked it a little bit. It is quite a lot to say that all those criteria have to apply. Between the Government’s present criteria, which rely too much on an individual’s past, and the Lords amendment, which is drawn a bit too tightly about where these protections should be applied, there is scope for the Government to find some ground for compromise. I certainly hope so.
Mr Carmichael
I shall of necessity be very brief. First, I would like to place on record my appreciation of my colleagues in the other place, in particular Lord Paddick, Baroness Hamwee, Baroness Ludford and Baroness Suttie.
I find myself somewhat perplexed about the measures relating to modern slavery because, as the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) said, the Conservative party has until recently had a really good story to tell on modern slavery. It started with the work of Anthony Steen. The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the passing of the Modern Slavery Act 2015, and in this context I pay particular tribute to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I saw how, as Home Secretary, she drove this agenda in Government. Believe me, the Home Secretary in the coalition Government was not always an immediate ally for Liberal Democrat Ministers. She had a particular knack for generating tension, not just within the coalition but occasionally within her own party, but she really understood the importance of this issue and drove it forward in a way that I think the party should be proud of. I am afraid that what I see in relation to Lords amendments 24 to 26, coming from people such as Lord Randall—someone with whom, again, I was pleased to work during his time in this House—flies in the face of that work. It undermines the tremendous progress this country and the Conservative party have made.
Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)
I wish to speak briefly in support of the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) in lieu of Lords amendment 26, to which he referred in his impassioned speech. Disappointingly, it cannot be voted on today. If we are to break the business model of the criminal gangs behind modern slavery, we have to increase the number of successful prosecutions. One of the most effective ways to do that is to enable more victims to participate in the pursuit of justice by sharing intelligence and acting as witnesses. Evidence from programmes such as Justice and Care’s victim navigator programme shows that when given wraparound support over a longer period more victims develop the confidence to engage with criminal investigations; 89% of Justice and Care’s supported victims engaged with police at the last published evaluation, which compared with the national average of about a third.
I welcome the commitment that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) gave on Report that
“all those who receive a positive conclusive grounds decision and are in need of tailored support will receive appropriate individualised support for a minimum of 12 months.”—[Official Report, 8 December 2021; Vol. 705, c. 427.]
However, to provide victims with the certainty and stability they need, this extended support should be included in the statutory framework.
The Government have taken the positive step of putting support for modern slavery victims in law for the first time in this Bill, but clause 63 is limited to support during the initial recovery period during the national referral mechanism. The Bill offers no support to victims after the point at which someone has been formally recognised as a victim. The Government have already committed to doing this for a minimum of 12 months and it would be a simple matter to add that commitment to the Bill, giving a more comprehensive picture of the full range of support available, and providing victims with greater certainty and stability for their recovery as a result. I hope that Ministers will support the intent behind the amendment in lieu tabled by my right hon. Friend, and I note the Minister’s comment today that the Government are very willing to take these concerns away and have discussions with my right hon. Friend and, I hope, others. I also hope that the concern about the importance of putting the 12-month period into statute will not only be taken away, but acted upon.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
This Bill is such wide-reaching and deeply flawed legislation that there is so much I could speak on, but in the limited time we have I will focus on Lords amendment 22, which deals with the age assessment of children.
Without that amendment, the Bill will increase the number of children who have to undergo age assessments. These processes are unethical and inaccurate, focusing on vague criteria such as a child’s “appearance and demeanour”. Other, more detailed investigations are, of course, re-traumatising for children. There is a real danger that the measures in the Bill will lead to an increase in the number of children who are wrongfully treated as adults and subsequently neglected by the authorities. That will place some of the most vulnerable children at incredibly high risk of harm, as we have already seen.
In December 2017, Alexander Tekle died by suicide less than a year after he arrived in the UK from Eritrea as an unaccompanied minor. Alex was failed on two fronts. First, he was wrongfully assessed as an adult and placed in adult Home Office accommodation, where he was violently assaulted. Secondly, the different local authorities that were subsequently entrusted with his care failed him miserably, leading him into a spiral of depression and substance abuse. Services again failed to step in and ensure that he was supported to overcome these issues. The uncertainty over Alex’s immigration status also caused persistent distress. In fact, an inquest held earlier this year found that the Home Office’s policies contributed to the spiral that led to his death. What happened to Alex is not an isolated case: there has been an alarming increase in reports of suicide among teenagers who arrived in the UK as unaccompanied asylum-seeking children. It is a pattern of failure. But instead of the Government righting this wrong, children like Alex continue to be treated with suspicion from the moment they set foot in this country.
The Bill does not focus on improving the care of unaccompanied refugee children; in fact, the Home Office seems interested only in building even more barriers. It is particularly cynical that the Department pretends that age assessments are done for young people’s safety when, given the supervision provided in children’s placements, the level of risk is low should a young adult on occasion be placed in one. This contrasts with the hundreds of children who have been put in hotels and forced to share rooms and even beds with adult men they do not know.
The Home Office does not provide any solutions in the Bill. We cannot allow this devastating situation to continue. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may chunter from a sedentary position, but I am talking about something extremely serious: a young boy who committed suicide after Home Office failings. It would be great if they showed a bit of humility. Everyone who professes to care about unaccompanied refugee children should vote in support of Lords amendment 22.
Simon Hoare
It is to be welcomed that there will be no north-south border checks on the island of Ireland. The Minister will know that there is excellent intelligence sharing between the UK, the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Irish authorities.
I understand what the Government are trying to do in the Bill, but I am afraid they again show a little bit of a lack of sensitivity or understanding with regard to how the all-island economy works, particularly when it comes to tourism, which is hugely important, as the hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) said. In 2019, 2.245 million visitors came to the island of Ireland and spent £589 million. Such visitors maintain and support 70,800 jobs in Northern Ireland alone. There has been a 90% increase in the number of visitors to the island of Ireland from North America and 60% of all visitors to the island spend nights in both the Republic and the north of Ireland.
I understand what the Minister is trying to do, but he is using a misdirected sledgehammer to crack a non-existent nut, because we have seen no evidence to show that there is systemic abuse of the common travel area whereby people come from the south to the north and then over to GB. There is no evidence for that at all. I suggest the Government go away and have another think about the legislation. It seems to me to be sensible to exempt those who have established their right of residence in the Republic of Ireland from having to have an electronic travel authorisation. They do not need it. A lot of them will move between hospitals and doctors’ surgeries and dentists and between retail and hospitality and all the rest of it. Their bona fides have been recognised by the Republic, whether they were born in the Republic or elsewhere, and that should, through the usual intelligence sharing, be enough.
Visitors from the Irish diaspora of New Zealand, Australia, Canada or North America should be required to have an ETA only if they propose to move from the island of Ireland—irrespective of whether they have landed north or south of the border—to come to GB.
Simon Hoare
The Minister shakes his head and grimaces; I am not entirely sure why, because the idea is eminently workable. Tourism Ireland and Tourism NI are anxious that the legislation on ETAs will be an inhibitor for people who wish to visit the island of Ireland. They do not say, “I’m coming to the north” or “I’m coming to the south”—they say, “I’m going to Ireland.” They do not see the boundary as we know it and see it.
That is one way of dealing with the situation; there may be others. Our fear is that this measure would be damaging for tourism and for business confidence. Post covid, visitors should speedily be encouraged to come to the island of Ireland. Putting other impediments in their way would not be in the interests of the economy.
Jeremy Corbyn
Briefly, I have three points. First, this Bill is not an acceptable piece of legislation—it is an appalling piece of legislation. There is a refugee crisis, all around the world. We should recognise that and be more humane in our approach. I absolutely support Ukrainian refugees being able to find safety wherever they want to go and absolutely support any measures to welcome them to this country, because of the trauma they have suffered and because of this awful war; the same should apply to victims of wars in Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq or elsewhere. Those people are just as traumatised and their lives are just as damaged.
Secondly, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) made a number of points on the 12-month rule that is apparently being introduced for victims of modern slavery. I hope the Minister can clarify that he is serious in what he says on this subject and that we are going to open the route for people who are victims of modern slavery to get permanent residence in this country as a place of safety. They have suffered grievously, from huge levels of abuse. As the right hon. Gentleman also pointed out, the numbers involved are not very large.
I am conscious of the time, but the third point that I want to make is about the new clause inserted by Lords amendment 36, subsection (2) of which refers to
“Visa penalties for countries posing risk to international peace and security”.
I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to my earlier intervention and that of other colleagues on the definition of who poses risk. There is no definition of which countries the measure refers to or how it will play out.
An activist for peace in a country which the Minister feels is a risk is clearly at double risk. The Minister said they can seek an application—of course they can, but how do they practically make that application? In addition, those who are not activists and who do not have any particular political views, but who are caught up in an international conflict, such as a married couple where one person is from this country and the other is from another country—it does not have to be Russia—also deserve a right to come to this country. I hope that this new clause does not make it even more difficult for them to come home when they want to.
John McDonnell
I am grateful to be called to speak again, as I spoke in the earlier debate. I think I have less than a minute and a half, so I will be brief. I want to speak to Lords amendment 22.
Those of us who have dealt with children who have gone through the age assessment process recognise just how traumatising it is for those children, many of whom are already suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. That is why it is important that we minimise the numbers going through the process and make sure that it causes the least harm possible. I cannot fully understand why the Government object to this amendment, which, in my view, sets out the best practice we have been arguing for over a number of years.
The new clause introduced by Lords amendment 22 would reduce the number of people who go through the process by making sure that there is a “significant reason” to doubt the age. It would also ensure that the assessment is carried out by a local authority social worker, because—we have to be honest—Home Office social workers have been found lacking. That is not my judgment—it is the judgment of the courts. There is a difference of culture. The Home Office is about enforcement; the local authority is about supporting those who have been traumatised.
The new clause also introduces an element of best practice by making sure that the Association of Directors of Children’s Services draws health and other professionals into multidisciplinary teams, which we have been arguing for, so that we get the best possible and most objective assessment. There would also be an objectivity in the process that we doubt would be the case under the Home Office.
Tom Pursglove
Again, I am very grateful to Members from across the House for their many and varied contributions during the course of this debate. In responding, there are a few points on which I wish to touch.
First, I wish to deal directly with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), as well as by the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald). On the position around individuals and their ability to lodge visa applications in the circumstances that the right hon. Gentleman described, that would, to be clear, depend on the visa penalty applied, and such applications may not be considered on the back of that. We will, however, carefully consider the right hon. Gentleman’s point about peaceful protesters, which is an understandable and legitimate point, before taking any decisions on applying visa penalties. The key point here is that, in any case, we will ensure that the most vulnerable individuals—those with compelling, compassionate grounds for travelling—are exempted from the application of visa penalties. I hope that that gives him the reassurance that he was seeking.
My hon. Friend the Member for North East Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller) raised an issue in relation to the treatment of children. Although I am unable to provide specific figures on the number of cases owing to the nature of the offences, national security considerations and also because the individual circumstances are taken into account, it is essential that amendment 25 is rejected in favour of the original drafting of the public order disqualification, so that dangerous individuals can be removed. This is about providing a clear definition in line with our international obligations, so that we can withhold support from individuals on grounds of public order, potentially where they relate to national security or involve serious criminality.
However, I hope that I can provide greater reassurance more generally around victims of modern slavery aged under 18 by saying that ensuring decision makers take account of individuals’ vulnerabilities is fundamental to our approach. We will make it clear in guidance how children, or those who were children at the time of their exploitation, should be considered, taking into account their particular vulnerabilities and specific needs. This includes making it clear in guidance how the damage to credibility measure is to be applied in the case of children. I also emphasise that decisions to withhold protections from the national referral mechanism on public order grounds from children and adults will be made on a case-by-case basis, as I have set out previously.
The fact is that potential and confirmed victims of modern slavery may have been convicted of serious criminal offences or be involved in terrorism-related activity, which does include children in some instances. It is right that the Government should be able to withhold protections from those individuals who pose a threat to public order, but this is not a blanket disqualification. The guidance underpinning these measures and the decision making around them will be made by trained decision makers and will consider the needs of children and specific safeguarding vulnerabilities.
I hope that I can also reassure the hon. Member for Halifax (Holly Lynch) in saying that it remains our firm intention to engage properly and thoroughly with the sector in designing that guidance to make sure that we get this right. Indeed, our existing modern slavery statutory guidance provides for the specific vulnerabilities of children, and all decision makers in the competent authorities receive specific training on children as potential victims, including distinct training—
Louise Haigh (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. In yesterday’s debate on P&O Ferries, the Secretary of State for Transport confirmed that both he and the Business Secretary had written to P&O Ferries with a deadline of 5 pm today asking a number of questions about whether it had committed a criminal offence and whether a criminal prosecution would be proceeded with against it. Obviously, that deadline has passed. P&O Ferries has responded and the Government have published its response, but I am seeking your guidance as to whether the Government are planning to make a statement on what action they will now take against P&O Ferries, whether they will be proceeding with a criminal prosecution, and what action they will take to ensure that this does not give a green light to bosses all over the world that they can come to this country and trample roughshod over hard fought for British workers’ rights.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Rosie Winterton)
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and notice of it. I have received no notice from Ministers that they intend to make a statement on this matter, but I am confident that the House and Ministers on the Front Bench will have heard the point of order she has raised.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Yesterday, in the same debate on P&O Ferries, I said that a spokesperson for the UK Chamber of Shipping had said in an interview on Radio 4
“that he was ‘content and very confident’ that P&O had acted properly.”—[Official Report, 21 March 2022; Vol. 711, c. 75.]
The UK Chamber of Shipping has asked me to point out that it had in fact said that it was
“content and very confident that P&O will have put procedures in place to ensure that the individuals that are going to be in control of those vessels would be familiar with the ships and the systems and would be competent to operate those vessels in a safe manner.”
I am happy to make that clear. Given the enthusiasm of the Chamber for its position being properly understood, it would probably be its wish that I should point out to the House that in that same interview the spokesperson for the UK Chamber of Shipping was asked in relation to different matters whether he condemned the manner in which this was done and he said:
“I can’t comment on the conduct of it”.
When the interviewer said that he must have an opinion, he said,
“I would be speculating so I can’t possibly comment.”
Then, when he was told that usually when more than 100 people have been sacked, the Government have to be told 45 days in advance, he again said, “I can’t comment.” It is curious therefore, however, that in relation to the contentment and confidence about the safety measures he did seem to be quite happy about that. Today, the UK Chamber of Shipping tells me that it does not condone the actions of P&O. That of course is very different from the full-throated condemnation that we might have hoped for, but I am sure that the House will want to be made aware of the position.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order. I am sure the House will be grateful that he has corrected the record and, at the same time, made clear the other information that he wished to add to what he said previously. The record is corrected and I am sure we are all grateful for that.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Monday 4th April 2022
(2 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 138-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons and Amendments - (1 Apr 2022)
17:24 - Division on Motion B1 - Ayes: 209 / Noes: 165 - Motion B1 agreed.
19:43 - Division on Motion C1 - Ayes: 189 / Noes: 151 - Motion C1 agreed.
19:55 - Division on Motion D1 - Ayes: 191 / Noes: 148 - Motion D1 agreed.
20:08 - Division on Motion E1 - Ayes: 199 / Noes: 132 - Motion E1 agreed.
20:20 - Division on Motion F1. - Ayes: 179 / Noes: 152 - Motion F1 agreed.
20:33 - Division on Motion G1 - Ayes: 176 / Noes: 153 - Motion G1 agreed.
20:45 - Division on Motion H1 - Ayes: 181 / Noes: 144 - Motion H1 agreed.
20:58 - Division on Motion J1 - Ayes: 159 / Noes: 150 - Motion J1 agreed.
21:11 - Division on Motion L1 - Ayes: 163 / Noes: 138 - Motion L1 agreed.
21:23 - Division on Motion M1 - Ayes: 162 / Noes: 141 - Motion M1 agreed.
22:45 - Division on Motion Q1 - Ayes: 116 / Noes: 111 - Motion Q1 agreed.
22:58 - Division on Motion R1 - Ayes: 108 / Noes: 107 - Motion R1 agreed.
23:10 - Division on Motion S1 - Ayes: 101 / Noes: 110 - Motion S1 disagreed.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1A and 1B in lieu.
“Provision for Chagos Islanders to acquire British Nationality
In Part 2 of the British Nationality Act 1981 (British overseas territories citizenship), after section 17G (as inserted by section 2), insert—
“17H Acquisition by registration: descendants of those born in British Indian Ocean Territory
(1) A person is entitled to be registered as a British overseas territories citizen on an application made under this section if—
(a) they are a direct descendant of a person (“P”) who was a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by virtue of P’s birth in the British Indian Ocean Territory or, prior to 8 November 1965, in those islands designated as the British Indian Ocean Territory on that date, and
(b) they have never been a British overseas territories citizen or a British Dependent Territories citizen.
(2) An application under this section must be made—
(a) in the case of a person aged 18 years or over on the commencement date, before the end of the period of five years beginning with the commencement date;
(b) in the case of a person aged under 18 on the commencement date, or a person who is born before the end of the period of five years beginning with the commencement date, before they reach the age of 23 years.
(3) In subsection (2), “the commencement date” means the date on which this section comes into force.””
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will also speak to Motions B, L, M, T and U.
This is a happy time of the day. I want to return to Lords Amendment 1, which provides for the Chagossians to acquire British citizenship and British Overseas Territories citizenship. We heard some very powerful speeches advocating on behalf of the Chagossians, both in your Lordships’ House and in the other place. I was deeply moved on meeting one of the Chagossians with the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. The Government accept that the unique position of the Chagossians means that we can accept a unique solution to provide them and their descendants with a pathway to British nationality. For technical reasons we have been unable to accept the amendment agreed by your Lordships’ House. However, we have tabled, and the other place has accepted, two technically correct amendments in lieu, Amendments 1A and 1B. I hope that these amendments will now also be accepted by your Lordships’ House.
Amendment 4 relates to the deprivation of citizenship. On Report, your Lordships’ House did two things in respect of the clause in question. The first was to agree to amendments to it that were tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. I thank him for bringing his considerable experience and legal expertise to bear on this very important issue, and for tabling amendments that met with the favour of the House. However, your Lordships also deleted the substantive clause, as amended by the noble Lord, from the Bill.
The Government have now accepted the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and re-tabled the substantive clause, as amended by him, in the other place, which agreed to it. I strongly invite your Lordships’ House to support this course of action by not insisting on Amendment 4, which would delete the substantive clause, and by agreeing to Amendments 4A to 4F, which will restore to the Bill the clause as amended by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson.
The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, has moved that subsections (5) to (7) be omitted from this clause, which, of course, in the context makes no sense. These subsections relate to existing “without notice” deprivation orders and ensure that they continue to be valid. Omitting these subsections would cast doubt on the validity of these orders and create an unacceptable risk to our security. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw this amendment.
Amendments 13 to 19 relate to the offence of illegal arrival in the UK, a key element of the Bill. We want to do everything we can to deter people from making dangerous and, sadly, as we have seen, often fatal journeys. That is why we want to change the law to provide prosecutors with additional flexibility when someone has “arrived in” but not technically “entered” the UK. Your Lordships’ amendments would remove this flexibility. The other place has therefore disagreed to these amendments for their reasons 13A to 19A. There is a need to seek prosecutions when there are aggravating circumstances, and where prosecutors agree that this is in the public interest. However, the list cannot be exhaustive, as we need to be able to respond to unforeseen circumstances. I will set out in more detail what the Government mean when we say that we are seeking prosecutions only in the most egregious cases for this offence.
We will take firm action against migrants who put themselves or others, including rescuers, in danger by their actions—for example, where migrants have been seen dangling children over the side of a boat and threatening to drop them into the channel, or dousing themselves in fuel to prevent them being picked up by French search and rescue services because they did not want to be taken back to France. This would apply to instances such as those which occurred in 2020 with the stowaways on the “Nave Andromeda”, which led to the crew locking themselves in the ship’s citadel in accordance with the ship’s safety manual and making a mayday call.
Additionally, we will be targeting for prosecution migrants who cause severe disruption to services such as shipping routes, or closure of the Channel Tunnel. This happened in 2015 when a group of migrants forced their way into the tunnel despite the attempts of French officials and police to prevent them doing so. The migrants’ actions meant that the power supply to the tunnel had to be shut down and rail traffic suspended.
We will also focus on those who have arrived in the UK without permission in cases where they are criminals who have previously been deported from the UK, persons subject to exclusion decisions or persons who have been repeatedly removed as failed asylum seekers. On this basis, your Lordships’ House should not insist on these amendments.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has tabled Amendment 13B in lieu of Amendment 13, which would make it an offence for persons to knowingly arrive in the UK in breach of a deportation order. Although I welcome the recognition that we need to be able to prosecute criminals who seek to evade immigration controls and return to the UK, we cannot accept this amendment, as it is just too narrow. It would not, for example, allow for the prosecution of someone attempting to arrive in the UK who has previously been excluded from the UK on national security grounds. As I have just set out, there are a number of other aggravating behaviours for which we think prosecutions would be appropriate. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
Amendment 20 would reinsert the requirement to prove that a person is acting “for gain” if they are being prosecuted for facilitating the entry of an asylum seeker into the UK. I emphasise that this Government do not prevent and have no intention of preventing humanitarian rescues from taking place, and we have built additional safeguards to this effect into the Bill. But the problem here is that proving that someone acted “for gain” is practically very difficult. It means that prosecutors are limited in the action that they can take against people smugglers. The other place has therefore disagreed with this amendment for their Reason 20A. On that basis, I put it to noble Lords that we should not accept this amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has tabled Amendment 20B, in which he proposes that, instead of reinserting the requirement that a person is acting “for gain”, it should be an offence to act “without reasonable excuse”. We have already set out in detail in the Bill how this offence will work, including statutory defences that would effectively provide reasonable excuses, so we do not think that this amendment is necessary.
Amendment 40 concerns the operation of the electronic travel authorisation—ETA—scheme when
“the individual is travelling to Northern Ireland on a local journey from the Republic of Ireland.”
The other place disagreed with this amendment for its Reason 40A. The amendment could result in an unacceptable gap in UK border security, which would allow persons of interest or risk who would otherwise be refused an ETA to enter the UK legally. It would undermine the very purpose of the ETA scheme, which is to prevent the travel of those who pose a threat to the UK.
Although I understand the sensitivities engaged here, I reassure noble Lords that the Government stress our continuing commitment to the Belfast agreement, as well as the common travel area. An important part of this is our absolute commitment not to have any checks at the Ireland-Northern Ireland border, and British and Irish citizens will not be required to obtain an ETA. Neither will those who already have an immigration status in the UK—for example, those with a frontier worker permit. However, as now, all individuals—except British and Irish citizens—arriving in the UK, including those crossing the land border into Northern Ireland, need to continue to enter, in line with the UK’s immigration framework. This is a well-established principle of the operation of the CTA, and it applies when travelling in all directions. We are simply extending the principle to individuals requiring an ETA.
For those who require an ETA, the process of applying for one will be quick and light-touch. It will be valid for multiple trips over an extended period, so that this is not disruptive to lives or livelihoods, minimising the burden on those making frequent trips, including across the Ireland-Northern Ireland border, while protecting the common travel area from abuse as far as possible.
On the possible impacts on tourism, I assure the House that the Government are committed to working with a wide range of stakeholders, including Tourism Ireland and Tourism Northern Ireland. This will ensure that the ETA requirement is communicated effectively through targeted messaging and a variety of channels. It will also mitigate any risk of increased barriers to cross-border tourism on the island of Ireland. I therefore ask that this House does not insist on this amendment.
The noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, has proposed a further, well-considered amendment, which would exempt residents of the Republic of Ireland. The relationship between the UK and Ireland is an important and unique one, and we are deeply committed to the strongest and closest possible partnership between us. We remain committed to ongoing communication with the Irish Government and other interested stakeholders to navigate their concerns on this matter. I therefore ask that your Lordships’ House does not insist on this amendment.
Finally, Amendment 54 prohibits the use of new maritime powers contained in the part of the schedule to which it applies from being used
“in a manner or in circumstances that could endanger life at sea.”
Noble Lords will know that the Government’s priority is to save and preserve life at sea. Our position has not changed, and as such, as the Government have made clear before, we do not think that we need to put these commitments into the Bill. The other place has disagreed with this amendment for its Reason 54A. I conclude by asking that noble Lords do not insist on this amendment, and I beg to move.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, on Motion A, I am very pleased to be able to accept Amendments 1A and 1B in lieu of my original amendment. Together with assurances given on the record in the Commons, they will open up entitlement to British citizenship, which will be subject to neither a fee nor a good character test. They therefore meet the objectives of the original amendment. I thank the Minister for whatever part she may have played in helping achieve this change of heart, following the meetings she had with some of us and Rosy Leveque of BIOT Citizens.
I have two questions. When is it anticipated that applications can begin, and can the Minister confirm that it is still the Government’s intention to use some of the largely unspent £40 million Chagos support fund to help Chagossians settle here, and to help those already here who have welfare needs?
As well as the Government, I thank noble Lords from all Benches who gave such strong support to the amendment, and in particular those on the Government Benches, as I am sure their passionate support was key to encouraging the Government to think again. I thank the APPG on the Chagos Islands for helping to build that support. I also pay tribute to Henry Smith MP, who has long championed this cause in the Commons, and to the late and much-missed Lord Avebury, who first raised the issue in your Lordships’ House over a decade ago. His work to remove this and other citizenship injustices has been energetically continued by the BOT Citizenship campaign, especially David Varney and Trent L Miller.
Last but not least, I pay tribute to the Chagossians themselves, who have helped to spearhead the campaign, in particular Rosy Leveque and Chagossian Voices. The joy felt as a result of the government concession is summed up well in an email sent to me and Henry Smith from a Chagossian on Mauritius, who is longing to be reunited with his family in the UK. I will quote briefly a few lines:
“I am writing to you simply to say that words are not enough to express how thankful and grateful I am. I can’t stop crying with joy and happiness, and trust me when I say that many Chagossians in Mauritius and Seychelles are also overjoyed and overwhelmed by this result. Many of us have been keeping our grandparents’ birth certificates in a folder waiting for this day to come.”
The original injustice that deprived the Chagossians of their homeland and that perpetuates their exile remains and will rightly continue to be contested. However, I believe that all those who have contributed to the ending of the citizenship injustice done to the descendants of those for whom the Chagos Islands were home can feel pride today. I am sure that we all look forward to welcoming to the UK as British citizens the Chagossians who have been the victims of this injustice.
Lord Horam (Con)
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her leadership on this issue, the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, who has pursued this for many years, and Henry Smith in the other place, who has played a notable part as well. Indeed, I also thank my noble friend the Minister and the Government, who have pursued this and given way on quite an important principle and made a unique situation for the Chagossians in this country. I now hope that the Foreign Office takes the cue from the Home Office and deals with the real problem, which is giving the Chagos Islands back to Mauritius—that is the real issue. We only got four votes in the United Nations on this issue—with 150-odd against us. It is a lasting disgrace, and I hope that the Foreign Office, which is not normally behind the Home Office on these issues, takes the cue accordingly.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I take the rare step of agreeing completely with the noble Lord, Lord Horam, particularly in his praise for the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who has worked so incredibly hard and has been so effective, as well as the Minister, who clearly smoothed the way for these changes. I will ask one question. One difference in the Commons amendment is that it does not state:
“No charge or fee may be imposed for registration under this section.”
So can the Minister tell me what fees or costs will be imposed on Chagos Islanders to rectify this injustice?
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, my Motion B1 also falls in this group. I start by saying how welcome the safeguarding concessions that have been or will be incorporated into the Bill are. But there is still unfinished business. Very simply, my Motion seeks to delete the retained subsections (5) to (7) on the grounds that these clauses maintain a legal fiction that deprivation orders issued without notice continue to be valid, despite court rulings to the contrary. It is accepted by the courts that it is unjust to strip a person of his or her citizenship and all the associated rights without ever providing notice. Retaining subsections (5) to (7) seeks to overturn that ruling by legislative fiat. Instead of invalidating previous deprivation orders that were made unlawfully, the Government appear to wish to apply retrospectively these earlier orders.
The Minister, who was kind enough to write to me at an earlier stage of the Bill, justified these orders by pointing out that the proper functioning of the immigration system cannot be hijacked because an individual chooses to remove himself or herself from contact—or where to make contact might reveal sensitive intelligence. The Minister said that we cannot be in a position where we can never deprive someone of citizenship simply because it is impractical. Since then, the Government have accepted in principle amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, which the Government assert achieve the right balance between safeguards and security.
I respectfully suggest that this is not what my amendment is about; rather, it is about holding to decisions and actions on orders to deprive citizenship without notice that have subsequently been declared unlawful. Thus the safeguards now included, or to be included, in the Bill will not affect deprivation orders made before commencement. This appears to be unjust. It is also puzzling. If the Government accept that safeguards are necessary, why not apply them to all deprivation orders? Section 40 of the British Nationality Act 1981 sets out individuals’ statutory right to be notified when being deprived of citizenship. The Government’s disregard for this right led to legal rulings, including from the Court of Appeal. Therefore, the retention of subsections (5) to (7), which we are discussing today, could be seen as bringing the rule of law into question. It most certainly creates two tiers of citizens subject to deprivation orders: those who benefit from the so-called Anderson safeguards and those who do not—namely, those still under pre-commencement orders.
I am not arguing, and have never argued, against deprivation orders, which may be acutely necessary. Process is the issue. Excluding the subsections in my amendments would not deny the Government the right to reconsider their earlier decisions together, in some cases, with the benefit of new evidence, particularly that which involves evidence of human trafficking, and to remake deprivation orders where necessary.
Removal of subsections (5) to (7) would immediately achieve two desirable and extremely important outcomes: it would bring the Government into conformity with the rule of law and it would extend proper safeguards to those who continue to be at risk from previous unlawful actions.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Motion T1, which refers to the electronic travel authorisations to which the Minister referred. The amendment would make anyone who was legally resident in the Republic of Ireland able to travel to Northern Ireland without such an ETA. This issue was discussed both in Committee and on Report. The House agreed with those of us who argued that this was wrong, but of course the House of Commons has not. The arguments remain the same. I was hopeful that the Minister, who I am sure will have spoken to her colleagues at the Northern Ireland Office, would make some concessions on this matter. However, the dead hand of the Home Office is there again.
This troubles me for a number of reasons. First, it jeopardises strand 2 of the Good Friday agreement, which refers to north/south co-operation between the two parts of the island, which was vital when the agreement was negotiated. It affects tourism, as the Minister referred to. She said that tourism was a good thing. We all agree with that, as do all the stakeholders, but the Government have to do something to ensure that it remains a good thing. If we charge €14 for an ETA—with the bulk of American tourists, for example, coming from Dublin to go to the north of Ireland to enjoy the great pleasures of tourism there—that is going to be a question of jeopardy as well.
In addition to that, and perhaps more significantly for those who live in both the north and the south of the island, there is the issue of health. Many people in Northern Ireland and in the Republic travel the border to go to the best place for the particular ailment or disease from which they are suffering. Particularly up in the north-west of Ireland, the co-operation between the two Governments is immense. I would be troubled if someone who was not necessarily an Irish or British citizen but was legally resident in the Republic was not able to take advantage of those co-operation decisions by both Governments.
The other issue here is work. It is quite possible that someone could work in the Republic and live in the north, or vice versa, who was not an Irish or British citizen but was legally in the Republic because of their membership of the European Union .
Secondly, there is an issue with regard to the spirit of the Good Friday agreement, which in my view has been jeopardised by this government decision. The border is different in Ireland; it is not like any other border in the European Union. Although I do not normally read tweets, I read one the other day from the noble Lord, Lord Frost, who had got worked up about this issue and was talking about the fact that the Irish Government did not seem to think this was an international border between two countries. What does he think we were doing for year after year when we negotiated the Good Friday agreement and the St Andrews agreement? We were dealing with the border as part of the peace process. There are 300 crossings along that border with no apparatus to check people, yet now we get a completely different way in which people must apply to the bureaucrats in order to cross it.
The border is a great symbol on both sides of the community in Northern Ireland, which is why the border being put down east/west has caused such a fuss. But the reason why this proposal by the Government is simply daft is that it is unenforceable. The Minister has told us what the Marshalled List states and says the reason why these ETAs are essential is to stop people of interest or people who are risky, whether they be spies, terrorists, criminals or other ne’er-do-wells, from crossing the border. Does she really think that those people are likely to pay €14, fill in an ETA form and then cross the border? Of course not. It is nonsense because it cannot be enforced. If the border had apparatus at all 300 crossings then that might be possible, but it does not.
Some of your Lordships who are as old as me will remember Gilbert Harding. He once had to fill in a form to apply for a visa to go to America, and on the visa form was the question: “Is it your intention to undermine the Government of the United States?” His answer was “Sole purpose of my journey”. That is in a way similar to this. At the end of the day, it is unenforceable, impractical and unnecessary, and it jeopardises the relationship between two countries. Ireland and the United Kingdom are the joint guarantors in international law with regard to the Good Friday agreement. The noble Baroness knows that the Irish Government are very upset about this for all sorts of reasons; there have been discussions between Ministers even at the British-Irish Intergovernmental Conference, set up by the Good Friday agreement. Is it really worth jeopardising our relationship—which has been bad enough as it is over the last number of years—with this petty and silly proposal by the Government? I would like the Government to change their mind, but I am not hopeful.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I have Motion M1, Amendment 20B, in this group but I will speak to the other Motions in order so that I speak only once.
As we have heard, this group deals with Chagos Islanders, stripping a person of their citizenship without notice, criminalising anyone arriving in the UK who claims asylum other than through a safe and legal route, criminalising those who rescue migrants from the sea, electronic travel authorisations in relation to the border on the island of Ireland and pushbacks in the Channel. We support Motion A in relation to the Chagos Islanders, but we are disappointed that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, has said, a fee will still be charged before their right to British Overseas Territories citizenship or British Dependent Territories citizenship is officially recognised. Is that wrong?
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I thought I had said it, but in the Commons, it is on the record that no fee will be charged, nor will there be a character test. It will be done through the fees order; that is why it is not in the Bill.
Lord Paddick (LD)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness. It is a shame that it is not in the Bill but, if that undertaking has been given, we can perhaps trust the Government on this occasion.
We are pleased that the Government have adopted the safeguards proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, before someone can be deprived of British citizenship without notice; we believe this will reverse the recent increase in the number of cases and, hopefully, reduce it to almost zero. We agree with Motion B1, Amendment 4G, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, to remove the validation of previous deprivations of citizenship without notice, which the courts have held to be unlawful. As the Government acknowledge, the “Anderson safeguards” are necessary, so the Home Office should go back over existing cases of deprivation of citizenship without notice, applying these safeguards to ensure that they are lawful.
We agree with Motion L1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, as a mechanism for preventing those arriving in but not entering the UK, and then claiming asylum, from being criminalised. For the Government to say that only egregious cases would be prosecuted is not sufficient, as the fact that arriving in the UK and then claiming asylum could be a criminal offence would have a chilling effect on those legitimately seeking refuge in the UK; this is, of course, exactly what the Government intend by their Motion L.
I ask the House to support my Motion M1. The Government want to criminalise those who facilitate those entering the UK without the correct prior authority, even if those doing so are not people smugglers and not acting for their own gain. The perhaps unintended consequence is that those rescuing drowning migrants in the English Channel, for example, commit an offence unless the rescue is co-ordinated by HM Coastguard or an equivalent organisation. The Government propose a defence, once charged, if the rescuers are genuine good Samaritans, and again claim that only the most egregious cases would be prosecuted. This, again, is not sufficient, as it could have a chilling effect on would-be rescuers who knew that they would be committing an offence if they attempted rescue without prior coastguard authority were the House to agree with Motion M. How many might drown before the rescuers were able to contact HM Coastguard and enable them to co-ordinate the rescue?
Instead of a defence once charged, Motion M1 proposes that the offence is committed only if a person facilitates entry to the UK without reasonable excuse. Rescuers would then know that, provided they are acting in good faith, they would not be prosecuted, but people smugglers would not have a reasonable excuse and could be prosecuted. The Government’s suggestion that people smugglers might pretend to be genuine rescuers is, quite frankly, ridiculous, as there are likely to be many witnesses, in the form of the migrants who have paid large sums to the people smugglers, that this is not the case.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
My Lords, I support Motion T1 in the name of my noble friend Lord Murphy of Torfaen. As has already been explained, this amendment, in previous guises, was discussed in Committee and on Report. On those occasions, your Lordships’ House considered it a valuable amendment and that the Government, via the Ministers in the Home Office, working with the Northern Ireland Office, should see that this electronic travel authorisation does not take place. I have talked to many people and, as my noble friend has said, the requirement is unworkable and daft. I wish to give practical examples of that. It is also unenforceable. It would violate the very premise of reconciliation and bringing people together on the island of Ireland in terms of the Good Friday agreement. It would jeopardise important parts of strand 2, the north-south requirements. All this, in many ways, is simply a consequence of Brexit.
Our amendment says that those who are legally resident in the Republic of Ireland who have come from EU and other countries in the last year or so should be exempt from requiring an electronic travel authorisation if they wish to travel from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland.
From a practical point of view, I have asked the Minister to consider the geography, because I believe the Home Office has not fully considered that. Let us take the county borders of Donegal and Tyrone, Donegal and Derry, and Donegal and Fermanagh. There is one village that straddles Donegal and Fermanagh, the small village of Pettigo. That border goes straight down the middle of it. One minute you could be in the Republic of Ireland and the next you could be in Northern Ireland. There is the case of Lifford in County Donegal and Strabane. There is a direct, symbiotic relationship between those towns, as they exist cheek by jowl. You can walk over the bridge from one to the other. The symbiotic friend of Belcoo in County Fermanagh is Blacklion in County Cavan. They exist cheek by jowl. In terms of the geography we are talking about, this proposal from the Government is unworkable and unenforceable.
I ask the Minister—and I say this to the Government in the most sincere terms—to please continue direct negotiations on the issue with the Irish Government, who are deeply fearful of the repercussions of this proposal for an electronic travel authorisation. They believe that it is unworkable and that it will impede tourism—an issue I am sure that other noble Lords will deal with. In that respect, the Minister referred to work with Tourism Ireland and Tourism Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister: what discussions took place with those bodies and what were the results of those discussions?
Apart from, I feel, being in breach of strand 2 of the Good Friday Agreement—and in breach of natural common sense—I say that a proposal for an ETA is not only inconvenient but disruptive, unworkable and unenforceable. Can the Minister tell us when the Government envisage introducing the secondary regulations in relation to the charging? I firmly believe that these are not required. I urge the Government to accept our reasonable amendment, which states that if the individual is legally resident in the Republic of Ireland, that should act as a reasonable exemption.
Viscount Brookeborough (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Motion T1 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. Because this is something which has been brought in, one must look at what the current situation is. The current situation is that it is an open border, and we have heard that there will be no one on it. Even before Brexit, the situation was that we had border officers at the airports and ports because of terrorism, drugs, human trafficking and whatever else. Those people are still there—so, in effect, what is this ETA actually going change? It is not going to put anyone on the border. We have already heard about people working either side of the border.
I declare interests in running a small tourism operation and because my brother is chairman of Tourism Ireland. I have not discussed this matter with him. He is perfectly aware of my feelings on it. However, the Minister rather brushed over consulting Tourism Ireland, Tourism Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland—as if these discussions were going well. I have not spoken directly to people involved but it is my impression that these discussions are not going well. These two organisations and the Government of Ireland are entirely against this. They are against this in relation to the movement of people day by day doing everyday things. They are also against it from a tourism point of view.
A couple of years ago, the Government accepted that the passenger duty for airline passengers was an inhibiting factor, preventing airlines travelling to Northern Ireland because it was less in Dublin. They obviously accepted that it was an inhibiting factor because they dropped it and made it roughly equal—this was largely for tourists. So what are they proposing now? Putting on more than half of it to any tourist who wants to enter Northern Ireland. I ask the Minister for her honest opinion: if a £13 or £14 passenger duty inhibited people arriving in Northern Ireland, what is half of that—£6.50, plus apparently £10 or £12—going to do? Does she see this as an encouragement, or as something which will inhibit people coming north?
The Minister says that interested parties will be told—which must include travel agents and so on—in order to get people to put in for this. What will happen when somebody decides to come to Ireland as an island, and their travel agent says they will have to fill in an electronic form and pay extra money to go north, even if they want to come for a few hours? This is why I like the first amendment—because it talks about short periods of time. Noble Lords may not necessarily think that Northern Ireland is a holiday destination, but I can assure them that a lot of people do. In particular, the Titanic exhibition was voted the world’s leading tourist attraction a few years ago.
Those who have watched “Game of Thrones”—and I have not—will know that the world was hooked. Warner Brothers has invested millions of pounds in what is going to be an iconic visiting centre for “Game of Thrones” in Northern Ireland, and it is not all that far from the border. But what is going to happen? What does the Minister really think tourists are going to feel when they come to the island of Ireland and find a barrier? Some of us are pretty bad with IT anyway, and it is already difficult enough to do the filling in. Additionally, if this form is as light a touch as the Minister says, what possible checking can there be in it? Anybody can fill it in anyway. It is crazy to think that that will stop anyone.
We were talking just now about crossing the border; I will stop after this. Not only are Belcoo and Blacklion on opposite sides of the bridge, but we have in Fermanagh something that noble Lords probably do not know about: Concession Road, which runs between two Republic towns, Cavan and Clones, into the north and then back into the south. That is fact. If you had been on patrol at night during the Troubles, you would have known all about it. It caused immense problems, because Garda patrols were not allowed up that bit of road; we were allowed up it, but we had to cross a bog to get to it. The police could not get to it, because they did not particularly like bogs; they liked nice carts and whatever.
This is really unbelievable. The duty of government, surely, is to make laws not for filling pages of A4 but for something that can be implemented. Surely, it is a duty of government not to make laws that are entirely unenforceable.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I rise extremely briefly, my noble friend having done the praising the Government part, to offer Green support to the other, non-government amendments in this group. We have heard very powerful practical examples on Motion T1. On Motion M1, the argument that someone acting in good faith should not face a court case, particularly in a life or death matter, is obvious.
I will focus briefly on Motion B1 on the deprivation of citizenship. Commons amendments have tightened the conditions under which citizenship can be removed without notice and improved the judicial oversight. The noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, is seeking to do that further with this. She said she was not against the principle of deprivation orders so I must lay out, very simply and clearly, that the Green Party is totally against the deprivation of the right of citizenship; citizenship should be a right that, once granted, remains. I must declare an interest here, because I am one of over six million people who are potentially affected by this deprivation of the citizenship right because, as anyone who hears me speak will know, I hold another citizenship. Many other people feel like second-class citizens in their own country, because they are; that right can be taken away as it cannot be from other people. All I can do is apologise to all those people that we have failed to get a parliamentary consensus for this and say we are going to keep trying.
Baroness Suttie (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly in favour of Motion T1 by the noble Lord, Lord Murphy, which proposes Amendment 40B in lieu. I will be very brief because there have been so many brilliant speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, and, of course, the noble Lord, Lord Murphy. I do not understand why the Government have not shown more willingness to concede on this matter. At every stage of the Bill so far, they have failed to provide convincing evidence that introducing these proposals will be workable or enforceable in practice, especially given the particularly sensitive circumstances on the land border on the island of Ireland.
Lord Dodds of Duncairn (DUP)
I shall speak briefly on Motion T1. It was a pleasure to listen to the noble Lords who have spoken to this important matter. One thing we all agree on is that there should be no checks or barriers along the border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, and certainly there should be no barriers between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. That is an equal assertion. Unfortunately, those of us from a unionist position sometimes feel that the concentration is very much on the north-south dimension and that the east-west dimension is almost forgotten or people call for the rigorous implementation of checks, which is a bizarre position to adopt when there has been so much passion. I agree with those who have argued that there should be no checks between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and vice versa.
As someone who lives just about 15 miles from the border, I understand the concerns. However, there are a couple of myths that need to be dispelled. First, we are talking about an international border between Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic and between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic. It is a different jurisdiction for currency, taxation and fiscal rules. For goodness’ sake, even the road signs change from kilometres to miles. We have different voting systems. All these things matter, and it is wrong to dismiss the guarantees and agreements that were made in the Belfast agreement, as amended by the St Andrews agreement, because it enshrined the principle of consent and that the people of Northern Ireland should remain part of the United Kingdom so long as they voted that way.
The second thing to say gently to the House is that there were checks for immigration on the UK side and on the Irish Republic side of the border—not at the border because nobody wants to stay at the border—even before we left the European Union. I am looking at a tweet put out by the Garda and PSNI in 2018, which eulogises and praises a checkpoint near the Monaghan/Armagh border seeking those in breach of immigration law. There are many other examples we could give. Eight illegal immigrants were caught at a checkpoint in Dundalk just across the Irish border by the Garda Síochána after travelling via England and Northern Ireland. These checks are not done at the border but they are intelligence-led, so it is wrong to suggest that somehow any checks are contrary to the spirit of the Belfast agreement because that is exactly the sort of regime that will apply going forward as it did previously.
The final thing I will say, very briefly, is that—as I mentioned at the start—we must have the same considerations and the same passion and desire to avoid problems against the spirit of the Belfast agreement which has been evoked today and we must ensure that it applies east-west for strand 3 as it does for strand 2. In June 2021, the European Union, as published by the DAERA department in January of this year, was complaining to the UK Government that ferry passengers coming from Great Britain into Larne or Belfast, where there is no border at all—British citizens moving from one part of the United Kingdom to the other—were not having their luggage checked. If anything illustrated the detriment to tourism, for instance, which has been mentioned in this regard, there is an example.
Issues have been raised about people getting access to health and the protocol’s effect on medicines for UK citizens and Irish citizens coming from one part of the United Kingdom to the other. There are barriers to that, yet we do not hear the same concerns. All I am pleading for is balance and equivalence. If checks are wrong north-south, they are wrong east-west.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I speak to Motion L1 in my name and, briefly, to some of the other amendments before us. I congratulate the Government on Motion A and welcome the movement from them with respect to the Chagossian community—the Minister deserves credit for persuading the Government to move on that, as does my noble friend Lady Lister and many others for the campaign to advance this cause and issue. The noble Lord, Lord Horam, was right also to point out the efforts of Henry Smith MP who has worked exceedingly hard on this issue.
There will be a number of disagreements between us as we debate this Bill today, as well as many challenges to the Government and pushback—if that is the right phrase to use in the context of this Bill—asking the Government to think again. It shows the importance of how the Lords works to ask the Government to revise their legislation. This is an example of where the Government have responded positively to the various concerns that have been expressed. This shows Parliament at its best and, hopefully, with respect to other issues that I and other noble Lords will raise through our amendments, we will see the same happen elsewhere before the Bill becomes an Act.
On Motions B and B1, the deprivation of citizenship in certain cases, with proper safeguards, is an important tool of our national security. We do not believe that the Government have made the case for the suggested powers under Clause 9 to remove citizenship without giving notice. It remains our preference that the clause should be removed altogether; however, it is clear the debate has moved on from this. In that light, we strongly welcome that there has at least been some movement to introduce safeguards. I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, whose work has improved the clause and has added much-needed safeguards into the process.
However, Motion B1 from the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, raises further extremely important questions about Clause 9. I ask again: is it not the case that the Government must reissue existing deprivation orders that were made without notice under the processes now defined by—what I would call—the Anderson amendments? If a person is currently subject to a deprivation order but they have not been notified of that, when do their appeal rights start and finish? Can the Minister provide clarity on this? There are a number of questions and the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, is quite right to point out through her Motion the various problems that still exist, notwithstanding the improvements that have been made. I will be interested to hear the Minister’s response to the noble Baroness with respect to her Motion B1.
On Motion L and my Motion L1, the proposed arrival offence makes arriving in the UK to seek asylum a criminal act. We feel really strongly about this, as indeed your Lordships did. The Commons reason for disagreeing with the Lords over this offence is that
“the Commons consider that it should be a criminal offence for a person who requires entry clearance to knowingly arrive in the United Kingdom without such clearance.”
But do the Government genuinely believe that a person arriving in the UK and asking for sanctuary is a criminal act? That is what is suggested by this offence. At the same time, Ministers have repeatedly stated that they do not intend it to be used in all circumstances to which it applies.
A specific example of what we are talking about came up last week in the debate in the other place when considering a Ukrainian who had fled to the UK to join their family in the first few days after the appalling Russian invasion to escape the bombing and destruction of their home, but who had not completed a lengthy visa process. Under the Government’s proposals, that Ukrainian person would have been guilty of a criminal offence and liable to up to four years in prison. That is surely not what the Government want, but that would be the consequence of their Bill as drafted. Therefore, although that is a very emotive example to give because we all feel so passionately about that, that is exactly what the Bill does. That cannot be right.
The Government say that we need to ensure that there are safe and legal routes, and much of this has been driven by what has happened with respect to migrants crossing the channel. As Damian Green MP, a former Immigration Minister, asked of the Government,
“Home Office data confirms that 87% of those arriving by small boats in 2021 comprised nationals from Iran, Iraq, Syria and Yemen,”—[Official Report, Commons; 22/3/22; col. 199.]
but what safe route is open to them? I know the Government’s answer is that they should stop in the first country in which it is safe for them to do so, but if 87% are from those four countries—as the Home Office data itself says—what difference does the criminalisation of the offence of arrival make? The Bill does not make sense in this regard.
Throughout the passage of the Bill, as I say, Ministers have repeatedly said that this offence is intended to be prosecuted only in specific cases, such as where a person arrives in the UK in breach of a deportation order. If the Government’s intention is for those cases to be prosecuted, they should pass a law which says that. That is why we have tabled our amendment in lieu: to do just that. We have listened to Ministers and what they are seeking to achieve and have actually tried to find a way through. So, our Amendment 13B would provide a specific offence of arriving in the UK in breach of a deportation order. It is an example of the type of specific offence that Ministers can put into the Bill to achieve their desired outcomes. The Commons reason regarding the offence as drafted does not reflect the assurances or the policy intent expressed to both Houses by Ministers. For that reason, we believe that further action is needed on the issue—hence my Motion L1.
On Motions M and M1, the Government have ended up in a position where a person who saves lives at sea without co-ordination of that rescue attempt by the coastguard risks committing an offence. The Government’s answer is that a rescuer in that situation will have a full defence that they have gone to the aid of people in distress, which they are duty bound to do under international law. I accept that the change is not intended to lead to the prosecution of anyone who rescues lives at sea, and we recognise that the Government have moved some way during consideration of the Bill to put beyond doubt that a coastguard co-ordinated rescue is not in the scope of the offence. But we are still left with an unsatisfactory outcome and a lack of clarity on what should be included in the scope of the offence. We have this problem throughout the Bill, and this is yet another example of an offence capturing behaviour that should not be captured. The Bill does not clarify the position and the Government so far refuse in many instances to give us the clarity we need.
Turning to Amendment 20, tabled by my noble friend Lord Rosser, regrettably, we do not believe that there is more to be gained by insisting on sending it back to the Commons a further time. But the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, perfectly highlights the remaining issue and would be a simple and sensible addition to the Bill. We support it, and we ask the Minister to consider it seriously.
On Motions T and T1, spoken to by my noble friend Lord Murphy and supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Ritchie, and the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, there is a real problem here, notwithstanding the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dodds. We have been raising this issue for months; the border is still an afterthought, and we are seeking to clear the issue up at this juncture. The problem is that the proposed approach is not only unworkable but does not reflect the reality of those who live and work on the border at all.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate.
In moving Motion A, I neglected to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, who also attended the meeting about the Chagossians. I thank her for her kind words and acknowledge the role she has played. It sounds like there is agreement to the proposals we have put forward in Motion A. They were definitely well received by the other place and the Chagossian community. The route will be open in due course. I will keep the noble Baroness and the House updated. The Home Office will need some time to put in place the processes that will allow applicants, wherever they live, to make an application for BOTC and British citizenship. This will include creating access to historical records, which will help applicants demonstrate that they are direct descendants of someone born in the BIOT. I will update the House as soon as we have some clear idea of timescales.
I also confirm that, as the noble Baroness said, there will not be application fees. In the meantime, we will continue to work to deliver the £40 million support package she referred to, and we are working with the FCDO to consider whether we can use these funds to support Chagossians seeking to relocate to the UK, which seems a sensible use of the funds. I commend the measures to your Lordships’ House.
I turn to Motion B. I hope noble Lords will agree, as we have already done on Report, with the amended deprivation of citizenship clause. Thanks here are due to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich. We are simply not talking about measures which could affect 6 million people; we are talking about situations where a naturalised person has acquired citizenship fraudulently, or where this is conducive to the public good. I repeat, deprivation on conducive grounds is used sparingly and against those who pose a serious threat to the UK or whose conduct involves high harm. Appeal rights kick in when a person receives the notice telling them of the decision to deprive them of their citizenship. I also point out that the courts have found that only the deprivation order made without notice in the case of D4 was invalid. They did not find that all such orders are invalid. With respect, I therefore ask the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, to withdraw her amendment.
Turning to criminal offences and Motions L and M, I repeat that we want to ensure that prosecutors have maximum flexibility to deal with people arriving in but not entering the UK and also to tackle people smuggling. I have set out the sort of circumstances in which we expect these offences to be prosecuted. Amendments proposed by the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Paddick, would undermine our efforts to tackle egregious forms of criminality, and I invite the noble Lords not to press them.
Moving on to electronic travel authorisations, in Motion T, I was interested to note that the arguments being made against them are actually the reasons for the Irish to introduce one. Once the EU’s comes into force next year, Ireland will stand out as one of the few countries in Europe without an ETA-style pass, among all the other countries that have them. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Murphy of Torfaen, for explaining to me—an Irishwoman, with a father from Northern Ireland—the context of his amendment. We accept the need for further dialogue with interlocutors, including the Irish Government, Tourism Ireland and Tourism Northern Ireland. I totally accept that point.
I would also like to tell the House that the secondary legislation that will underpin the scheme, which will include details of fees, will be brought forward once the Bill receivers Royal Assent. I can provide assurances that the fees will be competitive with those of comparative systems run by other countries.
In response to concerns about tourism, I observe that people travel for a whole host of reasons, and while the cost or requirement to obtain an ETA in advance of travel may be a consideration, the experiences of other countries with similar schemes show that it is very unlikely to deter a genuine visitor. Once granted, an ETA will be valid for multiple trips to the UK. The cost is likely to be very small for travellers, relative to the cost of travel and the benefits of visiting the UK, and therefore it is unlikely to deter the majority of visitors. Moreover, many of the UK’s international partners have taken a similar approach to border security—the United States of America, Canada, Australia and New Zealand—meaning it is a very familiar concept for travellers. I invite the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
That leaves us only with Motion U. The preservation of life at sea remains our priority and we do not think we need to put this in the Bill. We therefore hope that noble Lords will not insist on this amendment; it is not necessary.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4, and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 4A to 4F in lieu.
“(b) the Secretary of State reasonably considers it necessary, in the interests of—
(i) national security,
(ii) the investigation or prosecution of organised or serious crime,
(iii) preventing or reducing a risk to the safety of any person, or
(iv) the relationship between the United Kingdom and another country,
that notice under that subsection should not be given.”
“(5C) Subsection (5D) applies where—
(a) the Secretary of State has made an order under subsection (2) and, in reliance on subsection (5A), has not given the notice required by subsection (5), and
(b) the person in respect of whom the order was made makes contact with the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
(5D) The Secretary of State must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, give the person written notice specifying—
(a) that the Secretary of State has made the order,
(b) the reasons for the order, and
(c) the person’s right of appeal under section 40A(1) or under section 2B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.
(5E) Schedule 4A makes provision for the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to consider a decision of the Secretary of State—
(a) not to give notice to a person before depriving them of a citizenship status on the grounds mentioned in subsection (2) (deprivation conducive to the public good), or
(b) not to give late notice to a person who has been deprived of a citizenship status on those grounds without having been given prior notice.”
“(b) after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) In the case of an order made as described in subsection (1)(b), for the purposes of any rule or other provision limiting the time within which an appeal under this section may be brought, time does not start to run unless and until the person is given notice of the fact that the order has been made (see section 40(5D) and Schedule 4A).
(3A) After Schedule 4 to the 1981 Act insert the Schedule 4A set out in Schedule 1A.”
“SCHEDULE 1A
DEPRIVATION OF CITIZENSHIP WITHOUT NOTICE: JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT
This is the Schedule to be inserted after Schedule 4 to the British Nationality Act 1981—
“SCHEDULE 4A Section 40(5E)
DEPRIVATION OF CITIZENSHIP WITHOUT NOTICE: JUDICIAL OVERSIGHT
Deprivation without notice: application to Special Immigration Appeals Commission
1 (1) If the Secretary of State proposes to make a conducive grounds deprivation order without notice, the Secretary of State may apply to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission under this paragraph.
(2) If the Secretary of State makes a conducive grounds deprivation order without notice, the Secretary of State must apply to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission under this paragraph within the period of seven days beginning with the day on which the order is made (unless an application has already been made under sub-paragraph (1)).
(3) The function of the Commission on an application under this paragraph is to determine whether, in respect of each condition in section 40(5A) on which the Secretary of State relies, the Secretary of State’s view is obviously flawed.
(4) In determining that question, the Commission must apply the principles that would be applicable on an application for judicial review.
(5) If the Commission determines that the Secretary of State’s view is obviously flawed in respect of each condition in section 40(5A) on which the Secretary of State relies—
(a) if the order in question has not been made, section 40(5) applies in relation to the order (notwithstanding section 40(5A));
(b) if the order has been made, the Secretary of State must, within the period of 14 days beginning with the day on which the Commission made the determination—
(i) give late notice in respect of the order,
(ii) revoke the order, or
(iii) make an application under sub-paragraph (6).
(6) The Secretary of State may (at any time) make an application to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission for fresh consideration of a decision the Secretary of State has made under section 40(5A) where—
(a) in the opinion of the Secretary of State, circumstances have changed materially since the determination mentioned in sub-paragraph (5), or
(b) the Secretary of State wishes to provide further evidence to the Commission.
Sub-paragraphs (3) to (5) apply to an application under this sub-paragraph.
Deprivation of citizenship without notice: review
2 (1) Sub-paragraphs (2) to (5) apply if—
(a) the Secretary of State makes a conducive grounds deprivation order without notice, and
(b) the Special Immigration Appeals Commission has not made the determination mentioned in paragraph 1(5) (Secretary of State’s decision obviously flawed).
(2) The Secretary of State must, at least once in every review period, review the circumstances of the person in respect of whom the order was made (so far as known) and decide whether to give late notice in respect of the order.
(3) On such a review, the Secretary of State must decide to give late notice to the person unless it appears to the Secretary of State that any of the conditions in section 40(5A) is met (reading any reference in those provisions to notice under section 40(5) as a reference to late notice).
(4) If the Secretary of State decides at any point to give late notice in respect of the order—
(a) the Secretary of State must give the notice as soon as reasonably practicable, and
(b) once the notice is given, sub-paragraph (2) ceases to apply in relation to the person.
(5) If on the expiry of the final review period the Secretary of State has not given, or has not decided to give, late notice in respect of the order, the Secretary of State must make an application to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission within the period of seven days beginning with the day after the final day of that review period.
(6) Sub-paragraphs (3) to (6) of paragraph 1 (except subparagraph (5)(a)) apply for the purposes of an application under sub-paragraph (5) as they apply for the purposes of an application under that paragraph.
(7) For the purposes of this paragraph, each of the following is a “review period”—
(a) the period of four months beginning with the day after the day on which the Special Immigration Appeals Commission first determined an application in relation to the order under paragraph 1, and
(b) each of the next five successive periods of four months.
Interpretation
3 (1) In this Schedule, references to making a conducive grounds deprivation order without notice are to making an order under section 40(2) without giving notice under subsection (5) of that section (in reliance on subsection (5A) of that section).
(2) In this Schedule, “late notice”, in respect of an order under section 40(5), means written notice to the person in respect of
whom the order was made specifying—
(a) that the Secretary of State has made the order,
(b) the reasons for the order, and
(c) the person’s right of appeal under section 40A(1) or under section 2B of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.””
Baroness D'Souza
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 4G to the words so restored to the Bill—
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
The Minister talks about numbers and the D4 case, but there is a principle at stake here: illegal orders have been made and there is no recourse for those affected pre-commencement of this Bill. That is unjust and must be dealt with. I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I bring noble Lords’ attention to Lords Amendment 5, on compliance of Part 2 of the Bill with the refugee convention. The other place disagrees with this amendment for its Reason 5A. The Government have made it explicitly clear that everything we do is compliant with our obligations under international law, including our obligations under the refugee convention. Consequently, we do not think it is necessary to set that out in the Bill. I therefore respectfully ask noble Lords not to insist on the amendment.
The noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, has proposed a new amendment which seeks to do much the same as the previous amendment: to clarify that the provisions in Part 2 are compliant with our obligations under the refugee convention and international law. For the reasons I have given, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Amendment 6 would remove from the Bill the substantive clause relating to differentiation. The other place has disagreed with this for its Reason 6A. The differentiation of those classed as refugees is a fundamental part of the Bill, and as such the Government cannot accept the amendment agreed by your Lordships’ House. It is right that we take all steps to discourage people from risking their lives at sea, and this clause and the criteria it sets do just that. I respectfully ask noble Lords not to insist on the amendment.
For the same reason, we cannot accept the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, which seeks to remove the list of ways in which group 2 refugees may be differentiated from group 1 refugees, under the presumption that this approach will not uphold our international obligations. The Government have been extremely clear on this point throughout the passage of the Bill. I repeat that all the provisions in the Bill are in compliance with all our international legal obligations, including those under the 1951 refugee convention and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. With this in mind, I ask the noble Lord not to press his amendment.
Lords Amendment 7 would change our approach to allowing people who are claiming asylum to work by reducing the period in which claimants may not work from 12 months to six months. It would also remove the condition restricting jobs for those who are allowed to work to those on the shortage occupation list. We think that this would allow people to bypass the proper process of applying for visas and paying relevant fees to work in the UK. It could also encourage channel crossings. We recognise the importance of ensuring that claims are settled as quickly as possible, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Stroud for the conversations that we have had. We want to see claims settled within six months so that people can get on with rebuilding their lives, and that includes working. However, the Government cannot accept this amendment, which the other place disagrees with for its Reason 7A. As such, I ask that it not be insisted on.
“Interpretation of Part 2
For the avoidance of doubt, the provisions of this Part are compliant with the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees, and must be read and given effect as such.””
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, while supporting a number of other Motions in this group, I beg to move Motion C1. The refugee convention is both a memorial to Hitler’s victims and an essential component of the post-1945 rules-based order. It offers protection as of right, not dependent on executive largesse to pick and choose which refugees should be saved and which continent or conflict these should be escaping from.
Renowned jurists in your Lordships’ House and beyond say that the Bill violates the convention; Ministers disagree. Our intention is to resolve the argument with a modest but vital insurance policy, ensuring, for the avoidance of doubt, that our courts will resolve disputes of interpretation and action compatibly with the convention.
As a public and constitutional lawyer, I take the primacy of the other place very seriously. This is neither a money nor a manifesto matter. Indeed, it gives effect to the Government’s emphatic policy of refugee convention compliance in times when this could not be more important. No reasonable Government should object. If your Lordships’ House were not to insist on its inclusion in the legislation, we would fail in our duty to protect the international rule of law.
Lord Judge (CB)
My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. It is perfectly obvious that the Commons reasons tell us that it agrees that the legislation should be compliant with our international obligations. The Minister has just told us that everything that we do will be compliant with them. I regret that a number of us take the view that these provisions do not so comply. The decision will ultimately be made by a court. If the Commons is right, that is well and good—fine, there would be nothing to argue about—but, if we are right and the view of the Commons is wrong, the judge would be bound by this legislation to disapply the convention and the protocol. No one would be able to say, “Ah, but the Commons reasons say that it is compliant”. The Commons reasons will not be in the legislation.
It is very simple: we respectfully suggest that the Commons should be asked to think again and reflect on the consequences if the advice that it is receiving is wrong and the advice that we are suggesting is right, and to avoid the problem that its own expressed legislative intention—that the legislation should be compliant—will prove to be wrong. It is very simple—all doubt can be avoided by this amendment.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, my focus in this group will be on Motion C1 of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, but I crave your Lordships’ indulgence to make one or two introductory remarks.
There could never be a good time for this particular Bill, but we can quite sure that there could hardly be a worse time. Make no mistake: the Bill will affect our standing on the world stage. It seems to me fairly obvious that the Bill was drafted with one particular major objective in mind: to make asylum seeking in the UK as unattractive as one can, to deter and discourage as many prospective refugees from coming here as one can and to refuse such claims as one can.
Of course I recognise that we have special refugee resettlement schemes for a number of substantial groups from around the world, from Syria, Afghanistan, Hong Kong and now—if, alas, somewhat delayed—Ukraine. I also recognise that there is a real and growing problem with a number of refugees—not, of course, those profiting from these schemes—so desperate as to risk their lives in the tragedies of crossing the channel. The draconian measures proposed here will not solve that problem and are not justified—as if aspiring refugees will henceforth say to each other, “Don’t bother coming to the UK. It is very unwelcoming and inhospitable. Just read this Bill”. I do not believe that for all the world and, frankly, I regard it as entirely fanciful. Unless noble Lords believe that this will solve the problem, we should continue to resist at least the most objectionable of the measures being promoted.
As to these, coming to Motion C1, my focus as an ex-judge who used to decide quite a lot of these asylum cases is above all on the legality of these proposals. I truly believe, as do many others, that several of these provisions flagrantly breach our obligations as interpreted by the UNHCR, the body responsible for that under the convention. That is why Motion C1 is all-important. Several later clauses in this part of the Bill purport to define or redefine our obligations under the convention. Of course, as my noble and learned friend Lord Judge says, the Government assert that they do so absolutely fairly and that they give effect to the convention, but that is not the view of a great number of respected bodies besides the UNHCR, such as the Bingham Centre, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and so forth.
On Report, we passed the amendment which Motion C1 is designed to replace and effectively reproduce. Having passed it, we did not go to the lengths of voting down the individual substantive clauses that redefine all the various ingredients of our obligations under the convention. Instead, we inserted that amendment and that is what we must do again. The Government’s objection to it is no more and no less than that it is not necessary, because they are going to comply with the convention anyway. I always think that the weakest grounds for objecting to any clause is that it is not necessary. I respectfully suggest that here it is crucial. I must explain why and noble Lords must forgive me as I do so.
On 28 February, during Report, the Minister then promoting the clause of the Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, rightly said of the proposed new clause—the Baroness Chakrabarti clause, if I may call it that—that it
“potentially leaves the nature of obligations and terms under the convention open to the interpretation of the courts, removing the certainty that we are trying to achieve.”
I then intervened before the Minister sat down, because that rang a great red bell with me. I asked whether I rightly understood him as saying by that that, without this amending provision, the courts would be excluded from considering whether the Bill correctly implements the convention obligations. That he confirmed, rightly observing that the courts
“are not there to go behind legislation”.—[Official Report, 28/2/22; col. 609.]
As I suggest, we then wisely passed the amendment introducing the new clause by 218 to 140, a majority of 78.
We come then—I am anxious not to bore the House, but it is necessary to get this point across—to the Commons debate on the Lords amendments on 22 March. That makes depressing reading when you consider how cursorily—and, dare I suggest, superficially —our various amendments, passed after long, painstaking hours, were summarily rejected. Here, one finds that, in response to the suggestions of some Members that it would indeed be a good idea to leave the amendment in, because some of us were saying that the legislation would otherwise be in flagrant breach, the Minister said:
“I … make the crucial point that we have an independent judiciary in this country, and it is open to people to bring points of challenge where they believe that there are grounds for doing so.”
This the Minister described as a
“cornerstone … evolved over centuries”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/22; col. 185.]
I do not for a moment suggest that the Minister was intentionally misleading the House, but the plain fact is that, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, had rightly agreed at Report, Mr Pursglove was quite wrong to suggest that there was no need for this amendment because the courts would anyway deal with the challenge to the legislation based on suggested non-compliance. I repeat: the amendment is vital. The courts otherwise cannot go behind the definitive clauses in the Bill and would have to apply them, compliant or not. Without this clause, the lead argument is pre-empted and foreclosed, as the substantive clauses operate, if I may use the term, as ouster clauses of the courts’ jurisdiction. I urge your Lordships not to accept them.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, after two such learned speeches and such fireworks, I fear it falls to me to make an unlearned speech on the Motion in my name, Motion D1. Most of my arguments have just been pre-empted, of course, because the case for Motion C1 applies in full to Motion D1. I would not dare to go into the law as powerfully as the two previous speakers have done. However, it is perfectly clear that the 146 states party to the refugee convention, the courts of the United Kingdom and the UNHCR have all applied the convention in one way up to now and, if we pass this Bill, we will have decided that it should be applied in a different way. There is nothing in the refugee convention about how the individual reaches the country in which he seeks sanctuary. There is nothing in the refugee convention which provides a basis for differentiation and the creation of two classes of refugees, which Clause 11 of the Bill introduces. The only question one asks is: does the would-be asylum seeker have a well-founded fear of persecution back home? If so, under the convention, he is entitled to seek our protection and, since 1951, we have been committed to providing it. That, in layman’s terms, is what is wrong with Clause 11 of this Bill and that is why we struck it out by a large majority.
What happened then is really rather bizarre—and very similar to the description from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, of the debate on Clause 9 in the House of Commons. The arguments that have just been made by two distinguished learned Members of this House, and the argument that I am making, had been advanced over several days of debate in this House. They were dismissed in three sentences in the other place. The Minister simply said, without attempting to refute anything that had been said here, that the new differentiated approach was needed to deter dangerous journeys to this country. That is not so. We all know that the way to stop tragedy in the channel is to open a safe route. We all know that if somebody from Kyiv, desperate and despairing of our creaking bureaucracy, were to turn up here without a visa it would be quite wrong to refuse her full rights to refugee protection. Her well-founded fear of persecution would be all too obvious, yet Clause 39 might criminalise her and Clause 11 would guarantee that, if she were accepted as a refugee, she could be only a class 2 refugee, subject to offshoring and all the nastiness that follows in the subsequent clauses of the Bill, and those who had helped her could face criminal charges. With respect, the Minister in the other place was wrong. Clause 11 would not deter her from coming here; it would simply penalise her for doing so. I do not believe that the country would think that right.
The same goes for those coming from Kabul. Like from Kyiv, there is no direct route, so they automatically all fall into class 2, as with those fleeing famine in Ethiopia, Eritrea and the Yemen, the great majority of those now trafficked across the Channel. Since we do not issue humanitarian visas, there is no official route open to them. The way to put the traffickers out of business is to open such a route. For us to treat with group 2 inhumanity those who the traffickers have exploited and endangered would be rather immoral and would certainly be a breach of the refugee convention. I think we got it right the first time in taking the clause out. I think the concern across the country about the way that the Government are treating the victims of Putin’s war in Ukraine shows that we are more in tune with the national mood than the Home Office.
I have been advised, however, that I should offer a compromise, hence Motion B1, which concedes to group differentiation but only if it does not rob group 2 of any of their rights under the convention. It would permit the Secretary of State to privilege group 1, if she so wished, but it would mean that we did not betray our traditions or breach international law. I hope that, given another chance, the other place may be willing to consider the legal arguments so thoroughly explored in this House and by the two preceding speakers.
Lord Cormack (Con)
I shall be brief. I have not really spoken on this Bill before. I sat with increasing disappointment and sadness through the debate on Report and I became increasingly convinced that this largely unnecessary Bill is narrow and mean-minded and at times approaches the vindictive. I did not vote in the 10 votes that we had, but I feel moved to get up and say a few words this evening, largely because of the powerful and commendably brief speech by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. We have had some excellent speeches since which make one essential point: do you wish to be in danger of breaching international law and also international humanity? That is what fundamentally it is all about.
The other place treated your Lordships’ House with disdain. The way in which it dismissed amendments that had been carefully argued and, in many cases, passed by large majorities was not worthy of a House of which I was proud to be a Member for 40 years. I was thinking of this and it dawned on me—although it should not have dawned on me and I should have been very well aware of it—that there is no scrutiny at the other end of the Corridor. The timetabling of every Bill is, I am afraid, the fault of the Labour Government provoked by the Conservative Opposition in 1997. I made a promise on behalf of the Front Bench on behalf of the Conservative Party that, come a Conservative Government, programming would be done away with. Of course when we first had a coalition Government and then a Conservative Government, programming was very convenient and so it was maintained. So there is no proper scrutiny. Sometimes important chunks of Bills are not even discussed. There is scrutiny at this end of the Corridor. Very occasionally, there is a little glimpse of filibustering, but not very often, and we try to look at these things in depth and with care. There are various watchwords which should guide us in what we do: do not give powers to your own Government that you would not wish an Opposition Government to have; err on the side of caution; be careful not to do to others what you do not want them to do to you. Those of us with a Christian background feel that very acutely.
What are we talking about here? We are talking about some of the most persecuted and endangered of humanity who are not motivated by legislation when they catch the train or drive their car or get into boats but are motivated by a desire to enjoy a freer and better way of life. Of course they come from all sorts of backgrounds, but at the moment we have a particular group uppermost in our minds. They are fellow Europeans and we can identify with them. When we see the blitzed remnants of their flat or house, we know it is the sort of place that we could live in.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, there is a danger for a Green such as me in agreeing so strongly with two noble Lords from the opposite side of the Chamber—the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Horam—but it is not my fault; they have moved towards my position, just to be clear. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, made a wonderful speech.
I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Cormack, on the other place having treated this House with “disdain”. It is worse than that. It is contempt. It is real contempt that they have not read what we have done. I say to the Minister that here we have some incredible legal advice, from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and the noble and learned Lords, Lord Judge and Lord Brown. It is free and it is good, so why are we not taking it? Why do the Government still resist that we are breaking the law if we allow the Bill to go through?
The brilliant Twitter lawyer, David Allen Green, often mocks the use of “for the avoidance of doubt”, because well-drafted text should not allow any doubt in the first place. However, the Government seem not to understand that this is what they are doing. They are opening an option for a lot of court cases, and they have slashed the amount of money that is going into the legal system anyway, so it will be very difficult to do those court cases. They are not just avoiding taking the advice of this House but allowing themselves to break the law. I do not understand why any Government would think like that.
If we are to comply with our duties and obligations to the refugee convention, we must vote for Motion C1.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I might offer a slightly different perspective. One of the difficulties that we have had with the Bill throughout is that we are considering things back to front. Normally, when there is policy proposal, you get a White Paper, then a period of consultation, then you come down to the details of the Bill when you can see in law what the proposals are and discuss them in detail. Here it is the opposite way round. We have a Bill, but we do not know what the policy is. Essentially, the Bill has come forward as an enabling Bill to allow the Government to address the issue of illegal crossings of the channel, so we are doing things the wrong way round. It is even worse than that; old hands here will remember the halcyon days when we had Green Papers, which proposed a certain progress of action. We would then have a White Paper setting out a government policy, and then we would have legislation. Here, we are doing it the wrong way round.
The reason is a fairly practical one, as I understand it. In this case, dealing with cross-channel migrants, we must deal with foreign Governments. We must have agreements, certainly with the French and possibly with the Belgians, Dutch and other countries that we want to deal with. That is the problem, and the practical reason why we are doing things the wrong way round.
It leads to a difficulty in that the Opposition rightly have questions which they want answers to, but the Government cannot answer the questions because they do not yet know what the policy will be. There is a package of measures, some of which we can imagine would work and some that would not work, but we do not know what those practical measures are. Equally, the Government have difficulties. They cannot answer some of the questions that are being put by the Opposition because they do not know what the policies are either. Certainly, we Back-Benchers are in darkness. There is a real problem there.
That has a bearing on the arguments which have taken place and which we cannot entirely resolve in this sort of debate. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made the point, which I think is the Opposition’s principal position, that the problem would be solved if we could open legal routes to all the refugees who wish to come to this country. The problem would be resolved that way if we had enough proper legal routes.
The Government’s position is clearly that this probably would not work, because even if you had large numbers of legal routes, if traffickers were still able to give the clear message to their victims that they could get into this country and could stay, work and have a life here, they would still be in business. That is a matter of practicality and judgment. Would having enough legal routes solve the problem? Remember that the traffickers deal not just with human beings but with drugs and all sorts of criminality. If they remained in business, doing business across the channel, you would still have this trade in human beings. That is the practical, judgmental issue at the bottom of this, and we do not know the answer because we do not know the package of measures that the Government will come forward with. We are looking only at the enabling legislation.
I fully accept the additional point that we must look at the effect on refugees of international law. I take the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, that there is a significant issue here. However, those who make that point must accept that the Government are equally sincere in thinking that there is an issue here on which they remain fully compliant with the 1951 convention. The noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, gave a very well-organised defence of the Government’s position, setting it out very clearly. I am not a lawyer so cannot comment on that. All I can do is accept the Government’s advice that they are compliant with the convention.
Finally, I agree with my noble friend Lord Cormack that there is a problem with the House of Commons considering these issues because of timetabling. This is a pervasive issue in the House of Commons. It has been there for years, and they have found no real solution to it. Just as we can go on for as long as we want and for as long as time and patience permit, they are timetabled for six hours or whatever it may be and, therefore, inevitably, immensely important and worthwhile issues such as this as compressed, very often into a few moments, with a ministerial response of a few minutes. This is wholly unacceptable. We have found no way round that, but we must deal with a situation as we have it. For example, in response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, the vote in the House of Commons was a majority of 98 against his proposal that there should be differentiation between group 1 and group 2—that decision to differentiate passed by a majority of 98 in the House of Commons.
That is a massive majority and reflects not just questions of law but the justified concern of the House of Commons about human trafficking across the channel. I am sure that we are all concerned about refugees not only from Ukraine but from other countries —everyone is concerned about that—but how we stop illicit human trafficking across the channel is a separate issue. Everybody is trying to do their best here; in some cases, the procedures that we have to adopt are very unsatisfactory but I hope that people accept that the Government are trying to do something that, in their judgment, is a practical answer. Even those who do not agree with them should understand that this is a matter of judgment. We will not know the full consequences for some time to come, until the Government’s policies are clear—but not to allow them to pursue their policy with the flexibility and elbow room that they need would in my view be a grave misjudgment.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I speak in support of Motion E1 in my name, and refer to my entry in the Members’ register of interests and my connections with RAMP. I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for the constructive way in which she has engaged with me since we last debated in this House the right of asylum seekers to work after six months. I will not rehearse all the arguments for extending the right to work as we have done that on multiple occasions, but I want to address some of the arguments that have been put forward by the Government. I am grateful to the Minister for sharing some of her concerns with me; I will briefly address three of these.
First, there appears to be a concern that, if we extend the right to work for asylum seekers, we will extend that right to those who are convicted criminals in their home country. Although only a tiny proportion of those who apply for asylum fall into this category, it is a legitimate concern. However, I do not believe that it should stand in the way of right-to-work reforms because all those in this category should be held in immigration detention anyway and would be unable to work by virtue of that status.
Secondly, there is a concern that this may encourage more mendacious claims; again, I believe that this has become an exaggerated argument. The figures as they stand find that 72% of people who apply for asylum get accepted on the initial decision before any appeals process has begun. This is a sign that the vast majority are not applying with mendacious claims but are genuine refugees. There is a danger that, in our current system, we are penalising these people by not allowing them to work and unnecessarily putting significant stumbling blocks in the way of their integration.
Thirdly, there is a concern about incentivising the pull factors; we have heard an awful lot about this. I once again believe that this is exaggerated, based on anecdote rather than raw empirical data. I also think that this adjusted amendment before the House today addresses any possible concern by introducing a four-year trial period with a review three years in to determine whether indeed there is any pull factor. This has the pragmatic benefit of meaning that we will be able to address existing labour shortages in the immediate term while giving the Home Office an opportunity to assess whether concerns that this contributes as a pull factor have any backing in meaningful empirical data. There are no studies that currently back this perspective.
In summary, the Government say that the amendment is not needed because, in the new system, all those coming by legal and safe routes would have an immediate right to work—but this actually supports the amendment. Why are we happy to give an immediate right to work to Ukrainians but not to others who come to this country? The Government say this is not needed because in the new system, even including appeals, the process will take only six months. That is great, but we are not there yet and, to my knowledge, we have never been there. The Government say this is not needed because the new system will be so clear that they will be able to focus on the backlog and on those who come in via alternative routes. Again, this sounds great but, at this moment, all evidence is to the contrary.
Even the new system for Ukrainians cannot flex or adapt quickly enough and already shows signs of significant strain. No one more wants the system to be sorted than me or other noble Lords, but we have waited many years to see it happen. There are between 60,000 and 80,000 people who need to be able to work; they should be experiencing a Britain that enables asylum seekers to rebuild their lives and create their own pathway from poverty to prosperity.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
My Lords, in rising to speak in support of Motions G1 and J1, I declare my interests in relation to both RAMP and Reset, as set out in the register. I continue to be of the view that Clause 11 is the most inhumane part of the Bill. I therefore continue to support both Motions C1 and D1; I also support Motions E1 and F1.
The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, would have liked to move Motion G1 but is unable to be in the Chamber today, so we have worked together on this. When people arrive on our shores seeking protection, we have a responsibility to treat them as we would wish to be treated if indeed we had to flee for our lives. It is right that we have a process to determine who meets the criteria for refugee status but, while we determine this, we are responsible for people’s safety, welfare and care. If we move them to other countries for the processing of their asylum claims, I very much fear that a blind eye will be turned to their treatment; the Nauru experience in Australia sadly points that way.
The inhumanity of this part of the Bill is my primary concern. There are, however, significant practical and financial concerns related to the passing of Clause 28 given that we do not have details of how or where this offshoring would operate. Although this was acknowledged by many MPs supporting the legislation in the other place, they were of the opinion that the Home Secretary should have these powers available to her if needed. On that basis, Motion G1 would allow the Home Secretary these powers while introducing much-needed transparency and a check on the introduction of an offshore processing and detention system. This would allow proper consideration by both Houses of the appropriateness and safety of the host country proposed, and whether it meets the Home Secretary’s assurance of being a safe third country for the asylum seekers transferred there, including whether it can provide safe, humane and appropriate accommodation and processing of asylum claims.
Offshore processing and detention of asylum seekers is likely to be many times more expensive per person than alternatives that would see asylum seekers processed in our communities in the UK. This amendment would ensure that parliamentarians can ensure that the offshore system proposed provides value for money for the British taxpayer, that spending on the system is proportionate to the issue addressed, and that the same goals cannot be better served by an alternative approach on our own shores.
The Home Secretary is committed to the option of transferring asylum seekers offshore and at this time she has the support of the majority of her party. She should therefore be confident that an additional check and degree of transparency will not obstruct that policy but reassure her party and the public that offshore processing and detention of asylum seekers is the best approach. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and I are grateful to the Minister for the conversations and contact we have had regarding this over the past few days. We remain willing to engage in further dialogue to help Her Majesty’s Government reach a positive conclusion to our proposals. I hope that the Minister may still change her mind. I have one other question: will the Minister confirm that discussions are already at an advanced stage with at least one nation?
I turn now to Motion J1, in relation to Lords Amendment 11. Again, I have tabled this Motion is association with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope. The fundamental premise of the Bill is that people seeking safety in the UK should arrive by safe and legal routes, rather than by making irregular journeys. My concern in tabling this amendment is that there are not sufficient safe routes from the countries where the majority of asylum seekers arriving in the UK originate. For these countries, the UK resettlement scheme offers a safe route, but the numbers currently remain small. The Syrian resettlement scheme offered an orderly pathway to protection and integration for the most vulnerable refugees. I was therefore encouraged when Ministers set out in their Explanatory Notes to the Bill that the Government intend to enhance resettlement routes to continue to provide pathways for refugees to be granted protection in the UK. The reality, however, is that we are still awaiting further policy proposals around better and fuller safe routes.
During Commons consideration of the amendments, Ministers asserted that the number of refugees resettled each year must be based on our capacity and assessment of the international situation. What we know from the Syrian resettlement scheme is that political commitment and leadership generated political buy-in at a local level and enabled a well-functioning and correctly costed system which was successfully delivered. However, since that target number was reached, resettlement numbers have dropped significantly—partly, we accept, because of Covid. Without political commitment, we see that resettlement drops as a priority. The result is that, for the three top countries of origin for those arriving on small boats across the channel, there is currently no effective safe route. For example, in 2021, only four people were resettled from Iran and 112 from Iraq.
I acknowledge that we have opened our doors to an uncapped number of Ukrainian refugees. This is very welcome, but it has highlighted the need for robust mechanisms to be in place. Are the Government now saying that their assessment of the wider international situation is that resettling refugees in low numbers from some of the most dangerous conflict zones reflects the UK’s ambition to take its fair share? Amendment 11B seeks to address the objections of the Minister and seeks compromise on expanding safe routes by simply calling on the Government to publish a flexible target for resettlement each year. It specifies that the Government must properly support local authorities to deliver the benchmark. The Minister for Justice and Tackling Illegal Migration in the other place stated that
“what is really needed to deliver refugee resettlement is not a number but an approach—an approach that is compassionate and flexible.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/22; col. 188.]
This amendment, with its revised wording, does precisely that. It represents, though, an advance on the current status quo.
I take the Government at their word. The proposal in this amendment aligns, almost identically, with what the Home Office claims it wants to achieve in unlocking new safe routes. I hope that the Minister will consider what we are proposing very carefully and recognise that this reform aims to address a significant gap in our responsibility to those seeking refuge globally. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhope, and I are grateful for the contact and engagement that we have had, and we remain willing to engage further.
To finish, I express my support, as I did at Committee and Report, in relation to Motions H1 and K1. In relation to Motions G1 and J1 in my name, I live in hope that, even at this stage, the Minister might accept them both. If she does not, I will be minded to test the opinion of the House.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the right reverend Prelate. I have one question about offshore processing. Can she comment on the suggestion that the country designated for offshore processing is Rwanda? The Minister looks surprised; I wonder if she would care to comment on whether that is under discussion.
I am in agreement with all these amendments, but I will talk particularly about Motion H1. The Commons reason for rejecting Lords Amendment 10 is:
“Because it would alter the financial arrangements made by the Commons, and the Commons do not offer any further reason, trusting that this Reason may be deemed sufficient.”
No, it is not sufficient. This argument about financial privilege has been used before. I remind the Minister that, in 2016, I moved an amendment that was passed by this House; when it got to the Commons, the Commons again used the argument of financial privilege. Although I had been in the Commons for years, I actually did not know what financial privilege was. It is always a pleasure when I talk to a university student of politics to challenge them on whether they know what financial privilege is—I am pleased to say that none of them ever does, until I explain it to them.
The point is that what this reason says, in effect, is that the Government choose whether to use financial privilege to oppose a particular noble Lord’s amendment —or whether they choose not to; quite often, they waive that argument. As far as I can see, they use it only when they cannot be bothered to put forward a sufficient reason. If the argument about financial privilege is to be used against Lords amendments, we become unicameral, because so many of our amendments involve financial expenditure. It seems to me that this is not a sensible or tenable position. I agree that the Minister gave some reasons and does not hide behind this financial privilege point, but there is an argument about our procedures if the Commons is going to do what it has done in this case.
I will go back just a little bit: in 2017, we passed an amendment about family reunion, which is of course the subject of Motion H1. There, we were concerned that the Dublin treaty, particularly Dublin III, worked quite well to achieve family reunion, so that children in an EU country could join relatives in another EU country. This relates to those who are claiming asylum. That worked quite well and, in order to safeguard the matter, this House passed an amendment, which I moved, that the Government should negotiate to continue the provisions of the Dublin treaty even after we left the EU. It was passed by this House and accepted by the Commons. But then came the 2019 legislation and the Government withdrew the provision. I had various meetings and, on one occasion—I have mentioned this before, but I will mention it again—I was invited to a meeting with three government Ministers and seven officials in order to persuade me that everything was all right and we did not need this particular amendment. They were trying to explain to me why they were withdrawing it.
I was given assurances that, notwithstanding that, there would be plenty of opportunities for children to achieve family reunion with relatives in this country. This was not borne out by the facts. When we got the figures last year, no child from France was able to come under that provision and there were only two or three from Greece. This was a massive drop in what the figures had been when the Dublin III provisions were in effect. Although I was given assurances that everything would be all right and I need not worry, in fact those assurances do not apply. While, in theory, there are a number of ways in which children can be reunited with their families here, it hardly works in practice. The evidence is those figures, which are so low. It does not work—we have gone backwards in that respect. Their assurances did not work.
I have quoted something like it before, but I will quote again what the Home Office said in rejecting an application. The Home Office has argued that a child being alone in France or Greece is not “serious and compelling” enough to warrant a visa. When referring to one case, the Home Office said:
“You currently live in a shelter for unaccompanied Minors … I note you have provided no evidence why this arrangement cannot continue or any serious and compelling considerations in your case.”
If those are not sufficiently compelling reasons, I do not know what can be. If that is the way in which the Home Office turn down applications, I am afraid that I do not have confidence that the existing position is satisfactory. This is why I put forward this Motion and why I urge the House to support it. I also believe that this would lessen the dangerous journeys that young people make to join their families—it might eliminate them altogether, but it would certainly lessen them. If we believe that traffickers should not have opportunities, surely the right thing to do is to provide a safe and legal route. I cannot think of a matter more compelling than for a child to be allowed to join their relatives. Family reunion is surely fundamental to what a civilised society should support. This is why I hope that, when we get to it, this House will support Motion H1.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Dubs. I entirely agree with what he has just said, and I associate myself with the other amendments in this group in speaking to Motion K1. I also refer to relevant all-party parliamentary groups of which I am an officer, and my role as a patron of the Coalition for Genocide Response.
The Minister set out the terms of Motion K1 at the beginning of our debate and explained what it does. At Second Reading, she challenged us—quite rightly—to come up with safe and legal routes, and that is what this genocide amendment seeks to do. I should say in parentheses that I am grateful to the noble Baroness, not least for the support and consideration that she gave to the amendment that I moved earlier in proceedings on this Bill, on the position of young people in Hong Kong who did not qualify under the BNO scheme but who now, under the regulations which the Government will introduce, will do. Like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, I also applaud what the Government have done in the case of refugees from Ukraine. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, however, I ask the question: should we not make the same provision, as far as the right to work is concerned, for all those who seek asylum in this country?
Of course, I am disappointed that the all-party amendment on genocide, which had its origins in the Yazidi genocide that began in 2014, has not been accepted by the Government. I place on record my thanks to those Conservative Members of Parliament, including former Ministers, the Opposition Front Benches and other Members of the House of Commons, for their strong and welcome support. I must admit to sharing some of the frustration that has been expressed during this debate—even bewilderment—as we heard from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and the noble Lords, Lord Cormack and Lord Horam.
I spent pretty well two decades as a Member of the other place, and I read with perplexity the debate on 22 March when the guillotine was imposed after just three hours. That was three hours of debate on amendments that had been considered one by one in your Lordships’ House in great detail and with great scrutiny: Amendments 1, 4 to 9, 52, 53, 10 to 20, 54, 2, 3, 43 to 51, and 21. All these amendments were taken together in an inevitably disjointed debate in which Members ranged across multiple issues. By way of example, in the case of the genocide amendment, it was linked with Amendment 11, on the issue of numbers coming into this country, so it was impossible even to vote with any differentiation between those amendments.
As the Minister told us earlier, the Minister in the Commons, Tom Pursglove, opposed the genocide amendment, because, he said, “many thousands” would apply for asylum. Confusingly, however, he admitted that the amendment as it left your Lordships’ House contained a cap on the numbers. Then he said that that it would put the lives of our officials in our embassies at risk. These are victims of genocide whom we are talking about. They do not pose a risk: they are hunted down by the perpetrators. It is the victims, not British officials, who are at risk. Mr Pursglove went on to argue that bespoke schemes were a better approach, but there has never been a bespoke scheme for the Yazidis or other victims of the ISIS genocide. This demonstrates that this, too, is a straw man argument.
I received an email just two days ago from one of those who works for Yazidi interests, and she told me that she believes that there is bias in the implementation of other programmes because of the exclusion of people from minorities in the leadership and oversight of these programmes. It is an issue I have previously raised, as the Minister knows, with the Home Office. My correspondent copied in the Bishop of Truro, whose excellent report is being reviewed by the Foreign Office this year. This lady said:
“We failed Yezidis who have been left to rot in tents; only 8 are recorded as resettled from Iraq and 44 from Syria, although without knowing who they are we cannot say they are truly Yezidi. I doubt the Home Office would know the difference.”
Quoting Home Office guidance about ethnic and religious minorities, she says:
“Recognising their vulnerability and ACTUALLY including them in these schemes are obviously two different things.”
For years, the Government have emphasised that Yazidis have been facing horrific atrocities, especially when Ministers have met Nadia Murad and other victims. But opening doors in “a bespoke scheme” to welcome at least some from their community simply did not happen. Let us contrast that with Canada and Germany, among others, which have provided protection.
One of those who spoke in favour of the amendment in the House of Commons was the former Conservative Minister, Tim Loughton. He and I are two of the seven parliamentarians who have been sanctioned by the Chinese Communist Party for raising what the Foreign Secretary has described as the genocide of the Uighurs. During a very helpful and encouraging meeting which sanctioned parliamentarians recently had with the Prime Minister and Elizabeth Truss, the Foreign Secretary, we were told that the Government would look again at this country’s response to genocide. I put this on record and greatly welcome what they have said. It is significant progress. Accepting today’s amendment, which would place on the Home Secretary a duty within one year to publish a report on the Government’s approach to the treatment of genocides—at least as it pertains to those seeking asylum—would be a good start. Failing that, I hope that the Minister will at least commit the Home Office to taking part, which has been promised by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, in looking again at the duties that are laid out in the 1948 convention on the crime of genocide. That requires us to prevent and protect, and to punish those responsible. Given what has been said to me, I am willing to take back this amendment this evening and not take it to a Division. Needless to say, of course, I will keep pressing the Minister until progress is made on what I regard as an incredibly important issue.
Baroness Meacher (CB)
My Lords, I hesitate to rise after that excellent contribution from my noble friend Lord Alton, but I just want to express very strong support, obviously, for Motions C1 and D1 and, indeed, all the amendments in this group. I want to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and support her Amendment E1 on the right of asylum seekers to work. She made a very powerful speech, and I certainly will not repeat any of the words that she said. We can do without repetition—everybody wants to get to the votes—so I will take one minute maximum.
The main argument of the Government against this amendment is that it would be a pull factor, attracting asylum seekers to come here. It is worth mentioning at this point that there have been fully 29 academic papers assessing whether a more generous right to work has anything to do with a pull factor for asylum seekers. All those 29 academic papers showed that there was no correlation whatever between the right-to-work aspect and asylum seekers’ attraction to this country. It is also worth saying that even if this amendment passes, we would still be the toughest of all European nations—there would be seven nations then—with a six-month ban on asylum seekers seeking work. All the rest of the European countries are more generous: they have shorter bans. That is incredibly powerful.
It costs money to do this. Is it really sensible to spend an unnecessary £300 million stopping people working; albeit we only pay these people—what is it—£5.75 or something a week, plus a bit for utility bills? We could save £300 million: is that not worth doing, just to be no more ungenerous than any other country in Europe? I suggest that we should support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, from these Benches, I want to speak just to Motions E and H; my noble friend Lord Paddick will speak for us on the other amendments in this group. The Commons reasons on asylum seekers’ right to work seem to be completely circular: asylum seekers should not be permitted to work because they should not be permitted to work. In a way, I cannot argue with that.
The condition that the noble Baroness has added to her amendment is completely sensible. Ministers speak about undermining our economic migration schemes. I am aware that a great many asylum seekers disappear into the black economy. That undermines an awful lot of things.
The asylum seekers in question are impelled by significant push factors. I take issue with people who find it difficult to accept that. There is a distinction between what prompts fleeing one’s own country and choosing where to go. I accept that the English language plays a part in that second matter, but it really does not deal with the Government’s position.
Leaving aside—though I do not leave it aside—the importance of work to self-worth, dignity and so on, the overwhelming majority of asylum seekers in our country, and no doubt in others, want to play their part in society and want to pay tax. They have skills they want to use and which we should want them to use. The noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, has talked about the financial interests. I absolutely agree with her, and I am not going to repeat that. But it is in the interests of our society to allow asylum seekers to work. We support Motion E1 very enthusiastically.
With regard to family reunion, I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, regarding the Commons reasons and with others who have made comments on Commons procedure—it is not up to us, I suppose, to comment on it—and the importance of scrutiny. I doubt that the Commons reasons would go down very well with those many British people who have responded to the powerful images of, and other information about, families in Ukraine and leaving Ukraine which are incomplete, without husbands or fathers. The noble Lord has narrowed his amendment down, and I congratulate him on finding a way to bring it back. The crisis for Ukrainians is no different from other crises in conflict zones in countries where actions and the threat of actions against individuals are so extreme.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, my noble friend Lady Ludford and I have made it clear on a number of occasions, including in the various Private Members’ Bills, that what is being proposed today is the bare minimum. It is not even, in my view, the least we can do. But it is what we must do, and we support Motion H1.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)
My Lords, I rise briefly to speak to Motions J and J1, to support the Government in respect of Motion J and to suggest that the House reject Motion J1, the revised amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I accept that this amendment, like the former amendment, is exceptionally well intentioned, but I think its practical results may not be as the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend hope.
We were reminded in Committee on 8 February by the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, that we needed to see refugees as human beings. Of course, she is right. We have to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already spoken powerfully this afternoon about the tragic cases around the world: 80 million, 30 million of them children, with horrifying stories to tell and urgent needs to be answered. My doubts are as follows.
The first is the potential inflexibility implied by the revised amendment. It suggests we must publish a numerical target for the resettlement of refugees in the United Kingdom each year. This is only half, or a quarter, or a slice, of the issue that this country is facing about the increase in our population, which is going up by between 250,000 and 300,000 every year. If we were to tackle this issue as we should be tackling it, we would take the right reverend Prelate’s amendment and say that the Government should set out their belief about what the total amount of new arrivals in the country should be. No Government have been prepared to grasp that particular nettle.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, in the interests of time I will forbear from commenting on the geographical and climatic differences between the UK and Canada.
I offer Green support for all the amendments from Motion E1 onwards; my noble friend has already spoken on Motions C1 and D1—that is, on all the non-government amendments. On Motion E1, I will simply say that I wish to strongly applaud everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said. It was plain common sense about the best outcome for asylum seekers and for the UK, and I commend her bravery in working on this issue.
I find Motions F1 and G1 the most difficult. I entirely understand and sympathise with the desire to make the Bill less bad in this area, but they still condone third-country processing. About the Australian third-country processing that this was modelled on, Human Rights Watch commented that the
“abusive offshore processing policy has caused immeasurable suffering for thousands of vulnerable asylum seekers”.
It noted that
“seven people have committed suicide”
in this process and said that
“children have been terribly traumatized”.
If we even pass a law that allows third-country processing, whether or not it is ever actually implemented, this will be a stain on Britain’s international reputation, as the practice has been a huge stain on Australia’s international reputation. The Government talk about global Britain; the globe will look at Britain and say that Britain is doing something utterly unconscionable if we even move to allow it, let alone actually implement it.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, in Motion C the Government claim that the provisions in Part 2 are compliant with the UN refugee convention—in which case, they should have no objection to Motion C1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, which puts such an assertion on the face of the Bill to ensure that the courts are able to test Part 2 against the UN refugee convention. In accordance with the Government’s claim in Motion C, the Government must surely agree with Motion D1 that, whether the Government categorise a refugee as falling into group 1 or group 2, as set out in the Bill, none the less, both groups must be given all the rights under the UN refugee convention. If not, Part 2, contrary to the Government’s claim in Motion C, would not be compliant with the UN refugee convention.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee has dealt with Motion E1 on the right to work, and Motion H1 on family reunion, which we also support. We hesitate to support Motion G1 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, because it leaves offshoring on the face of the Bill. We totally, absolutely and completely disagree with offshoring but my understanding is that we are running out of options other than double insisting on the removal of the provisions from the Bill, which, I am told, would have serious consequences. Therefore, we will vote for Motion G1 to force the Government to secure the approval of both Houses for each country they propose to use for offshoring, by means of the affirmative resolution procedure once they have laid before Parliament the estimated first two-year costs for operating such a system for each country. Once Parliament has seen the countries that the Government propose to use for such an abhorrent practice, and the costs involved, we hope that no Parliament would approve such a practice.
The Ukrainian refugee crisis and the lamentable shambles created by insisting that those fleeing Putin’s war must have a visa to enter the UK, with the Home Office being unable to cope with the numbers of applications, clearly demonstrates the need for there to be appropriate resourcing, infrastructure and support for local authorities permanently in place to cope with such crises before they arise. Before Ukraine it was Afghanistan, before Afghanistan it was Syria; we need systems and processes in place to deal with these crises. The Motion in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham seeks to achieve this without the previous set annual numerical target, instead allowing the Secretary of State to set the target and to put in place such measures as are necessary to achieve that target. Of course, we also support the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, in his Motion K1 in relation to those fleeing genocide.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, that less than 20% of immigration to the UK in recent years has been asylum seekers, and the Bill deals only with that 20%. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Horam: where are the provisions that specifically target people smugglers in the Bill? These policies target what he himself described as victims, and only the victims.
Lord Rosser (Lab)
My Lords, I will attempt to be brief, as I am sure the House would now like to hear the Government’s response rather than listen to me at any great length. On Motion C1, proposed by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, as has just been said, if the Government are convinced that Part 2 is compliant with the convention and indeed agree with the principles that it should be so compliant, why should they be opposed to nailing their colours to the mast on this crucial issue and making this clear in the Bill by accepting this amendment?
On Motion D1 on differential treatment, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, spoke, as well as a number of other noble Lords, this new version of the previous Lords amendment disagreed to by the Commons deletes the subsections which provide for differential treatment of refugees. Instead, it provides that the Secretary of State must guarantee both group 1 and group 2 refugees all their rights under the convention and ensure that family unity can be maintained. I only make the point—I do not want to repeat all the points that have already been made—that under the Government’s plans for the Bill, a person who had fled Ukraine and travelled across Europe to get here could not be a group 1 refugee because they would have passed through other countries rather than “coming here” directly. At best, they would be group 2 refugees and could be treated as having committed a criminal offence for having reached this country without prior authority or a pre-approved claim. That is the reality of what differential treatment of refugees, which the Government are so determined to implement, can actually mean in all its harshness in respect to people currently fleeing for their lives from a war happening now in Europe.
On Motion E1 on the right to work, the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud and indeed other noble Lords have more than covered all the arguments in favour. It is just interesting that the Government have always argued in other situations that people should be in employment rather than requiring benefits, even though a considerable percentage of those in work also qualify for benefits because of low pay. The Government have reversed their stance with asylum seekers since the Government deny them the ability to work for 12 months and then only in specific circumstances, even though many asylum seekers want to work, have the skills to work and would be contributing further through paying taxes and not claiming more than minimal benefits. Reducing the qualifying period for being able to work for six months would also encourage the Government to work harder at providing the necessary resources to determine a much higher percentage of asylum applications within a six-month period.
I need to speak a little longer on Motion F1. I have put down a new version of our Amendment 8 that still provides that the Government may not commence their inadmissibility provisions until they have safe, formal returns agreements with third states. This time, though, our amendment has a sunset provision, since we have to put down a different amendment, which means that it delays the commencement of Clause 15 to allow time for international agreements to be put in place, but after five years that protection will lapse so it does not block the plans indefinitely. However, frankly, if the Government have not managed to negotiate any international agreements over the span of five years, one would hope they would take a hard look at the plausibility of their plans in the first place—clearly, they intend to use Clause 15 and its provision on a significant scale, or at least one must assume so.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, might think the House does not want to hear from him, but it certainly does not want to hear from me either. It never likes what I have to say.
There have been a few disparaging comments about our approach to Ukraine. I have just looked on Twitter, and this is the first comment from President Zelensky:
“The United Kingdom is our powerful ally.”
It must be acknowledged that we have done much to assist Ukraine over the years. We have now issued over 20,000 visas and done some other fundamental things for our friends in Ukraine. We have been training 22,000 troops for years; we have given them 2,000 NLAWs, or, as President Zelensky calls them, “in-loves”—apparently, on their launch, people in Ukraine shout “God save the Queen”. We have also provided them with the Starstreak missile. We have been terribly generous and supportive to Ukraine and will go on being so.
My noble friend Lord Horam said there had been no pre-legislative scrutiny; it may seem a long time ago but, I guess by way of a White Paper, the New Plan for Immigration was published—I know we do not do Green Papers these days; that stopped years ago.
Motions C and D deal with the refugee convention and our policy of differentiation. We have been clear throughout the development of this policy that it fully complies with all our international obligations, including the refugee convention. I will not go over my noble friend Lord Wolfson’s comments, but I know he wrote to noble Lords setting out our legal position on this. However, I should clarify that a person in group 2 would, to gain that status, necessarily already be recognised as a refugee in the UK and would not subsequently have, or be eligible to have, their claim processed overseas. We intend that prosecutions follow only in egregious cases. I therefore ask noble Lords not to insist on their amendments and the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, not to press theirs.
It has long been our position that when someone who is claiming asylum has been waiting for a decision on their claim for more than 12 months, through no fault of their own, they should be able to take up one of the jobs on the shortage occupation list. Motion E deals with this issue and, although I have a great deal of respect for my noble friend Lady Stroud and we have spoken at some length over the last few days, we cannot agree to reduce this period to six months, for the reasons I have set out previously. There is not much more I can add to my previous comments other than to point out academic evidence suggesting that economic factors are in play in secondary movements. For all those reasons, I invite my noble friend not to press her amendment.
Motions F and G deal with inadmissibility and overseas asylum processing respectively. It is vital that we have strong measures in this Bill to deter people from making dangerous journeys and to encourage them to seek asylum in the first safe country that they reach. We cannot agree to measures that would undermine these measures, either by restricting our ability to work on a case-by-case basis on returns or making the job of our negotiators more difficult. I therefore ask the noble Lord, Lord Rosser, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham not to press their amendments.
On the question the right reverend Prelate asked me about what advanced discussions are taking place and the point that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked about Rwanda, all I can say at this point is that the Government are talking to a range of partners. I am sure that Parliament will be fully informed when any of those discussions are concluded.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, has the respect not just of me but of the whole House. Turning to Motion H, I know how strongly he feels on the subject behind his amendment relating to family reunion, but there are risks that the proposed new clause creates a very broad duty that was not intended.
Moving on to Motion J, I also understand the strength of feeling on having a target number for refugee resettlement, noting in particular the amendment tabled by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. I also reflect in this context on Motion K and the amendment concerning genocide tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. But I can only say again that we already have generous family reunion offers, that we have numerous safe and legal routes to the UK, and that a person fleeing genocide is already likely to qualify for protection, as I said, under either the refugee convention or the ECHR.
The UK is firmly committed to protecting ethnic and religious minorities in Iraq. We raise this regularly with the Government of Iraq and the Kurdistan Regional Government, and we continue to monitor the situation of the Yazidis and other minority groups in Iraq. But I will take back again those comments on religious bias, because it is not the first time that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has raised them with me.
I do not think that the amendments tabled to Motions H, J and K are necessary, so I invite the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, not to press their amendments.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords and noble and learned Lords who spoke in such a vital debate. The House will forgive me for not waxing lyrical by way of summary—out of respect for noble Lords, self-discipline and the need to get on and vote. I just say that I heard not a single constitutionally or legally coherent argument against the vital overarching protection for the refugee convention in Motion C1. With that, I ask noble Lords to agree Motion C1.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6A.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 6B to the words so restored to the Bill—
“(5) The Secretary of State must make provision within the Immigration Rules to—
(a) guarantee Group 1 and Group 2 refugees all of their rights under the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees and international law, without distinction;
(b) ensure that the classification of a refugee as a Group 1 or a Group 2 refugee does not affect the ability to maintain the unity of that person’s family.””
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.
Baroness Stroud
At end insert “and do propose Amendments 7B and 7C in lieu—
“Changes to the Immigration Act 1971
(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 3(2) (general provisions for regulation and control) insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) must provide that persons, and adult dependants of persons who are applying for asylum in the United Kingdom are granted permission by the Secretary of State to take up employment if—
(a) a decision at first instance has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within six months of the date on which the application was made, or
(b) a person makes an application or a further application which raises asylum grounds, and a decision on that new application, or a decision on whether to treat such further asylum grounds as a new application, has not been taken within six months of the date on which the further application was made.
(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), regulations must ensure that permission granted allowing people applying for asylum in the UK, and their adult dependants to take up employment, are on terms no less favourable than the terms granted to a person with recognised refugee status.
(2C) This permission is to be valid until the claim is determined and all appeal rights have been exhausted and individuals granted permission to work will be issued with physical proof of the right to work.”
(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, repeal subsection (2) of this section, if the conditions set out in subsections (4) and (5) have been met.
(4) The first condition is that within four years of the coming into force of this section, but no sooner than three years after the coming into force of this section, the Secretary of State has commissioned a review of whether the provisions inserted into the Immigration Act 1971 by subsection (2) have acted in such a way as to encourage persons applying for asylum, and adult dependants of such persons, to travel to the United Kingdom.
(5) The second condition is that the Secretary of State has, within four years of the coming into force of this section, published the outcome of the review under subsection (4).
(6) Regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
“(aa) section (Changes to the Immigration Act 1971);””
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8A.
“Safe third State: commencement
(1) The Secretary of State may exercise the power in section 83(1) so as to bring section 15 into force only if the condition in subsection (2) has been met.
(2) The condition in this subsection is that the United Kingdom has agreed formal returns agreements with one or more third States.
(3) A “formal returns agreement” means an agreement which provides for the safe return of a person making an asylum claim (a “claimant”) to a State which is party to the agreement, where the claimant has a connection to that State.
(4) This section, and the condition it imposes, cease to have effect at the end of the period of five years beginning with the day on which this section comes into force.”
“(aa) section (Safe third State: commencement);”
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 9, 52 and 53, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 9A, 52A and 53A.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I have already spoken to Motion G. I beg to move.
Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)
The Lord Bishop of Durham
Moved by
At end insert “and do propose Amendments 53B, 53C and 53D in lieu—
“(2BA) No order under subsection (2B) may be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(2BB) The Secretary of State must not lay before Parliament a draft of an order prescribing a State under subsection (2B) unless the Secretary of State has first laid before each House of Parliament a proposal setting out—
(a) the estimated costs, for at least the first two years after the order is to come into effect, of any arrangements made with that State in respect of the removal of asylum seekers from the United Kingdom to that State; and
(b) the estimated costs, for at least the first two years after the order is to come into effect, of any additional aid provided to that State as a result of any such arrangements.””
The Lord Bishop of Durham
I beg to move, partly because this issue was not properly debated in the other place, and I wish to give it an opportunity to explore it fully in this amended form.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10A.
“Immigration Rules: entry to seek asylum and join family
(1) The rules laid down by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 1(4) and section 3(2) of the Immigration Act 1971 for regulating the entry into and stay in the United Kingdom of persons not having the right of abode must include provision for admitting persons coming for the purpose of seeking asylum.
(2) These rules must make provision, for the purpose of seeking asylum, for unaccompanied children in Europe who have a family member in the United Kingdom who is ordinarily and lawfully resident in the United Kingdom.
(3) For the purposes of this section, a “family member” means—
(a) a parent, including adoptive parent;
(b) an aunt or uncle;
(c) a grandparent;
(d) a sibling, including an adoptive sibling; or
(e) such other persons as the Secretary of State may determine, having
regard to—
(i) the importance of maintaining family unity;
(ii) any dependency between the family members;
(iii) the best interests of a child; and
(iv) any compelling circumstances.””
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11A.
The Lord Bishop of Durham
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 11B in lieu—
“Refugee resettlement schemes
(1) The Secretary of State must publish a numerical target for the resettlement of refugees to the United Kingdom each year.
(2) The target under this section must include the numbers of people resettled under—
(a) dedicated schemes for the evacuation of people from a geographical locality, such as a specific third State,
(b) a general UK resettlement scheme, and
(c) other routes as appropriate.
(3) The Secretary of State must put in place appropriate resourcing and infrastructure to support local authorities to deliver the target under subsection (1).””
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 12, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 12A.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 13 to 19, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 13A to 19A.
Lord Coaker
Leave out from “Amendments” to end and insert “13, 14 and 16 to 19, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 13A, 14A and 16A to 19A, do insist on its Amendment 15, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 15A, and do propose Amendment 13B in lieu of Amendment 13—
“(D1) A person who knowingly arrives in the United Kingdom in breach of a deportation order commits an offence.”
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 20, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 20A.
Lord Paddick
At end insert, “and do propose Amendment 20B to the words so restored to the Bill—
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 22, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 22A.
The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Stewart of Dirleton) (Con)
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will also speak to Motions P, Q, R and S. Let me begin with Amendment 22, which inserts a new clause relating to age assessment. I reiterate to the House that assessments are and will only be used when necessary. There is no appetite to use them when there is no doubt of an asylum seeker’s age. As we have discussed in previous debates, failure to ensure proper assessments are conducted on individuals whose age is doubted creates obvious safeguarding concerns. It can also create a plethora of risks to the most vulnerable, to children in our schools and care systems and to asylum seekers themselves.
The problem with this amendment is that it creates numerous restrictions on our ability to use age assessments and risks, perpetuating the very real challenges within the current system. First, this amendment would mean that only local authority social workers would be able to undertake age assessments under the Bill. This would curtail our ability to support overburdened local authorities in this difficult task, given that there is significant variation between local authorities in experience, capacity and resource to undertake age assessments. It is the Government’s intention to establish a national age assessment board with qualified expert social workers employed by the Home Office, specialising in age assessments, to improve the quality and consistency of decision-making and to relieve the burden on local authorities where local authorities choose to refer a case. It is not our intention to increase the percentage of age assessments conducted, and local authorities will retain the ability to conduct these assessments themselves if they wish to do so.
Secondly, the amendment would mean that scientific methods of age assessment are specified in regulations only if they are
“ethical and accurate beyond reasonable doubt”
as approved by relevant professional bodies. The UK is one of very few European countries that does not currently employ scientific methods of age assessment. We have already set up an independent interim Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee to advise on the accuracy and associated ethical considerations of scientific methods. No one method of age assessment is entirely accurate, so this amendment sets an unreasonable expectation for what scientific methods could achieve, especially when they will be used in tandem with other evidence from social workers and others as part of an holistic approach.
In addition, I stress that although there are questions about the accuracy of scientific methods, we simply do not know how accurate or reliable the current approach of the Merton-compliant age assessment is. We are aware of cases where individuals have been assessed to be of vastly different ages when assessed independently by different social workers in different local authorities. Genuine children whose ages are in doubt will therefore benefit from more informed decision-making as a result of supplementing the current age assessment process with scientific methods with known accuracy—or a known margin of doubt, I perhaps might more accurately say—and reducing the risk that children may be misidentified as adults and vice versa.
We also contest the idea that professional bodies should be required to approve scientific methods, because any scientific method proposed will be considered by the independent Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee. The committee, formed by the Home Office chief scientific adviser, will comprise representatives of the relevant professions and will consider the scientific, ethical and contextual issues and provide advice to the Home Office, via its chief scientific adviser, on appropriate methods.
Finally, the amendment would lower the current standard of proof for social worker age assessments from the “balance of probabilities”, which is long established in case law, to a “reasonable degree of likelihood”. Lowering this standard would require social workers to accept as children individuals whom, on balance, they believe to be adults. On this basis, I put it that we cannot accept this amendment, to which the other place disagrees for its Reason 22A.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has tabled further amendments on age assessment—Amendments 22B to 22F. Although I recognise the intent behind them, I cannot support their inclusion for a number of reasons. First, I reassure the noble Baroness that social workers conducting age assessments for the national age assessment board will of course be able to refer to comprehensive guidance that, in line with standard practice, will be published and accessible on GOV.UK.
Although the vast majority of age assessments are expected to take place following referral from a local authority, the legislation provides the flexibility to enable other public authorities to refer cases in the event that this becomes necessary for the delivery of their official functions. The specification of any additional public authorities through regulation would of course occur following consultation with them and is therefore not considered to be controversial.
Secondly, we have already commissioned the independent interim Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee to advise on both scientific and ethical aspects of scientific age assessment. In line with the noble Baroness’s proposals, this committee in fact comprises expertise from the relevant disciplines, and the Home Secretary will seek advice from it via the Home Office chief scientific adviser before specifying a method in regulations. On this basis I ask the noble Baroness not to move her Motion.
I now bring back to the House’s attention Amendments 23 and 24, to which the other place has disagreed because of its Reasons 23A and 24A. These amendments remove provisions from the Bill relating to late compliance with a slavery or trafficking information notice—or STIN. The Government are determined to deliver the right outcomes for victims while focusing resources where they are needed. This will ensure that potential victims of modern slavery are proactively identified as early as possible.
However, we have listened to the concerns raised by your Lordships’ House and appreciate that there may be particular vulnerabilities for children, which is why the vulnerability of children will be included in our “good reasons” guidance. This is why the Government have now tabled their Amendment 24B, to exempt from the Bill’s credibility provisions those who were under 18 when the most recent STIN was served. Therefore, if an individual were under 18 on the date of service of the most recent STIN, these provisions would not apply and there would be no obligation on decision-makers to find the individual’s credibility to be damaged. I hope that this reassures the House that the needs of children are being taken into account by this Government when identifying victims of modern slavery. I commend this Motion to the House.
Amendments 25 and 25B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, replace the original provision for disqualification from modern slavery protections where an individual is a threat to public order, or has claimed to be a victim in bad faith, with a new clause. Unfortunately, however, Amendment 25 does not provide a definition for “public order” at all, and Amendment 25B defines “public order” as coming into play only when an individual has been convicted of a terrorist offence—and even then, only in exceptional circumstances.
Baroness Hamwee
At end insert “and do propose Amendments 22B, 22C, 22D, 22E and 22F in lieu—
“(2A) An assessment under subsection (1) shall be conducted in accordance with guidance published by the Secretary of State, and the guidance must provide that a designated person must take into account all relevant information available from all available sources.”
“(1A) An independent advisory board shall advise in respect of the regulations, and the Secretary of State must have due regard to the board’s advice.
(1B) The board shall comprise experts in relevant disciplines, including nominees of relevant medical, dental and scientific professional bodies.
(1C) The board shall give ethical advice and scientific advice for the purposes of subsection (3).”
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, these amendments concern age assessments. The noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, moved the amendment at the previous stage and apologises that she cannot be here today. We had a very helpful briefing from the noble Baroness, Lady Black of Strome—who I think for this purpose would term herself Professor Dame Sue Black—the interim chair of the interim scientific advisory committee. I thank the Minister for his letter listing the interim members and their positions, which of course indicate their disciplines. The amendments today flow from that meeting.
The Minister referred to mitigating risk. Of course, we understand that there is risk attached to assessing an age wrongly, but the most controversial part of the provisions in the Bill regards ionising radiation from X-rays, about which the British Dental Association has expressed particular concern. There are both ethical and scientific criteria in play here. The Commons said that our original amendments were not necessary, but, as I understand it, “not necessary” means, “Don’t worry, because current practice is good”. One of the difficulties with statutory provisions, as proposed here, is when they stand alone and you cannot look at other legislation which constrains them, if I can put it that way.
I assumed that the Minister would give assurances of the type that he has already referred to; indeed, I gave him notice by email earlier today and was grateful for the response from the Bill team. But without at all impugning the Minister’s integrity, it is important to hear from the Dispatch Box. I am always reluctant to accept that the best way to approach these matters is to seek assurances, when one really wants to see them in legislation, but I have been persuaded that this would be the best thing to do this evening.
What I have been concerned about and have asked for assurances on is that the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee should include independent experts from across a range of fields reflecting, as the Minister said, “a range of possible biological evaluation methods”. Members of the current interim body include those with dental and dental-related expertise, but, personally, I would like to see a paediatric dentist on the list. I would like to see the regulations require the approval of the professional bodies which are so concerned. The Bill team responded to me that the regulations are a matter for government, “considering the challenges to the current age assessment process”. But that takes this issue into what are political matters, which is also part of the concern.
I also put it to the Minister that, as Sue Black told us, triangulation of different views and assessments would be brought together for a final assessment. It is important to involve professionals from very different disciplines, including those not represented on a scientific committee. I have mentioned ethics, and I would mention psychology as well. I am told that triangulation and my reference to an ethicist is part of existing practice, but I am seeking assurances for the future. It may be trite, but it is true that one can take absolutely at face value everything that is said about current practice—but the current Government will not always be the Government. One does not know what may happen in the future. It is harder to change legislation than it is to change practice, which is why one goes for the changes in legislation.
I also asked the Minister—I do not think he has covered this—about the benefit of the doubt given to the claimant, which we were told is existing practice. Again, one would like to see a legislative basis for this. I hope that the Minister can add to the assurances he has given on this and on other matters that other noble Lords—particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and the right reverend Prelate, who have been much involved with this issue—may raise. If so, I am not minded to divide the House.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I am speaking to Motion R1, which I will press to a vote because I am extremely disappointed that the progress made in this House on Part 5 has been undone in the other place. We must keep striving to ensure that victims of modern slavery are properly identified and supported. I am grateful for support across the House in passing my original Amendment 26. When Amendment 26 left this House, it would have provided 12 months’ statutory support to confirmed victims in England and Wales and leave to remain for those who needed it across the UK to access long-term support. In that moment, there was a glimmer of hope that victims would finally receive the vital support that evidence has shown they need. Needless to say, the hope that this support will be provided is growing increasingly faint and I am deeply disappointed that the Government have still not taken steps to put it on a statutory footing.
While it is my firm belief that support and leave to remain must go together, your Lordships will see that I have unpackaged my original amendment. I have tabled only one amendment in lieu, Amendment 26B, to provide 12 months’ statutory support to confirmed victims in England and Wales. This is not because issues of leave to remain are not important: quite the opposite. Leave to remain is critical for victims who need it to access support for their recovery. I have unpacked the two only to assist the Government in making good on their commitments to provide support. The Government are already halfway there through the assurance that we have heard reiterated multiple times in both Houses that confirmed victims in England and Wales will receive a minimum of 12 months’ support.
I have said it before; putting this in guidance is not enough. We must finish the job and put this in the Bill. The Government have said that guidance will provide flexibility. This misses the point entirely. The evidence provided by front-line workers on the need to provide at least 12 months’ support to all confirmed victims is falling on deaf ears. Of course support will rightfully be tailored to the individual, but the point stands that victims need a minimum of 12 months to begin to work through their trauma and come to terms with their exploitation.
If we support victims, they will be in a stronger position to support investigations. This will increase convictions of this heinous crime and send out a message to those criminals that they will not get away with this exploitation. The Government have continually said that leave to remain will be considered on a case-by-case basis. I am concerned that they are continuing to wriggle out of their promise to provide support in their arguments for not providing leave to remain.
That is why I have disentangled the two, to ensure that these excuses can no longer be made. Regrettably, in rejecting Amendment 26, the other place has reinstated original Clause 64, in which discretionary leave to remain criteria are narrower than the current guidance. This is truly a case of one step forward, two steps back. I would be grateful if the Minister could make a statement on the recent Court of Appeal ruling and how this will impact future decision-making on leave to remain to ensure that it is in line with the European trafficking convention. Can he also increase transparency by committing to publish statistics on leave to remain decisions for victims of modern slavery?
I will return to issues of leave to remain in the future but, for now, I urge your Lordships and those in the other place to hear what victims need on long-term support and to act accordingly to ensure they receive it by supporting Amendment 26B.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak to Motion N1. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for tabling Amendments 22B to 22F. I simply seek some assurances from the Minister on behalf of the British Dental Association, the Royal College of Nursing and the Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium.
First, when the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, sought the opinion of the House on Report, she noted that
“we need to know more about the ethical response”.—[Official Report, 8/3/22; col. 1285.]
I and others raised concerns voiced by the BMA, the BDA and others that to use dental X-rays in particular where there is no clinical justification is unethical. Yet neither in Committee nor on Report did the Minister really address this concern. Can he please do so now and provide some reassurance to these bodies and to us?
Secondly, following on from what the Minister said, can he provide an assurance that the statutory guidance will continue to make it clear that there must be reason to doubt an age claim before any age assessment is made?
Thirdly, will the Government seek and publish the agreement of the relevant medical bodies before any scientific method is approved for use? I was partially reassured by the meeting the noble Baroness referred to with the interim chair of the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee, but it is still important that formal agreement is sought from the relevant medical bodies. Can he confirm that the Minister accepts the interim committee’s recommendation that scientific advice should be used to decide whether a claimed age is possible rather than specify what that age is? Will the same principle apply to the holistic decision made in any age assessment?
With reference to the committee—this echoes what the noble Baroness said—in the Commons the Minister agreed to take away the call for it to include a practising dentist. Is the Minister in a position to give a commitment on that point today?
Finally, can the Minister provide some reassurance with regard to the insistence on the use of Home Office social workers? That has caused considerable concern among members of the consortium given their record hitherto, which has been found wanting by the courts. The lack of independence is even more worrying given Wendy Williams’s update on the Windrush Lessons Learned Review, which suggests that progress in reforming Home Office culture has some way to go. Her report says:
“I have seen limited evidence that a compassionate approach is being embedded consistently across the department”—
that is, the Home Office. Is it surprising that there is considerable suspicion of the lack of independence in what is proposed?
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lord, as a trustee of the Arise Foundation, a charity that works with people who are victims of human trafficking or modern-day slavery, I have certainly seen at first hand some of the examples that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, outlined to the House tonight. Indeed, in Committee and on Report I was privileged to be a signatory to the amendments that he laid before your Lordships’ House. This evening I will briefly support Amendment 26B, because I believe that he is right that guidance alone is not enough and that something has to be placed on a statutory basis.
I also agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said in her remarks about Part 5. It has no place in this Bill at all. It should not be in this Bill—it should have been exorcised much earlier. I think all of us have a great sense of regret that it is still there this evening, even more so when we consider that there is a new Act of Parliament waiting in the wings—we are going to get new legislation on this issue. How much better it would be if we did what the noble Lord, Lord Horam, said to us earlier this evening and went through the normal process of consultation with the equivalent of Green Papers and White Papers, and saw the debates we have been having on this part of the legislation as something to prepare us for that legislation when it is laid before your Lordships’ House. It is putting the cart before the horse. The Government have said in their most recent Bill fact sheet on modern-day slavery that they recognise that
“victims of modern slavery may have had periods of high vulnerability and … multiple, complex needs”
or
“experience multiple forms of exploitation at different points in time”.
If that is so—I believe it is—we need the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl.
Lord Morrow (DUP)
My Lords, I too rise this evening to speak in support of the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I fully supported his Amendment 26 last month and will continue to support him in his work to ensure that victims of modern slavery are given the practical care they need to begin to recover from their abuse.
I am pleased to support his Amendment 26B in lieu, as it is similar to a provision agreed by the Northern Ireland Assembly a few weeks ago to give confirmed victims long-term support. I am proud to say that the Assembly is once again leading the way—it does not always do that—on support for victims, as it did in 2015 when my Private Member’s Bill became the first comprehensive human trafficking legislation in any region of the United Kingdom.
As the noble Lord, Lord McColl, rightly pointed out, this proposal for long-term support in England and Wales is not a new commitment that the Government do not support. They have made it clear they do—but they are not willing to go beyond guidance. I urge the Minister to reconsider. I hope the Government will support the noble Lord’s amendment and not see England and Wales fall behind again.
I put on record my disappointment that the Government have not been willing to move on leave to remain for victims who are not British citizens and who do not have secure immigration status. The intention of Amendment 26 was that victims who are eligible for long-term support would be given temporary leave to remain to ensure that they could remain in the UK to access this support to help them recover from their exploitation, to prevent their retrafficking, and for them to co-operate with police and prosecutors. The need for that leave to remain has come into even clearer focus for victims in Northern Ireland who will now be able to get longer-term support but might not be able to remain in the country to receive it. I hope your Lordships’ House will return to this issue and not forget the needs of victims of exploitation for security and certainty for their recovery. In the meantime, I shall support the noble Lord’s amendment if it is pressed this evening.
Lord Harris of Haringey (Lab)
My Lords, I intervene briefly in support of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the remarks made by my noble friend Lady Lister. In doing so, I declare my interest as chair of the General Dental Council. In that capacity, I had a meeting with the British Dental Association earlier today, not specifically about this issue, but the British Dental Association is still very exercised by it.
I again pursue an issue I raised on Report, to which I have not seen a satisfactory response: the precise terms under which consent will be known to exist in respect of certain scientific procedures being carried out. For example, if there is to be a dental X-ray, will freely given consent be obtained from the individuals concerned? By “freely given” I mean not under duress. The reality is that young people who are fearful of not having their rights accepted are hardly likely to give their consent willingly. Can the Minister tell us exactly how we can be reassured that that consent will be freely given and that it will genuinely be the case that if somebody does not give consent that will not be in some way held against them elsewhere? The reason why this matters is that for a professional, whether a dental professional or any other professional, to carry out a medical procedure, including a dental X-ray, without that free consent is unethical and against all professional standards. It is an extremely important point.
Can we also have clarity about whether it will always be an appropriate professional who will carry out the necessary scientific assessment? If, for example, someone employed by the Home Office or some other agency carries out an X-ray or whatever without being an appropriate professional, that is a criminal offence. I would really like clarity on whether the Government have thought through these ethical and professional issues in terms of these clauses and in rejecting the amendment passed by your Lordships’ House that was moved on Report by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, before I move on to Part 5, I will speak briefly to Motion N1 on Part 4 and age assessments. I support the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and supported by my noble friend Lady Lister. I pay tribute to them for their work on this issue.
In the Commons, the Conservative MP Peter Aldous raised the concerns we have just heard of the British Dental Association on ethical, health and accuracy grounds about using X-rays for age assessment purposes. In response, the Minister could not even give a commitment that a dentist would be included on the planned oversight committee for the policy, as my noble friend Lady Lister has just pointed out. It seems to me that what is being asked is perfectly reasonable and moderate: that before a method is approved as somehow being scientific, advice is taken by experts in the field. It is remarkable that these concerns have to be raised.
I will concentrate my remarks on Part 5, but first I declare my interest as a research fellow at the University of Nottingham’s Rights Lab, and as a trustee of the Human Trafficking Foundation.
I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for pointing out, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, have done, that it is quite remarkable that a series of changes to the modern slavery legislation is included in an immigration Act. That is unbelievable. I say to Conservative Members, indeed to all Members of this House, that the Modern Slavery Act 2015—I got it out and read it again—is a signpost piece of legislation of which we are all proud, and one of the legacies of Prime Minister Theresa May.
Throughout our debates and in the amendments that we are debating now, we are trying to improve a piece of legislation that should not be in here—but, having said that, we will try to improve it. For example, the House voted to remove Clause 58 in its entirety from the Bill. There was recognition of the dangers of penalising a victim for not meeting a deadline to disclose information. It can be difficult for a victim to even recognise themselves as a victim, let alone to process and communicate that trauma to a deadline.
The Bill provides that credibility will not be damaged where a person has a good reason for late compliance, but we struggled throughout the Bill to get certainty on what counts as a good reason. It was our belief that the authorities should not be instructed to consider a victim’s credibility damaged because they might have disclosed information about what they had been subject to—human trafficking, exploitation or modern slavery—a little late.
Therefore, we strongly welcome the step taken by the Government today to exempt at least child victims from this clause; we welcome the amendment that the Minister has just brought before us. I recognise that the Government have listened to some of the concerns raised and have moved some way on this issue. We are grateful to them for that. For that reason, we will not seek to vote again on Clause 58 today, since we have narrowed our focus to, as the Minister pointed out, key issues where there is still need for further movement from the Government.
This leads us to Motions S and S1, which focus in greater detail on child victims of trafficking. We are talking about children here, and my Amendment 27B would put in the Bill that the best interests of the child must be primary in all decisions about child victims. I do not understand why that is not a reasonable thing to include in the Bill. Also, it would not allow slavery and trafficking notices to be served on a victim under the age of 18. You could have a child of 12 or 13, or even younger, being given an information notice to be complied with—not late notice now; they will not be penalised for that—and being required to present an information notice about the circumstances of their trafficking. It is ridiculous that we are asking children to do that.
My amendment would also exempts children from restrictions under Clauses 61 and 62, so that they have access to additional recovery periods if they are re-trafficked and are not covered by public order provisions. It would provide that child victims can have leave to remain, to give them time to access support as well as supporting prosecutions against their traffickers. Finally, it would ensure that the burden of proof for a child victim to enter the NRM is not heightened by the Bill, so that no extra barriers are put in place to a child victim being recognised by the system.
It is worth pointing out again that child victims constituted 43% of the referrals to the NRM. That is what we are talking about—nearly a majority of those referred to the NRM were children. The Office for National Statistics says that, in the UK, 24,675 children have been referred to the NRM since 2009—a frankly unbelievable figure. That is why it is so important that, although the Government have moved on this, there must be more done to protect children and child victims of trafficking.
Our original Amendment 27 provided that a trafficking notice could not be served where a person had experienced exploitation while they were under 18. In the Commons, the Minister, Tom Pursglove, said when a trafficking notice was served on a person the precise timeline or date of their exploitation would not be known, so it would not be possible to exempt people based on when their exploitation took place. In light of that, we have amended subsection (2) of our proposed new clause to specify that a trafficking notice cannot be served on a person under the age of 18. In these cases, there is no question that the exploitation took place while this person was a child, because they are still under 18 years of age.
Another argument put forward by the Minister in the Commons is that our clause provides protection for children yet not for other victims. Of course, we are seeking to provide specific protection for children; that is the responsible way to make law. It is crucial to recognise that the Government have now moved to exempt children in respect of Clause 58 so that, as I have said, they will not be penalised. That is important for two reasons. I am hugely grateful to the Minister for the concession; it also shows that the Government now accept that in certain cases it is right to recognise child victims for what they are—exploited, traumatised children—and to exempt them from the provisions of this part. We do that in every area of law; we provide differently for children than for adults. It is important that we do the same with respect to modern slavery; we are asking the Government for further concessions on that.
It is most important that we resolve the part relating to Motions Q and Q1 as well. The anti-slavery commissioner has said that the Government’s proposals make it harder to prosecute people traffickers. The Government recognise that it is common for victims to be criminally exploited and so have a criminal record as part of their exploitation. Our replacement for Clause 62 therefore seeks to protect children and adults—all victims of slavery—against being penalised for having been at some point criminally exploited.
The key issue raised by Ministers about our original amendment is that it did not provide a definition of who could be considered a threat to public order. So, our Amendment 25B provides that a person is considered a threat if they have been convicted of a terrorism offence; it also requires the Secretary of State to consult within a year on whether further offences listed under Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act should be added to this definition. In other words, we have made an important concession in that we understand the need for a definition and that the Home Office is debating what that definition should be. Rather than hold up the Bill, let us have a situation where, within one year of this Act coming into force, the Government must come forward with a consultation on whether a person convicted of any offence listed in Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015, other than a terrorism offence, should be considered as presenting
“an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order”.
We have tried to be reasonable, but we say to the Government again that excluding victims of trafficking from the NRM on the basis that at some point they have had a minor conviction for a crime does not recognise the reality of the situation in which these victims find themselves.
To conclude on this, I say to the Minister that if he were a victim of slavery, he, like me, would in many instances be forced into criminal action. As it stands, the Bill will penalise those people and prevent them from getting the support that should be given to them under the NRM. That is not acceptable. It is not in the spirit of the Modern Slavery Act, nor what the Government themselves would want to happen.
Finally, on the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord McColl, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for the work that he has done on this over so many years. It is an important amendment; frankly, it is disappointing and unbelievable that the Government have not accepted his effort to ensure that people get the support they deserve for 12 months. I hope that your Lordships will support the noble Lord, Lord McColl, as we will, if it comes to a Division.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
With that exhortation from behind me ringing in my ears, I step forward to address the points made by noble Lords from across the House in a further interesting and wide-ranging debate. I will touch first on age assessment.
It is important to stress at the outset that the purpose of setting up a scientific advisory committee is that the Government should receive guidance from it. The consideration of what scientific methods of age assessment should be used, if any, is at the preliminary stage. The Government propose to be guided by the body which has been set up on an interim basis to provide them with advice. The Government are not seeking to compel any member of any profession to take part in any practice which offends that person’s ethical sensibilities, whether individually or as a member of a scientific or professional body. No compulsion can be contemplated as a means of obliging anyone to carry out a particular step.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, raised the issue of the identity of personnel carrying out particular steps, and I assure him from the Dispatch Box that only an appropriately qualified person would be asked to carry out the sort of testing that he discussed which, reflecting his specific area of expertise, related to dentistry.
I do not at this stage give any undertaking as to the constituent members of the committee which, as your Lordships have heard, is set up at the moment on an interim basis. However, it is very much in the way in which such bodies of learned people carry out their work that they will call for additional evidence and support from people skilled in specific disciplines where they feel there is any gap in their expertise which might properly be filled.
Reference was made by two noble Baronesses who participated in this debate to the meeting, in which I participated, with the noble Baroness, Lady Black, the interim head of the interim committee which has been set up. I invite the House to reflect on a number of aspects of the discussion we had with the noble Baroness which, for the benefit of Members who were not present at that electronic discussion, I will now précis. There are anxious discussions being carried out by professionals and academics within the committee, who compass this wide range of academic and professional disciplines, about what may be appropriate to carry out as—I gratefully adopt the phrase used by noble Baroness, Lady Black—a triangulation of methodologies in relation to the critical assessment of the age of a young person, where that is contested or where there is reasonable ground to believe that the age offered is inaccurate.
I interrupt myself to answer a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett. Yes, the parameters within which a decision will be taken are those set out at that meeting. There is no attempt to say that any one method can arrive with any degree of certainty at a specific age, whether expressed in years or months. As the noble Baroness suggested to the House, the matter is whether the scientific expertise can place a person so that the claimed age is possible. I am happy to assure the noble Baroness on that basis.
Noble Lords will also recollect that, in the context of that discussion, the noble Baroness, Lady Black, brought out certain matters which we have discussed in this House at earlier stages. I stress that she pointed out that the very prolongation of testing and interviews under the current regime—perhaps “testing” is the wrong word; “assessment” might be better when referring to Merton-compliant procedures, which your Lordships may well recollect from previous stages and which relate to a series of interviews—and repeated rehearsal of information that might be of a sensitive character and might oblige the person to relate traumatic events, is itself a source of harm. The scientific methodology that the Government have tasked this interim committee to look into is anticipated as serving two functions: to provide for that triangulation of methodologies, and to provide—as I have said on previous occasions to your Lordships—additional information to assist in that difficult process which currently falls exclusively upon the shoulders of social workers. It is not, and has never been argued as being, a means by which some value or accuracy can be ascribed to scientific testing, which we acknowledge it does not have.
None the less, as I have said, these methodologies are used in other places in Europe. Their use is widespread, and the United Kingdom is unusual in not using them. Given the nature of the problems that we face and the nature of the trauma from which people may be escaping—and which may be caused by the mere fact of having to rehearse events earlier in their lives—we consider it incumbent upon us to do what we can to shorten that process, at all times acknowledging the overriding importance of fairness to the persons involved.
I am not in a position to commit to there being a member of any specific profession on the committee, whether in its interim iteration or later on. However, as I said earlier, in the way of these things, it will be for the committee to call for additional expertise to support its working and to allow it to provide conclusions—
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
I think that we are going backwards because, in the Commons, the Minister said that he would take away this point and look into it, but now the noble and learned Lord seems to be saying that it is enough to be able to call on expertise from outside. Can he take this away and think a bit further about the membership of the committee, including dentists?
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness and was not aware of the remarks to which she referred. If the Minister in the other place has given an undertaking that he will go away and think about it, I will certainly row back from what I said—that it would be more of a matter of leaving it to the committee to say. If an undertaking has been given to revisit the matter, I am happy to depart from what I have said already.
We recognise the strength of feeling in the House about these matters. In particular, we recognise the strength of feeling about the ethical questions that arise out of the application of scientific techniques from which no therapeutic value flows directly—as was said at earlier stages in the debate. However, I repeat that our intention is to be guided by the views of the scientific committee which has been established. For that reason, at this stage, we cannot support the amendments, and we stand by the clauses which we have already tabled for the reasons I have set out.
On the matter of modern slavery, I will consider together Motions P, Q, R and S. I begin by commending to your Lordships’ House the government amendment that will exempt the credibility provisions in this part of the Bill from people who were under 18 at the time when they were most recently served with a slavery or trafficking information notice. But I say again that we cannot accept amendments to other clauses in this part. It is vital, I submit, that we are able to withhold the protections afforded by the national referral mechanism from dangerous individuals. I will not rehearse what I said in my opening submission about the manner in which the amendment as framed restricts too narrowly our scope for investigation. I consider it is not appropriate for me to make any concession to the noble Lord on this point, recognising though I do the principled basis upon which he has addressed the House, at this stage and previously in our deliberations.
With the utmost respect to my noble friend Lord McColl of Dulwich, we consider that the provision of a minimum of 12 months’ appropriate, tailored support to all those who receive a positive conclusive grounds decision and are in need of specific support is appropriate; it is “tailored” in the sense that it is directed to the individual facts and circumstances of the person in question. We do not think his amendment, as with that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, is necessary.
On the verge of resuming my seat, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, for doing us the courtesy of contacting us by email and submitting a list of questions, which she went over in the course of her speech. I am greatly obliged to her for taking that step, which has enabled me to curtail my submissions at this stage still further.
Baroness Hamwee (LD)
My Lords, with regard to the questions around age assessment, and particularly the role of a dentist in all of this, the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said it is remarkable that these concerns have to be raised. I would say it is remarkable that they have had to be raised again. There was the exchange in the Commons—I will come to that in a moment—and after the Commons debate on the Lords amendments, I asked about this, not on the Floor of the House; I have not heard.
In the debate in the Commons, in reply to a question about whether the process would include a practising dentist, the Minister, Tom Pursglove, said:
“I know that he has discussed this issue with the Home Secretary separately”—
I had forgotten that. He continued:
“I am not in a position to give … a firm undertaking today, but we will certainly take away and consider that particular point, and perhaps we could remain in contact on it.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/22; cols. 264-65.]
As we have not heard any sort of assurance, I assume that this has not progressed any further.
The noble and learned Lord the Minister made the point that the Government do not appoint a body, interim or otherwise, of such illustrious people without listening to it. Government advisers have been known to have their advice ignored or dismissed. However, very reluctantly, I will not press this, so I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 23 and 24, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 23A and 24A, but do propose Amendment 24B in lieu—
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 25, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 25A.
“Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection
(1) This section applies to the construction and application of Article 13 of the Trafficking Convention.
(2) A competent authority may determine that it is not bound to observe the minimum recovery period under section 60 of this Act in respect of a person in relation to whom a positive reasonable grounds decision has been made if the authority is satisfied that it is prevented from doing so—
(a) as a result of an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order, or
(b) because the person is claiming to be a victim of modern slavery improperly.
(3) For the purposes of section (2)(a), a person is considered as presenting an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order where the person has been convicted of a terrorist offence.
(4) The Secretary of State must, within one year of this Act coming into force—
(a) prepare and publish a consultation on whether a person convicted of any offence listed in Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015, other than a terrorist offence, should be considered as presenting an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order for the purposes of section (2)(a); and
(b) lay a response to the consultation before each House of Parliament.
(5) In subsection (3), “terrorist offence” means any of the following (whenever committed)—
(a) an offence listed in—
(i) Schedule A1 to the Sentencing Code (terrorism offences: England and Wales), or
(ii) Schedule 1A to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (terrorism offences: Scotland and Northern Ireland);
(b) an offence that was determined to have a terrorist connection under—
(i) section 69 of the Sentencing Code (in the case of an offender sentenced in England and Wales), or
(ii) section 30 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (in the case of an offender sentenced in Northern Ireland, or an offender sentenced in England and Wales before the Sentencing Code applied);
(c) an offence that has been proved to have been aggravated by reason of having a terrorist connection under section 31 of the Counter Terrorism Act 2008 (in the case of an offender sentenced in Scotland).
(6) Any determination made under subsection (2) must only be made—
(a) in exceptional circumstances,
(b) where necessary and proportionate to the threat posed, and
(c) following an assessment of all the circumstances of the case.
(7) A determination made under subsection (2) must not be made where it would breach—
(a) a person’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights,
(b) the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Trafficking Convention, or
(c) the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.
(8) For the purposes of a determination under subsection (2)(b) victim status is being claimed improperly if the person knowingly and dishonestly makes a false statement without good reason, and intends by making the false statement to make a gain for themselves.
(9) A good reason for making a false statement includes, but is not limited to, circumstance where—
(a) the false statement is attributable to the person being or having been a victim of modern slavery, or
(b) any means of trafficking were used to compel the person into making a false statement.
(10) This section does not apply where the person is under 18 years at the time of the referral.
(11) Nothing in this section affects the application of section 60(2).””
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 26, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 26A.
Lord McColl of Dulwich
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 26B in lieu—
“Confirmed victims in England and Wales: assistance and support
After section 50A of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 insert—
“50B Confirmed victims etc: assistance and support
(1) This section applies if a positive conclusive grounds decision is made in respect of a person.
(2) If the person has received support under section 50A, the Secretary of State must continue to secure tailored assistance and support for that person at the end of the recovery period for at least 12 months beginning on the day the recovery period ends.
(3) Any duty under this section ceases to apply in relation to a person in respect of whom a determination is made under section 62(1) of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 (disqualification from protection).
(4) References in this section to “assistance and support”, a “conclusive grounds decision” and the “recovery period” have the same meaning as in section 50A.””
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 27, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 27A.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 40, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 40A.
Lord Murphy of Torfaen
Moved by
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 40B in lieu—
Lord Murphy of Torfaen (Lab)
My Lords, in view of the lateness of the night, I do not intend to burden the House by insisting on a vote on this issue, but I ask the Minister to liaise with his counterparts in the Northern Ireland Office to see whether a compromise can be reached on an issue that is extremely important, not just for the people of Northern Ireland but with regard to relations with the Irish Government. I therefore beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his observations. I was not present in the Chamber but I listened to his submission to your Lordships via the TV link earlier and will make sure that the points he raised are taken up by the Bill team and passed on, as he proposes.
Lord Stewart of Dirleton
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 54, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 54A.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Wednesday 20th April 2022
(1 year, 12 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 20 April 2022 - (20 Apr 2022)
17:48 - The House having divided: - Ayes: 311 / Noes: 231 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:02 - The House divided: - Ayes: 310 / Noes: 231 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:15 - The House divided: - Ayes: 309 / Noes: 225 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:27 - The House divided: - Ayes: 294 / Noes: 242 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:39 - The House divided: - Ayes: 303 / Noes: 236 - Question accordingly agreed to.
18:51 - The House divided: - Ayes: 303 / Noes: 234 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:05 - The House divided: - Ayes: 303 / Noes: 235 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:17 - The House divided: - Ayes: 306 / Noes: 231 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:29 - The House divided: - Ayes: 311 / Noes: 228 - Question accordingly agreed to.
19:43 - The House divided: - Ayes: 312 / Noes: 227 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:06 - The House divided: - Ayes: 308 / Noes: 228 - Question accordingly agreed to.
20:18 - The House divided: - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 184 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is engaged by Lords amendments 10B and 26B. If they are agreed to, I will cause the customary entry waiving Commons financial privilege to be entered in the Journal.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 4G.
Mr Deputy Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Lords amendment 5B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 6B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 7B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 7C, and Government motion to disagree,
Lords amendment 8B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 8C, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 53B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 53C, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 53D, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 10B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 11B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 13B, and Government motion to disagree and to insist on disagreement with Lords amendment 15.
Lords amendment 20B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 24B.
Lords amendment 25B, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendment 26B, and Government motion to disagree.
Before I call the Minister to speak to the Lords amendments, I must inform the House that there will be a three-minute speaking limit from the outset. That will not apply to Ministers, but they will want to be brief anyway, because they will want to be popular with Back Benchers on both sides of the House.
Tom Pursglove
I will be as brief as I can, Mr Deputy Speaker.
These are amendments that we have already debated, voted on and sent back to the other place, expressing our dissatisfaction with them.
The world is facing a crisis of migration. An estimated 80 million people are displaced by conflicts and instability around the world. Others seek to move in search of improved economic opportunities. Managing migration and welcoming and effectively supporting those most in need, while protecting borders and closing down the dangerous business of people smuggling is one of the difficult public policy challenges faced by any Government. That is why we have developed the new plan for immigration and this Bill, which is its legislative framework.
Amendments 8B and 8C require one or more returns agreements to be in place with a safe third country before the inadmissibility provisions in clause 15 can be brought into force. As I have said many times before, those in need of protection should claim in the first safe country they reach. The first safe country principle is widely recognised internationally.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
Under international law, anyone can claim asylum in any country that has signed the 1951 UN refugee convention. That convention makes it clear that people fleeing persecution can reach a country by irregular means if they are unable to use a valid visa. So, given that there is no legal way to come to the UK for the purpose of seeking asylum, does the Minister accept that the Government risk breaking international law?
Tom Pursglove
The point that I have consistently made is that the British Government act at all times in accordance with their international obligations, both under the European convention on human rights and the refugee convention. Again I make the point, because it bears repeating, that nobody needs to get into a small boat to reach safety. Everybody who is doing so is leaving what are inherently safe countries with fully functioning asylum systems. If people want to come to this country—we have a proud record of providing sanctuary here—they should do so through safe and legal routes. We have a proud record as a Government of providing safe and legal routes, reflecting the fact that there are conflicts and instability in the world and we respond to that.
Clive Lewis (Norwich South) (Lab)
The 1951 UN refugee convention is quite clear, and I do not think that the Minister has answered my hon. Friend’s question. What advice has he had that the UK Government, under this legislation, will not be breaking the UN convention on the rights of refugees?
Tom Pursglove
I can only reiterate the point that, at all times, the United Kingdom Government act in accordance with their international obligations, and that is of course something that we will continue to do. Nobody in this House or elsewhere should be encouraging people to put their lives in the hands of evil criminal gangs or to make these dangerous channel crossings. We saw in November the consequences when that happens.
Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)
Could my hon. Friend set out for the House what the safe and legal routes are, apart from the now closed route from Syria, the route under the scheme from Afghanistan and the current Ukraine scheme?
Tom Pursglove
In terms of various schemes, as I say, we have a rich and proud history in this country of providing sanctuary to people from around the world who require it. That has included 40,000 people being sorted out through the family reunion route, 20,000 Syrians and 100,000 Hong Kongers. Also, 20,000 Afghans are eligible to come and 60,000 Ukrainians so far have had visas granted. I think that is a record that we can be very proud of as a Government, and it is one we will continue to build on in the years ahead.
The first safe country principle is a fundamental feature of the common European asylum system. I have already set out the issue of inadmissibility. By enforcing this part of the Bill, we are taking the battle to the people smugglers and showing them that their horrible business will be made unviable. For that important reason, we cannot agree to this amendment. Hon. Members have already voted against the amendment, prompting the Lords to bring a further amendment adding a time limit of five years to get agreements in place. That does not address the issues we have with this—namely, it is right to allow for removals to be sought on a case-by-case basis where appropriate.
Tom Pursglove
I am conscious that I need to make some progress and that time is short, but I will give way to my hon. Friend, and then to the hon. Gentleman.
Simon Hoare
A safe route would kill the evil traffic of people smuggling at a stroke. That is one way of dealing with it. I fail to see how moving people to Rwanda will in any way disrupt these people traffickers’ money-making schemes. They will just use different routes to land people on our shores. I am just not getting it, I am afraid.
Tom Pursglove
I am always grateful to my hon. Friend for his considered interventions and for the thought and care that he takes in making his arguments. I respectfully disagree with him on this point. I will come on to say more about this later in my remarks, when I will be able to set out precisely why that is the case.
Lloyd Russell-Moyle
Further to the points that have been made, will the Minister outline what, for example, a Kurdish Syrian who is stuck in Turkey would do? Britain recognises that Turkey is oppressive to Kurds. It is further bombing Kurdish camps, as we speak, in northern Iraq and northern Syria. The majority of people on boat crossings in recent months have been Kurdish and, in particular, they have had the highest number of deaths on those dangerous boat crossings. Will he explain how those people, who often have links to the UK, provide a positive contribution to the UK and have often fought alongside British forces in Syria, can seek asylum here in Britain without the Government opening up proper, safe and legal routes in embassies and visa-processing centres across Europe? Surely that would be the answer to stopping boat crossings, not this other nonsense.
Tom Pursglove
I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion about allowing people to claim asylum at embassies and consulates around the world. We would find that very considerable numbers of people arrive at embassies and consulates to do so and, of course, individuals who are not granted asylum would, in all likelihood, still seek to come to the United Kingdom through small boat crossings, so I do not think that that would actually solve the issue, as he believes it would.
We also have the global resettlement scheme. We continue to look at what more we can do in that space to provide sanctuary and opportunities for people. Many views are expressed in this House about our departure from the European Union. One of the biggest safe and legal routes—the biggest, in fact—is the skills-based immigration system that we now have in this country, whereby people from around the world can apply to come to the United Kingdom. That broad eligibility is very welcome, and people from across the globe can come to the UK through that route.
Several hon. Members rose—
Tom Pursglove
I will make some progress but I will gladly give way later. The Government continue to work with international partners to ensure removals of people with no right to be in our country.
To turn to Lords amendment 4G, although the Government have accepted Lord Anderson of Ipswich’s amendments that introduced further safeguards to the deprivation of citizenship power, a further amendment was tabled by Baroness D’Souza that removed the provisions protecting the validity of deprivation orders made before the Bill’s commencement and alleging that they offered individuals no right of redress. That is simply not the case. These provisions explicitly ensured that anyone affected by the retrospective provision would still have a right of appeal, but removing them from the clause could cast doubt on the validity of deprivation orders already made before the provisions come into effect. That poses an unacceptable threat to the UK’s safety and security, as it could enable dangerous individuals to regain their British citizenship and thus the freedom to come and go as they please in the UK. Our position on that has not changed. I make it absolutely clear that we cannot allow that unnecessary security risk to happen.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Will the Minister explain a bit more about why he thinks that that proposal poses such a danger? All the Home Office has to do is make the same decisions again. I think we are talking about 50 or 60 decisions, but this will mean that the proper safeguards are in place.
Tom Pursglove
I would argue that the safeguards that we have accepted, which Lord Anderson proposed with real sincerity, a real interest, expertise and experience in these matters, strike the right balance between keeping our people in this country safe from harm—that is, of course, the first duty of any Government and a responsibility that we take incredibly seriously—while making sure that there is judicial oversight of the process and that, as part of the Home Office’s work, we have internal checks to ensure that the powers will be used appropriately.
Lords amendment 5B relates to the compliance of part 2 of the Bill with the refugee convention. The Bill—I insist on this in the strongest terms—is compatible with all of our obligations under international law. Our position has not changed and we do not consider it necessary to put this on the face of this Bill.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Tim Loughton
I am very grateful—I am not optimistic about getting three minutes to speak, so I thought that I would intervene now.
The Minister knows that I will support the Government on the tough measures to clamp down on this vile trade across the channel, but he also knows that I think they should be tempered with the greater availability of safe and legal routes, particularly along the lines of family reunion. He kindly offered a meeting to me at the Dispatch Box the last time that we debated that. I hope that we will get that in time, before the legislation goes through. He knows that I will support again the Dubs amendment—Lords amendment 10B—because Lord Dubs has now changed it to focus exclusively on providing a safe route for unaccompanied children in Europe seeking protection and reunification with family in the UK. What more does Lord Dubs have to do to make that acceptable to the Government? I think it should be acceptable now.
Tom Pursglove
As I said last time we debated these matters, my hon. Friend cares passionately about this issue. I look forward to our meeting tomorrow, and I am keen to hear his suggestions and ideas. I will, of course, address his substantive point later in my remarks.
Amendment 6B would make the Government’s plan of differentiation unworkable, and it goes against one of the fundamental points of the Bill, which is to deter people from making dangerous and unnecessary journeys. I am sure I speak for all hon. Members when I say that we want to see a stop to all such journeys to the UK, and therefore we cannot support the amendment.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Tom Pursglove
I must make some progress, as I am conscious that quite a lot of hon. Members want to speak in this debate. I will try to take my hon. Friend’s intervention later if I can.
Amendments 7B and 7C would allow people claiming asylum, and their adult dependants, the right to work in six months, rather than the current 12 months, and would remove the condition restricting jobs, for those allowed to work, to those on the shortage occupation list. These amendments would allow people to undermine the economic migration scheme by lodging an asylum claim, and they could also encourage channel crossings.
The Government want to see claims settled within six months so that people can get on with rebuilding their life, which includes working. We are making every effort to ensure this is a reality under the wider new plan for immigration. I therefore advise the House that we cannot accept the amendments.
Sir Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)
Does my hon. Friend accept that Lords amendments 7B and 7C have been qualified to make the proper concession that people seeking asylum should not be given preferential treatment to those who already have refugee status and that there is a built-in review period? I and others have said on many occasions that there is simply no evidence to suggest that a limited right to work is a pull factor. We are following what Denmark does with regard to Rwanda, so why do we not do the same with regard to a limited right to work?
Tom Pursglove
I am concerned that the evil criminal gangs miss no opportunity to try to market a vision of coming to the United Kingdom, and I think there is a powerful dynamic to the issue of work in the conversations between the people smugglers and the individuals whose trade they seek to engage. I will, of course, continue to engage with my right hon. and learned Friend on this issue.
I recognise that colleagues both in this House and in the other place have strong views on these matters, which must always be considered very carefully. Again, I do not want to do anything that encourages people to make these dangerous crossings of the channel. I think the best way to resolve this issue is to transform the casework to get it right so that this is not an issue in the first place.
Amendment 10B would create a new Dubs-style immigration rule to allow unaccompanied children in Europe who have UK family links to be admitted to the UK to claim asylum. This amendment creates a more favourable approach to refugee family reunion for those who are already in Europe, which is clearly unfair. Beyond that, these children would enter the asylum system upon arrival, which costs money to process, when our current family reunion rules are more generous and grant leave.
This is a single global approach to family reunion that does not encourage what are often dangerous journeys into Europe. If relationships break down, as does happen, these children would enter the care system as looked-after children, adding additional cost to the taxpayer when we currently have children in hotels awaiting care placements.
Additionally, subsection (1) could be interpreted more broadly, creating a risk that it would apply to a much broader group—at its broadest, requiring us to make provision for people of all ages to come to the UK to claim asylum. This is probably not the intention of the noble Lord Dubs, but it would be very undesirable for such an ambiguous provision to make its way on to the statute book. The cost of such global provision, most broadly interpreted, would be staggering.
Tom Pursglove
I will make some progress, as it is important that hon. Members have the opportunity to speak in this debate.
Lords amendment 11B focuses on setting a target for the number of refugees the UK would resettle each year. Our view has long been that the number of refugees and people in need of protection we resettle each year must be based on our capacity and our assessment of the international situation. That has not changed. As such, we do not think the Lords amendment is necessary. On Lords amendment 13B, I thank the other place for understanding that there is a need to be able to prosecute criminals who seek to evade immigration controls and return to the UK, but the amendment is too narrow in its scope, to the point where it would not allow for the prosecution of someone attempting to arrive in the UK who has previously been excluded from the UK on national security grounds. Limiting the amended offence to cover only those who arrive in breach of a deportation order would also prevent the prosecution of arriving passengers in egregious cases when there are aggravating factors that show that prosecution is in the public interest. As such, the amendment would still compromise our plans to enhance the security of our borders and so we cannot accept it. I also appreciate those in the other place for their detailed consideration of clause 40. However, by proposing Lords amendment 20B and replacing “for gain” with a statutory defence of “without reasonable excuse”, they would compromise our plans to enhance our ability to prosecute people smugglers. The amendment would simply add a new barrier to successful prosecutions and create uncertainty, as appropriate defences are already provided in common law, such as “acting under duress”.
I turn next to the modern slavery amendments. Lords amendment 25B is too narrow and does not fulfil the aims of the original clause; it will not protect the system for tackling modern slavery from those who present a threat to public order or risk to national security. The amended definition does not include individuals who have been served with terrorism notices, who have been involved in terrorism-related activity or who otherwise pose a risk to national security, nor does it include individuals who have been convicted of serious criminal offences such as manslaughter, murder, violent acts and sexual offences. Having listened to concerns raised, we have provided further detail in the House of Lords about the proportionate approach we will take to implement this measure and clarity on the mitigating factors that will be taken into account as part of the case-by-case approach, but we cannot agree to the amendment.
On Lords amendment 26, the Government’s unshakeable position is that support should be provided on the basis of need, tailored to the individual and their personal circumstances. During the passage of the Bill, we have committed that, where necessary, all those who receive a positive conclusive grounds decision and are in need of specific support will receive appropriate tailored support for a minimum of 12 months. What still concerns us about this amendment is that it moves us away from taking an individualised, needs-based approach to the provision of support, so we cannot support it.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith (Chingford and Woodford Green) (Con)
I recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns about this, but the main point to be taken from it—I hope to speak about this later—is the reality that right now this minimum period is interrupted constantly by reviews and inquiries and so they destabilise the ones we need to help. Will he look at this again before we go any further and discuss it with me, so that we may look at something stronger?
Tom Pursglove
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention and long-standing interest in this issue. He and I, along with other Ministers, share a common goal in wanting to bring to justice the individuals responsible for this heinous criminality of people trafficking. We are very willing to engage on this. One thing we have discussed in meetings is an openness and willingness to engage on the guidance in place on these matters. As I have said before in this House, there are further opportunities coming on the issue of modern slavery and we are keen to ensure that he is involved in that discussion and dialogue, along with the charitable organisations he works with, to make sure that we get this right, because there is a moral imperative to bring these people to justice. We all want to make sure that individuals are getting the care and support they need to help facilitate that important process.
Margaret Ferrier (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Ind)
Does the Minister agree that any legislation touching on modern slavery must recognise that it takes human beings time to process trauma and gain an ability to talk about it? By imposing arbitrary deadlines for victims to declare that they are victims, which many may not really understand themselves, the Government are punishing and further victimising, where they should be supporting. That is particularly true in respect of children or survivors of sexual trauma.
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this point. I can give her the reassurance that at all times a trauma-based approach is taken when dealing with these matters, and rightly so, because the horrendous experiences that people have had are unthinkable and unimaginable. We have only to speak to survivors to realise the enormous impact that these events have on them. It is right that we respond in a way that is appropriate and sensitive to people’s circumstances. That principle will continue to underpin all the work we do. On the late provision of information, good reasons will apply at all times and proper account will be taken of individual circumstances and the reasons why individuals have not been able to provide timely information.
Let me conclude by addressing Lords amendments 53B, 53C and 53D. As colleagues will be aware, last week my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced a world-first deal with Rwanda. The UK and Rwanda migration and economic development partnership addresses the shared international challenge of illegal migration and will help to break the business model of evil people-smuggling gangs. Those who make dangerous, illegal or unnecessary journeys to claim asylum in the UK may now be relocated to Rwanda, which will take responsibility for processing their claims and, if they are recognised as refugees, building their lives there.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Minister says the proposal is to break the business model of people smugglers; he will know that his Department’s own impact assessment said that
“evidence supporting the effectiveness of this approach is limited”,
and went on to say that it was potentially counterproductive. Where is his evidence for the policy?
Tom Pursglove
I profoundly disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He and I debated these matters many times in Committee and it is fair to say that the approach he advocates is in essence a charter to do nothing. I do not think it is acceptable to stand back, throw our hands in the air and say that this is all too difficult. We have to take action. The new plan for immigration is delivering meaningful change and I genuinely believe it will make a difference. Of course, such considerations often require consideration of the number of people who come here, the flow and all the pertinent and relevant issues. It is difficult to predict the number of people who will come at any given point in time. I believe we are introducing meaningful changes that will dramatically shift the dial and, ultimately, help to preserve lives.
Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)
The Minister knows, because we have discussed the matter several times since the announcement, that a lot of my constituents are very concerned about the Rwanda partnership deal, as am I, but the truth is that how we will operate the scheme is as yet unknown. Many have conflated the issue in respect of last week’s announcement with this Bill. Will the Minister assure me that the legislation that enables the partnership predates this Bill and this Government? Will he also reassure me and my constituents in respect of the screening programme and specifically how LGBTQ people will interact with it? There are many concerns about that and our friends in Rwanda.
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend always raises pertinent issues on behalf of his constituents in Winchester. As the Home Secretary set out yesterday, the legal basis for the policy is the new Labour—I know it is not fashionable to talk about new Labour on the Opposition Benches—policies of 1999, 2002 and 2004, when the Labour party had a genuine and thorough position on these matters that I am afraid is not in place today, when we hear a lot of criticism but no meaningful alternative is brought forward to address the issues. For the reasons I have set out, I argue that we have to take action to address the terrible criminality that puts lives at risk. That argument underpins the legislation.
Sir Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)
My hon. Friend asks whether there is an alternative to the Rwanda scheme, which I accept is not directly part of this legislation. The salary of an immigration tribunal judge—a first-tier tribunal judge—is £117,000. If we put on oncosts, even most generously we get £200,000. So far, £120 million has been committed to the Rwanda scheme; around 600 first-tier tribunal judges could be bought for that, or any number of hundreds of Home Office caseworkers. Given that the Cart legislation is now quite rightly being restricted, surely a constructive alternative would be to invest in the current system.
Tom Pursglove
I agree with my hon. Friend in the sense that that is one intervention we need to make to improve matters considerably. We all want to see cases considered more quickly and to give people certainty either way as soon as possible. We are delivering that objective through the new plan for immigration—it is front and centre—but in itself it will not solve the issues. I genuinely believe that the approach that we are taking, through the comprehensive plan, will shift the dial, change the dynamic, and, ultimately, help us to shut down these evil criminal networks.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Going back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield) about the evidence for this policy working, does he, as a member of the Bill Committee, recall hearing evidence from the Australian Government about how offshoring worked as a system to get down the irregular migration numbers?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend is right to say that the evidence that we heard from the Australian representatives advocated the policy approach that was taken in that country. I would argue that the approach that we are taking in relation to these matters is important, too, and will help us to tackle this issue head on and help to disrupt the work of these evil criminal gangs.
On the reference to the screening process, I must go back to the fundamental point, which is that people will be relocated only if it is safe for them. That consideration will be taken in relation to every case, taking proper account of people’s circumstances. At all times, we will act in accordance with our obligations, through both the European Court of Human Rights and the refugee convention, and those obligations apply on the other side as well.
Mr David Davis (Haltemprice and Howden) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend give way on that point?
Tom Pursglove
I will give way to my right hon. Friend, but I am very conscious of the time.
Mr Davis
I will make this point quickly. Yesterday, the erstwhile Prime Minister made the point to the Home Secretary that any group identified as protected will then become incentivised to cross the channel, so, for example, if we say that families are protected, then that will create an incentive for families to cross the channel. How will my hon. Friend square that particular conundrum?
Tom Pursglove
I will not say any more over and above that which I have already set out this afternoon. Moreover, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary provided further detail on this yesterday, and I refer the House to the points that she made.
This bespoke international agreement is in full compliance with domestic and international law. Rwanda is a state party to the 1951 refugee convention and the seven core UN human rights conventions, with a strong history of supporting refugees. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear yesterday that this partnership is the type of international co-operation that we need to make the global immigration system fairer, keep people safe, and give them opportunities to flourish. This is just one part of the system-wide reform that we promised to deliver in the new plan for immigration.
The objective of the Rwanda partnership announced last week is to create a mechanism for the relocation of individuals whose claims are not being considered by the UK—the inadmissible—to Rwanda, which will then process their claims. However, in future, we may wish to extend eligibility for overseas processing to those who have otherwise abused the UK’s asylum system, beyond undertaking dangerous or unnecessary journeys. That is the intention of this measure, which will make it easier for us to remove those who have pending asylum claims to another country for their claims to be processed.
Let me remind the House—I have set this out already, but it bears repeating—that the powers set out in clause 28 via schedule 3 are not new. For nearly 20 years, it has been possible under UK law to remove individuals from the UK while their asylum claim is pending if a certificate is issued under schedule 3 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc) Act 2004. The measure in the Bill amends existing legal frameworks to make it easier to remove such individuals without going through a certification process, provided the country to which they are being removed meets the safety criteria that we have set out in the Bill. It is important to bear in mind that the asylum system is already very expensive. At an annual cost of around £1.5 billion, it is the highest in more than two decades. Every day, the cost of the broken system on hotels alone is nearly £5 million. We therefore cannot accept these amendments.
I thank hon. Members from both sides of the House for their attendance at this important debate today. I urge them to consider that this Bill is what the British people have given us a mandate to deliver and to vote with the Government to send a message to the other place that what has been proposed is not accepted by this House. The Bill secures our borders, ensures that those who need our help will receive it and, as each of us here sincerely want, will save countless lives being risked crossing the channel each and every day when people traffickers realise that this is not a viable occupation for them any more.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Multiple votes will begin no later than 5.48 pm.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Our country deserves an asylum system that offers the public confidence that the Government are in control of it, that is fair and consistent, and that is based on showing compassion to those who are fleeing for their lives. The legislation before us today fails not only to meet those basic principles, but to address the specific challenges we face.
The Bill will not deter dangerous journeys across the English channel. Indeed, the Independent Anti-Slavery Commissioner and top police chief have said repeatedly that it will make it harder, not easier, to prosecute people smugglers. It will not tackle the 12,000-long queue of Afghan refugees loyal to Britain who are currently languishing in hotels, alongside a further 25,000 asylum seekers, at an eye-watering cost to the British taxpayer of £4.7 million daily.
Frankly, that is a shameful state of affairs, exacting an awful cost on communities and placing an awful financial burden on the taxpayer. It is caused by this Home Secretary, on whose watch we have seen a staggering 60% drop in processed claims. Since the Bill was last before this House, the amendments have changed, but so has the context. The legislation before us today must now be debated against the backdrop of the Government’s Rwanda offloading agreement, which was announced last week in a desperate attempt to distract attention from all the lawbreaking in Downing Street.
Jacob Young
Can the shadow Minister give us a simple yes or no on whether the Labour party supports the Rwanda plan?
Stephen Kinnock
I can give a very simple answer: the Labour party does not support the Rwanda plan, for reasons that I am about to set out.
Labour supports all the amendments before us today that seek to mitigate the worst excesses of this profoundly inadequate and mean-spirited piece of legislation, which reflects the toxic combination of incompetence and indifference that we have come to expect from this Home Secretary. The reality is that this Bill is an exercise in damage limitation—in essence, an attempt by the Home Secretary to deal with the awful mess she has been making since she was appointed in 2019.
The clauses on offshoring, inadmissibility, differential treatment and offence of arrival are symptomatic of a shambolic Government who have completely lost control of our asylum system to the extent that they are now seeking to dump their problems on a developing country that is 4,000 miles away and has a questionable record on human rights. The Rwanda offloading plan enabled by this Bill is extortionately expensive, unworkable and un-British.
Looking first at the price of what is being proposed, it is quite extraordinary that the Home Secretary is either unwilling or unable to provide any clarity on this point by publishing the forecast cost, but the Rwanda plan is estimated to cost in the region of £30,000 per person—and that feels optimistic. Contrasting that with the £11,000 that it costs to process an asylum seeker here in the UK, we start to see the impact on the public purse.
The Prime Minister has said that he expects to send “tens of thousands” of asylum seekers to Rwanda per year, so we are looking at around £1 billion of taxpayers’ money spent by a Government who are doing absolutely nothing for British people hammered by the cost of living crisis. Then there is the £120 million in development aid. What, precisely, is that going to be spent on? Apparently it will not go towards paying for Rwandan caseworkers, so is it just the eye-watering price that the Home Secretary has paid for a press release?
Hon. Members should not just take my word for it. The Home Secretary’s own permanent secretary, Matthew Rycroft, stated:
“Value for money of the policy is dependent on it being effective as a deterrent. Evidence of a deterrent effect is highly uncertain and cannot be quantified with sufficient certainty to provide me with the necessary level of assurance over value for money.”
Labour agrees wholeheartedly with Mr Rycroft. There is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the Rwanda plan will deter the people smugglers or the small boats, and there is therefore not a shred of evidence to demonstrate that it will deliver value for money.
To understand value for money, the Government must provide forecasts for a range of scenarios. That is why we are supporting Lords amendments 53B to 53D. The amendments provide that in order to offshore refugees to a third state, the Secretary of State must lay regulations specifying the identity of that state and have them approved by Parliament. Before the Home Secretary may lay those regulations, costings must first be laid before both Houses. It is critical that Parliament is given the opportunity to scrutinise both the offshoring and the offloading plans for value for money, particularly at a time when our constituents are facing a cost of living crisis.
If the Rwanda offloading agreement does not serve as a deterrent, then it is failing on its own terms and therefore also failing to provide value for money. But there is also a chance that the scheme may not even get off the ground as it will end up getting bogged down in the legal system. There can be absolutely no doubt that the Government’s claim that Rwanda is a safe country for refugees will be challenged in the courts given that thousands of Rwandans seek asylum in Europe every year, with 76 Rwandan citizens granted asylum here in the UK since 2017. It is well worth noting that in 2019 Israel cancelled its offloading agreement with Rwanda after it emerged that the vast majority of refugees sent to Rwanda left within days of arriving there and after it was revealed that it had led to immense suffering, including subjecting vulnerable people to human trafficking.
It is highly likely that the Rwanda offloading plan will unravel because it is both eye-wateringly expensive and unworkable, but it is also deeply un-British—because the decision to outsource our problems to a developing country halfway across the globe with a questionable record on human rights just does not feel right. It is just not the way we do things in this country. That is why we are supporting a number of amendments to bring the Bill closer to reflecting our values as a nation. Labour Members have continually made the case that the Bill must meet Britain’s obligations under the 1951 UN refugee convention, and we are supporting Lords amendment 5B, which secures this.
Our country’s historical commitment to offering safe haven to refugees leads us to support a number of the other amendments before us today. First, we support Lords amendment 6B, which seeks to ensure that all refugees are given their convention rights and that family unity is maintained, even if the Government are determined to introduce the utterly inappropriate differential treatment aspect of this Bill, which, shamefully, contravenes the UN convention.
Secondly, we support Lords amendment 13B, which, if accepted, rather than criminalising Ukrainians and other desperate refugees who arrive here without clearance, would criminalise only those who have already been deported. We should not be seeking to create a second class of refugee. Many of these people are desperate when they arrive on our doorstep, and the Government would do well to remember that.
Thirdly, we support Lords amendment 11B, which calls on the Home Secretary to set targets for taking in a number of refugees each year and would force her to finally do some medium-term planning rather than constantly scrambling to make it up as she goes along.
Fourthly, we support Lords amendment 10B, which provides for family reunion of unaccompanied refugees in Europe.
David Simmonds
Is the hon. Gentleman aware, as I am, that the experience of local authorities involved in the resettlement of refugee children is that the majority of those brought to the UK on the basis of reunion with family are in fact coming straight into the care system because the relations in the UK are not able to look after them? It therefore seems to me that the Government are right to resist on this point and to seek an alternative and better way of managing the resettlement of unaccompanied children coming to the UK.
Stephen Kinnock
There are two dimensions to what the hon. Gentleman is questioning. The first is about the capacity and the capability here in the UK. There are of course examples of where families are not able to take care of children, but I do not believe that those are the majority, and where that is the case we need to ensure that local authorities are adequately resourced to be able to deal with the issue. The second is about the Government’s approach on this. The Minister argued that it is about taking a global approach, but we can clearly see that it is much more about the hostile environment and the basic mindset in the Home Office. We should not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. That is why the amendment in the name of Lord Dubs is absolutely the right way to go.
Fifthly, we support Lords amendment 25B, which seeks to undo the Government’s unlawful bid to, in effect, criminalise modern slavery victims who have been pushed into crime by human traffickers. We are clear that only criminals who have committed serious public order offences such as terrorism or other serious offences, as established via a Government consultation, should have their protection withdrawn.
Sir Iain Duncan Smith
I am grateful to be called to speak so early, and I will be as brief as possible.
I say to my hon. Friend the Minister that we have already had these discussions. In fact, the Government moved on the issue; they did so by putting proposals into guidance. The problem with guidance is that it is guidance—it is not obligatory—so the problem with Lords amendment 26B is that the Bill is incomplete, because until these measures are in the Bill, there is no support for confirmed victims after the national referral mechanism process is completed; it is all by judgment.
The current system is deeply destabilising for confirmed victims. I am talking about confirmed victims, not other people who have come over. These are people who we agree are victims of modern-day slavery, and we should be very generous to them. What else is there to do? They are victims. Confirmed victims currently receive support under the recovery needs assessment, or RNA, process. Under this process, many victims receive support only for short periods of time. There is no 12-month period, and they therefore undergo repeated needs assessments. The Minister should go through the system and see how painful this is for confirmed victims. It is destabilising and can be harmful to victims’ mental health; we know that. It requires victims to constantly provide “evidence” of need, with support available only for “needs arising from exploitation”. They are confirmed victims, and they do not know how long they will need support, which means that they are worried about what will happen if there is no agreement. That can put them back in the hands of the traffickers—the thing that we say we are against.
Justice and Care’s recent victim navigator study showed that when victims were given support for a minimum period, 89% of those supported by Justice and Care’s programme chose to engage with police investigations, and we got more prosecutions. One does not need a bleeding heart to see the sense of this. It will enable us to prosecute the traffickers. That is what I want my Government to do. Right now, the average percentage of victims who engage with investigations is not 89%, but 33%. People who are very worried, destabilised and uncertain about how long they will be supported for will not give evidence. They will not go to the police or engage with them, because they are frightened. If we give them a minimum of 12 months of support, we will get more prosecutions. As a result, we will both save money and provide some serious security for these victims. I genuinely beg the Government to make the change now, because it is decent, reasonable and the right thing to do. Can we please discuss the matter further before it comes up again, and can we do this?
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
Members on both sides of the House might agree that the Lords got it right when they said that the timetabling arrangements for this House left a lot to be desired. We have one hour to debate 12 substantive and important amendments, and we will end up voting on them for three hours. It makes absolutely no sense.
I could be very succinct and just say that the SNP position remains that this is an atrocious and horrendous Bill, and therefore we support everything that the House of Lords has attempted to do to rein it in, but I will not. However, out of deference to some of the very good speakers on both sides of this debate, I will try to stick to points on one or two of the amendments.
First, I turn to Lords amendment 5B, which simply states,
“For the avoidance of doubt,”
part 2 is compliant with the refugee convention
“and must be…given effect as such.”
The Minister has said several times that that is precisely the Government’s objective, so why on earth does he have a problem with putting those words in the Bill? I suspect that there are two answers, the first of which is that in reality, part 2 does not remotely live up to the demands of our international obligations. Former Supreme Court judge Lord Brown said in the other place:
“I truly believe, as do many others, that several of these provisions flagrantly breach our obligations as interpreted by the UNHCR”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 April 2022; Vol. 820, c. 1882.]
We respectfully agree with Lord Brown.
I suspect that the second reason for resisting this amendment is that Ministers are desperate to keep those words out of the Bill to make it more difficult to ask a court to adjudicate on whether the Bill is, in fact, consistent with the refugee convention. As Lord Brown said—he was directly addressing something that the Minister said here at the Bill’s last outing—it was
“quite wrong to suggest that there was no need for this amendment because the courts would anyway deal with the challenge to the legislation based on suggested non-compliance. I repeat: the amendment is vital. The courts otherwise cannot go behind the definitive clauses in the Bill and would have to apply them, compliant or not.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4 April 2020; Vol. 820, c. 1883.]
We agree; the Bill is fundamental to what we are doing here.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
My hon. Friend is right that the amount of scrutiny time being afforded to this House is ridiculous. If the Government are not prepared to come to any kind of compromise with the House of Lords, would it not be even better for all these powers to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament, so that the people of Scotland could build the kind of humane immigration and asylum system that hundreds of constituents in Glasgow North have lobbied me to advocate for in this House?
Stuart C. McDonald
I agree with everything that my hon. Friend has just said.
I turn to Lords amendments 15 and 13B, which bring us back to the sweeping criminalisation of asylum seekers and others arriving in the UK. We are talking about Afghans, Syrians, persecuted Christians and Uyghurs. Those are causes that many in this House advocate and speak up for all the time, and yet when these people come to our shores, suddenly we are planning to let them down, offshore them, discriminate against them, treat them abysmally and criminalise them under this legislation.
The Minister has said today that the Lords have defined the criminal offence too tightly and he wants to go back to a sweepingly broad offence. He assures us that that does not really matter, because we will not use the provision against the Afghans and Syrians; it will be used only in egregious cases. We cannot pass criminal laws on the basis of wishes and assurances expressed at the Dispatch Box that we will be quite reasonable in how we use them. He has to come up with the tight wording for the criminal offence that he is aiming at. If he does not, I am afraid we cannot support it at all; in fact, we fundamentally oppose it.
We believe that the Bill represents completely the wrong approach, and we continue to support the House of Lords in all it is doing to try to rein in the worst aspects. I hugely regret that we have had such a pitiful amount of time to say what we have to say about the amendments. In deference to other Members, I will sit down now and do my voting later on.
Mr Mitchell
I draw the House’s attention to my registered interests.
I want to try to be constructive with the Minister this afternoon. I do not believe the Rwanda scheme will work, but I am full of good will towards the Home Secretary when it comes to trying to stop this ghastly, deathly channel trade. The Minister asks those who think that the scheme is impractical, ineffective and extraordinarily expensive what we would do. He is right to ask that, so let me try to answer.
There are four things we must do. The first, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said, is to employ more staff. We need to ensure that we process these asylum claims more rapidly. In Rwanda, it takes three months to process an asylum claim. We ought to have a much more streamlined system in this country, and ought to try to do away with all these lawyers, who extend and prolong the process unnecessarily. That is a point the Government should definitely address.
Secondly, we need to put right our dreadful relationship with France, our neighbour just 22 miles away. The relationship is not what it should be. There are plenty of senior officials and people of good will who have a much better relationship with France, and we need to address that point and repair the relationship. Nothing can be achieved in tackling this evil trade without our having a far better understanding with France. We need, if not its active support, then its passive acquiescence at the very least in the measures that need to be taken.
Thirdly, we need safe and legal routes. I asked the Minister to set out what those routes are, and of course he was not able to.
David Simmonds
Does my right hon. Friend share the concern that many of us have who wish to see the Government succeed in their endeavours, which is that the legal test for anyone opposing immigration control is not that there are safe and legal routes in general, but that a person specifically had access to a safe and legal route but chose not to use it, which may undermine some of the objectives we wish to see? Safe and legal routes need to be much broader if they are going to work as an effective tool as part of this policy.
Mr Mitchell
My hon. Friend absolutely puts his finger on the point, and he knows of what he speaks because he has dealt with these matters a senior councillor.
It was Lord Kirkhope who amended the Bill in the other place. He was Home Secretary Michael Howard’s Immigration Minister, and I think he holds the record as the Immigration Minister who has deported the most people needing to be deported from Britain. He also knows of what he speaks, and he made it clear that if we do not have safe and legal routes, we will not be able to make this system work. By definition, if we do not have such routes, anyone arriving on our shores will be arriving illegally, and that point needs to be addressed.
The fourth and final thing that needs to happen is that we need a new international convention. The 1951 convention, which Britain played a big part in setting up, is now completely out of date. That is because, since then, as colleagues will appreciate, there has been a revolution in travel. We also now have the tremendous push of climate change, which is pushing migration up very high. So we need a new international convention. I put this point to the Prime Minister on 25 July last year, and he described it as an “excellent point”, but I fear that since then nothing has been done. Britain needs to use its leverage and its experience at the United Nations as one of the five permanent members of the Security Council, and it also needs to use its brilliant diplomatic experience and knowledge to negotiate a new convention.
Those are the four key things that have to happen, and I hope the Minister will consider them before embarking on a scheme that, as I say, is impractical, ineffective and extraordinarily expensive. Rwanda is a safe country and a beacon of stability in Africa, but we should not export our problems in this way to a country that already tries to do its very best to help people who are caught up in humanitarian jeopardy.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)
I would like to use my three minutes, which have not come up on the clock yet, to focus on Lords amendment 6B. It is truly damning of the Government’s conduct that they oppose an amendment that merely seeks to guarantee refugees their rights under the 1951 UN refugee convention.
There is no such thing as an illegal asylum seeker under international law, yet under the Government’s plans, unlike refugees who have arrived on officially sanctioned routes, group 2 refugees—I will focus on them—who are deemed to have arrived in the UK in an illegitimate manner will only be offered temporary protection status and will have no recourse to public funds. As chair of the all-party group on no recourse to public funds, I am only too aware of its devastating human impacts. The Bill would further expand the number of people without access to public funds such as welfare benefits and housing assistance, and thereby ensure that thousands more refugees a year fleeing war and persecution are at increased risk of falling into destitution and homelessness once they have reached the UK.
If this Government were truly interested in the wellbeing of refugees, they would build a support network and safety net to enable those who have sought refuge in the UK to live comfortably and have fruitful lives, rather than chip away at existing support and create a tiered system. I urge all Members to support Lords amendment 6B to ensure that refugees living in the UK are not forced into poverty and destitution.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I call Sally-Ann Hart to speak until 5.47 pm.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I shall be quick and focus on Lords amendment 7. The question whether asylum seekers are able to undertake work after six months was raised in March, when the Bill was last debated in this House. Replying to our right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland), the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), spoke about getting casework right. Will he confirm that the measures in the Bill, together with the UK and Rwanda economic development partnership, will mean that there should be no asylum seekers still in a state of limbo, waiting for their asylum status to be determined, after six months, and that such an amendment is therefore not needed?
Tom Pursglove
I thank Members across the House for their contributions to this afternoon’s debate on issues that are of the utmost importance. I would argue that there is a moral imperative to act that underpins the Government’s approach in addressing the challenges. It simply is not good enough for people to say what they do not want and what they do not like: when criticising and arguing that something is wrong, they have to present a credible alternative plan, particularly if they have ambitions to govern. This Bill delivers our comprehensive plan—the only credible plan—to address these issues. Now is the time to get on and deliver it.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
I have to give some information before putting the Question. I have been given an indication that there is likely to be in the order of 11 Divisions this evening. Ten minutes will be allowed for the first and eight minutes for every one following, so I advise people to stay near the Lobbies. Hopefully, we will get through this as quickly as possible.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Order. We understand that one pass reader is out in the No Lobby. They are going to try to reboot it before the next vote, but at the moment, like a parking meter, it has one of those hoods over it, so clearly do not use that one.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Conversations should not be loud while we are having Divisions. You can whisper quietly and pretend to be polite, but speaking at the top of your voice so that nobody else can be heard is simply rude and impolite, and you should not do it in the Chamber.
After Clause 37
Immigration Rules: entry to seek asylum and join family
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 10B.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before we come to the next Division, I must inform Members that unfortunately the pass readers in the No Lobby are not working—it must be assumed that they are overstrained this evening—so the Clerks will shortly take their place at the Division desks in that Lobby. In the No Lobby only, the Clerks will be there to record Members’ names on paper. I am sorry about this and hope that Members remember how to vote by nodding to the Clerk. In the Aye Lobby, matters will continue as normal with the card readers.
Clause 40
Assisting unlawful immigration or asylum seeker
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 20B.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Before we continue with the business, I apologise for the delay that has occurred in the No Lobby due to the breakdown in the electronic system. I had asked for the electronic system to be fixed, but unfortunately, because there have been so many Divisions in quick succession, the engineers have not been able to do whatever they have to do to fix the system. I then attempted to go back to the old system, where we have Clerks ticking off names on bits of paper. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] No, no, I apologise—there might be some enthusiasm for that system among those who were voting in the other Lobby, but not from those who have told me about the shambolic effect in the No Lobby. I have therefore decided to attempt to go back to what we were doing earlier today—the electronic system. There are two electronic readers, rather than four, working in the No Lobby, but it appears that that will be faster than having people with bits of paper, so we will now revert to the electronic system in the No Lobby. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] I thank Members for their forbearance—that is, if we have any further Divisions.
Clause 62
Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection
Motion made, and Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 25B.—(Tom Pursglove.)
Nationality and Borders Bill
Tuesday 26th April 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Commons Consideration of Lords Message as at 26 April 2022 - (26 Apr 2022)
18:06 - Division on Motion B1 - Ayes: 244 / Noes: 219 - Motion B1 agreed.
18:23 - Division on Motion C1 - Ayes: 227 / Noes: 219 - Motion C1 agreed.
18:37 - Division on Motion D1 - Ayes: 220 / Noes: 219 - Motion D1 agreed.
18:51 - Division on Motion F1 - Ayes: 216 / Noes: 221 - Motion F1 disagreed.
19:06 - Division on Motion J1 - Ayes: 205 / Noes: 225 - Motion J1 disagreed.
19:19 - Division on Motion K1 - Ayes: 112 / Noes: 224 - Motion K1 disagreed.
19:32 - Division on Amendment L1 - Ayes: 196 / Noes: 222 - Amendment L1 disagreed.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 4G, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 4H.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, the world is facing a crisis of migration. An estimated 80 million people are displaced by conflicts and instability around the world. Others seek to move in search of improved economic opportunities. Challenges need solutions, not just complaints about what is proposed.
Managing migration—welcoming and effectively supporting those most in need, while protecting borders and closing down the dangerous business of people-smuggling—is one of the most difficult public policy challenges faced by any Government. Breaking the business model of the people smugglers and managing the flow of people entering this country is one of the most humane things that we can do. The measures in the Bill will allow us to save lives and ensure that we can effectively provide support and care for those who need it most.
I therefore beg to move this House does not insist on your Lordships’ Amendment 4, does agree with the other place in their Amendments 4A to 4F and does not agree to your Lordships’ Amendment 4G.
I start by addressing Amendments 4J and 4K. As I have said to this House, it is very important that in cases where we have already made a decision to deprive, the subsequent deprivation order remains valid and effective to protect the UK from high-harm individuals and to preserve the integrity of the immigration system; that is the purpose of this clause. With respect to the noble Baroness, the Government do not accept that deprivation orders made prior to commencement of the Bill are invalid. We have repeatedly said that we will always try to give notice of deprivation, but in some cases that simply is not possible, for good reasons, which I have outlined during the course of the Bill. Amendment 4J also suggests that we can just make a new order, but that may not always be possible, as, of course, the circumstances in an individual case may have changed.
Amendment 4K seeks to remove one of the safeguards that the Government introduced into Clause 9 in response to earlier concerns raised in your Lordships’ House about the right of redress. Subsection (7) specifically provides the clarity that the right of appeal remains for deprivation decisions made where notice was not given prior to commencement of the Bill, and on the same terms as appeals where notice is given. Deleting this subsection, as Amendment 4K suggests, would therefore remove this safeguard.
I turn to Amendment 20D. I very much welcome the spirit of this amendment, but unfortunately it could still compromise our ability to prosecute people smugglers because it is still open to exploitation from organised crime gangs involved in people-smuggling, who could very easily manipulate circumstances to deliberately endanger migrants’ lives, as they do now, by providing inadequate craft in which to cross the Channel, and then provide their own rescue as a means to avoid prosecution. The clause already provides protections for persons undertaking rescues, which we put in place after listening to the concerns raised in both Houses about rescues undertaken by the RNLI and other independent rescuers. This new amendment would simply add a barrier to successful prosecutions.
I move next to Amendment 25D, which relates to modern slavery. It is too narrow and does not fulfil the aims of the original clause. The amended definition of “public order” does not include all individuals who have been involved in terrorism-related activity or who otherwise pose a risk to national security, or those who have been convicted of serious criminal offences, such as manslaughter, murder, violent acts and sexual offences. I have listened to concerns raised previously and I want to be clear that offences included in the original drafting of Clause 62 are not minor offences, as Parliament agreed back in 2015 when passing Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act. Even where an individual meets the public order definition, the Government have been clear that our approach to the disqualification is discretionary. It is not our intention to carry out a full public order consideration of every individual who enters the NRM, but rather where a specific concern or threat has been identified. I understand the wish to have determining language such as “exceptional” and “genuine” threat in the Bill, but this would no doubt—albeit unintentionally—mean that the public order disqualification would be unworkable in the UK and would continue to leave us unable to remove dangerous individuals, despite there being cases where it is lawful, appropriate and in line with our international obligations to do so. That is why we have previously provided further detail in this House about the proportionate approach that we will take to implement this measure, and clarity on the mitigating factors that will be taken into account as part of a case-by-case approach.
I further reassure noble Lords that although it is right that the Government are able to withhold protections where an individual is a threat to public order regardless of age, as envisioned in our international obligations under ECAT, children’s vulnerabilities are always an essential consideration. We will take particular consideration of the age and maturity of those who are under 18, and of course children have separate protections anyway under the Children Act.
I note the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about how the public order disqualification measure might impact the number of “duty to notify” reports—that is, suspected adult victims of modern slavery who do not consent to enter into the NRM—as the NRM is a consent-based system. Foreign nationals who choose not to be referred into the NRM and are therefore subject to a duty to notify are likely to be already engaged in parallel with the immigration system. Reasonable grounds decisions, conclusive grounds decisions and, in future, public order disqualification decisions will continue to be taken separately from any consideration of an individual’s immigration status.
I want to be clear that first responders should always refer victims into the NRM, in line with modern slavery statutory guidance, using the online form, even when the individual may meet the public order definition. Decisions will then be taken on a case-by-case basis. We are committed to improving the training of first responders to increase awareness of the NRM and ensure that potential victims can make informed decisions about whether to enter the system, and we are supporting that with an improved legal aid offer for victims of trafficking within the Bill.
We recognise that those individuals who have prior convictions may be more frequently targeted by the exploiters. That is why we are taking a proportionate approach to identifying those who are of public order concern. Trained decision-makers will then carefully consider each individual case and take into account mitigating factors, including the nature and seriousness of any offence; the time that has elapsed since the person committed any such offence; whether that offence was committed as part of an individual’s exploitation and the level of culpability attached; and whether an individual is assisting or co-operating with a relevant investigation or prosecution effort. For those reasons, I cannot support the amendment.
I turn briefly to Amendment 26B. The Government’s unshakeable position is that support should be provided on the basis of need, tailored to the individual and their personal circumstances. During the passage of the Bill we have committed that, where necessary, all those who receive a positive conclusive grounds decision and are in need of specific support will receive appropriate tailored support for a minimum of 12 months. What still concerns us about the amendment is that it would move us away from taking an individualised needs-based approach to the provision of support, and we therefore cannot support the amendment.
I hope that, for the reasons I have set out, noble Lords will feel happy not to press their amendments.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
Baroness D'Souza
At end insert “and do propose Amendments 4J and 4K in lieu—
“(5) Where a pre-commencement deprivation order is invalid due to a failure to comply with the duty under section 40(5) of the 1981 Act, and the Secretary of State seeks to make a new deprivation order in respect of the person affected by the invalid order—
(a) the Secretary of State shall comply with the provisions set out in Schedule 4A to the 1981 Act, and
(b) subsections 40(5D) and 40A(2A) of the 1981 Act apply.”
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, needless to say, I along with many others am deeply disappointed with the Commons’ decision to reject the amendment that we tabled on Clause 9. In effect, the Government now seek to maintain the legal fiction that previous deprivation orders without notice continue to be valid. This immediately puts many who are suspected of having been trafficked, including women, at risk of return to countries where they may be subjected to torture and/or other inhumane and degrading treatment.
The amendment simply sought to remove the Government’s power to hold to decisions and actions to deprive, without notice, citizenship orders subsequently declared unlawful by the courts. It remains unclear to me why, if the Government accept that safeguards are necessary—as evidenced by the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and accepted by the Government—these same safeguards do not apply to all deprivation orders.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, I have Motion K1 in this group but I will speak to each of the other Motions. I will say very little on the individual Motions, but I remind the House of what I said at Second Reading. If British people, as we are constantly told, are concerned about immigration, this Bill, which targets asylum seekers and victims of modern slavery, is not focused on their primary concern.
In an article in the Telegraph yesterday, Nick Timothy, Theresa May’s former chief of staff, wrote about his concerns about mass immigration. Nowhere in that article does he mention asylum seekers, victims of modern slavery or the Nationality and Borders Bill. He points to the real causes of mass immigration: 240,000 work visas, up 25% compared with 2019, which was a big year for immigration; 280,000 family visas, up 49%; and 430,000 student visas, up 52%. These numbers dwarf the numbers claiming asylum.
Work permits have become unlimited; the definition of a skilled worker has been watered down; the shortage occupation list has been extended; employers no longer have to prove that they could not recruit from the resident population; and foreign students are allowed to stay on after their studies no matter what their qualification. An Australian-style points-based system, designed to increase immigration into Australia, is having the same effect here, despite the end of free movement. Yet this Government, and this Bill, address none of these issues but instead focus on the small minority fleeing war, persecution and modern slavery, who desperately need sanctuary.
On Motions A and A1, we believe that the safeguards the noble Lord, Lord Anderson of Ipswich, has secured in relation to deprivation of British citizenship without notice will ensure that further abuse of the system is prevented. While we have sympathy with the position of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, we are pleased that she is not going to divide the House on this occasion.
On Motions K and K1, I understand the Government’s determination to prosecute people smugglers but the unintended consequences of removing the “for gain” element of the offence of facilitating the entry of an asylum seeker into the United Kingdom are to subject individuals, most importantly those seeking to rescue migrants drowning in the channel, to prosecution.
The first amendment approved by this House to reinstate “for gain” was a Labour amendment. The second, a Liberal Democrat amendment, provided that those with a reasonable excuse for facilitating entry would not commit an offence. Both were rejected by the other place. This third attempt would mean that individuals engaged in genuine humanitarian activity, including the preservation of life, would not commit an offence.
This is about removing doubt from the minds of those who come across drowning migrants in the channel that they may be prosecuted if they effect an immediate rescue. The Bill, as drafted, says that they commit a criminal offence. The only current defence is that, once charged, they may present a defence in court—once they have been arrested and prosecuted. Whatever the Government might say, that could cause people to hesitate when decisive, life-saving action is needed. We believe that lives depend on Motion K1 being agreed by this House, and I urge noble Lords around the House to support it.
We support Motion L1, and do not believe that modern slavery should be part of this Bill at all. These victims are extremely vulnerable and should be supported, apart from in very exceptional circumstances. The current “public order” concern is far too broad. We believe that Motion L1 provides a solution to that issue, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will explain.
On Motion M, it is with great regret that the efforts of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, over many years, to protect and properly support victims of modern slavery, have come to a point where his own party, the Conservative Party, refuse to support him in his attempts to make appropriate provision for such victims.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I will start by saying a couple of words about a couple of the Motions and will then concentrate my remarks on Motion L1, in my name, on modern slavery.
On Motion A1, and the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady D’Souza, I pay tribute to the noble Baroness and the work she and many others in this House have done on this particular issue. As she knows, we originally wanted the whole clause to be removed, but we recognise that the Government have changed the clause significantly by accepting the safeguards tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. The Minister is to be congratulated on moving as far as she did on that issue. On that basis, and that of other safeguards, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, has mentioned, there is nothing further we can do with respect to this clause. As I said, we all note the work which the Minister has done. Certainly, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, would not have been as well accepted as it was by the Government without the work she has done.
On Motion K1, and the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, we agree entirely with the problems which the removal of the words “for gain” creates. He knows that I have supported him all the way through the Bill. But we are left with difficult decisions and, although the Government have removed rescue efforts co-ordinated by the coastguard from the scope of the offence, a captain who takes a split-second decision to rescue lives at sea will officially commit an offence. This is addressed, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, only by the fact that they will have an exceptionally strong defence for doing so. I note that the Minister has said on a number of occasions that she does not believe that someone would be prosecuted in those circumstances, and it would helpful if she reiterated that again from the Dispatch Box as a further safeguard and reassurance to people who may be put in that position. We would have liked to see this remaining problem fixed but, as I said, as the Government have already significantly amended this clause, we are doubtful that there is anything more to be achieved in this respect and there are other issues we wish to focus on—one of which I will turn to now.
I first thank the Minister, who tried to address many of the issues which have been raised around Clause 62. I remind noble Lords that, as my amendment points to, this clause deals with disqualifying potential victims of modern slavery from protection. As the Minister confirmed, this includes children. We are genuinely trying to be helpful on this issue. As the Minister outlined, the Government clearly recognise the real problem here. The clause, as originally drafted, was too broad, and it remains too broad. It will actually capture victims who have a criminal record only as a consequence of their slavery—because they have been exploited and forced into crime by their traffickers. This legislation, even as amended, and even with the reassurances from the Minister, will still capture victims of modern slavery and disqualify them from protection. This is the reality of the legislation before us: it will prevent victims entering the NRM; it will tighten traffickers’ hold on their victims; and it will stop us being able to find, stop and prosecute the vile people traffickers.
The Government have been generous with their time; they have met me and trafficking organisations on numerous occasions. But the problem remains in the way that this clause is drafted. The amendment that I have put before the House seeks to give the Government time to sort out the issue, which they recognise as a problem, of defining “public order”. As it is in the Bill at the moment, victims of trafficking who commit minor offences are potentially disqualified from protection. That cannot be what the Government, this House or anyone would wish, but it is the consequence of the Bill—it is the consequence of the legislation as it is drafted. Whatever the warm words and intentions of the Minister—who would not want that to happen and says that it will be all right on a case-by-case basis—you cannot legislate on the basis that it will be all right on the night. That is not the right way of doing it. The legislation creates the problem. We also tried to address concerns around terrorism, and that is why we added TPIMs to the amendment.
I want to refer to the Government’s latest statistics to conclude my remarks on modern slavery. According to the Government’s own document, published a couple of weeks ago, 43% of those who claimed asylum last year because of exploitation were children. This means that 43% will potentially be impacted—I am not saying that they will be—by this clause as it is currently drafted. That is the reality of what is before your Lordships this afternoon and why I am so insistent on my amendment, in Motion L1.
The Minister referred to the number of adults who are not officially referred—if you are an adult, you have to give consent—and where instead the first responders act on their duty to notify. In the past year, this number has increased by 47%—47% of adults are refusing to consent to be referred to the national referral mechanism. The Minister will say that it is up to them whether or not they consent, but let me say why I think they do not consent. I think that an increasing number of victims or potential victims of trafficking do not consent to be referred to the national referral mechanism because they are scared. They do not see authority in the way that we do. They do not see police officers in the way that we do. They do not see immigration officials in the way that we do. They do not see civil servants in the way that we do. They are frightened. They are victims. They may have been forced into criminality and, as such, they do not want to have it imposed on them that they must be referred to an official system. That there has been a 47% increase in victims or potential victims refusing to consent to being referred to the system should ring alarm bells with everyone.
My amendment says that, because of an increased emphasis on things such as public order, there is a failure to recognise the reality for victims of slavery and their lives. Many noble Lords here, including me, have met victim after victim and potential victim after potential victim—people who are terrified, mortified and scarred for ever by their experience. Yet the way this Bill is drafted, it will penalise them for that experience and any forced criminality. This is not the Government’s intention—I accept that—but it is the reality of the legislation before them. I ask your Lordships this: why, either in this place or the other place, would you pass a piece of legislation that flies directly in the face of the policy objectives that you have? It is nonsense. The Government do not want to exclude potential victims of modern slavery from referring themselves or being referred, but that will be the consequence of this legislation if it is unamended.
We will divide the House on this. We want the Commons once again to think whether they really want to pass legislation that will potentially lead to victims of modern slavery not coming forward or having the help and support they deserve. I do not believe they do. That is why we should support Motion L1 in my name.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken succinctly to these groups of amendments. Before concluding, I will directly address the point from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, about the facilitation offence. I can confirm that we do not intend to refer people for prosecution except in egregious cases. We will assume that they are telling the truth and acting in good faith, unless we can disprove it beyond reasonable doubt.
The noble Lord also asked about modern slavery, public order and those forced into criminality. As I said in my opening speech, we recognise that individuals who have prior convictions may be more frequently targeted by exploiters. That is why we are taking a proportionate approach to identifying those who are of public order concern. Trained decision-makers will then carefully consider each individual case and take into account mitigating factors. These will include the nature and seriousness of any offence, the time that has elapsed since the person committed such an offence, whether the offence was committed as part of an individual’s exploitation and therefore the level of culpability attached, and whether an individual is assisting or co-operating with a relevant investigation or prosecution effort.
I think I have addressed the points that noble Lords have made. Without further ado, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Baroness D'Souza (CB)
My Lords, it is with a great regret that I beg leave to withdraw Motion A1.
Motion A1 withdrawn.
Motion A agreed.
Motion B
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5C.
5C: Because the Commons consider that Lords Amendment 5B makes unnecessary provision.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion B that this House do not insist on its Amendment 5B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5C. With the leave of the House, I shall also speak to Motions C, D, E, F, G, H and J.
I turn first to Amendment 5D. The Government’s position remains that the provisions of this Bill are compliant with the refugee convention, but I cannot support the amendment, as it strikes at the heart of the constitutional relationship between Parliament and the courts. The convention leaves certain terms and concepts open to a degree of interpretation, which ensures that it can stand the test of time and be applied across many jurisdictions with different legal systems.
There is therefore a need to define and apply such terms in domestic legislation in accordance with the principles of the Vienna convention, taking a good faith interpretation in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the language of the convention. The provisions in Part 2 are in line with this. It is not, therefore, appropriate to require the courts to consider whether the Bill is compatible with our international obligations where Parliament has passed clear and unambiguous provisions. These provisions are clear and unambiguous and are a good faith interpretation of the refugee convention.
The new amendment is not only unnecessary because the contents of Part 2 are fully compliant with our international obligation; it is also contrary to the fundamental purpose of this Bill, which is, where possible, to tightly define the nature of our obligations under the refugee convention while remaining complaint with those obligations to support consistent and accurate decision-making.
Amendments 6D, 6E and 6F are another attempt to alter the effectiveness of the differentiation policy. As we have discussed in great detail during the course of debate on the Bill, to do so would go against one of its fundamental aims, which is to deter people from making dangerous and unnecessary journeys. I am sure that I speak for all Members of the House in saying that we want to see a stop to all such journeys to the UK. These journeys endanger lives and line the pockets of dangerous criminals, both here and abroad.
Turning first to Amendment 6D, it is important to note that Clause 36, which is relevant to the criteria used to differentiate under Clause 11, already provides that an individual may still be treated as having “come directly” even if they stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom, provided they can show that they could not reasonably have been expected to claim asylum in that country. Clause 36 also allows discretion to be exercised in determining whether someone claimed “without delay”, whether that person claimed as soon as it was “reasonably practicable” being a key factor to be considered when assessing these criteria and therefore again being relevant in determining a refugee’s grouping. These provisions already achieve what the amendment is trying to effect, and as such I do not support Amendment 6D, which is not required.
I cannot support Amendment 6E, which seeks to shift the burden of proof in applying Clause 11 on to the Secretary of State. First, I assure noble Lords that my officials are developing detailed guidance for decision-makers to assess the credibility of a person making an asylum claim and, where a claimant qualifies for refugee status, whether they are in group 1 or group 2. The guidance will outline that all claimants will be afforded the opportunity to rebut a provisional decision to identify an individual as a group 2 refugee. As is currently the case, we will continue to support claimants throughout the process to ensure that they are able to present the evidence substantiating their asylum claim, and this includes in relation to whether they are a group 1 or group 2 refugee. Although Home Office officials will continue to provide this support, it is not for the Secretary of State, but instead for the claimant, to demonstrate whether they are a group 1 or group 2 refugee. Therefore, I cannot accept this amendment.
I now turn to amendment 6F, which, I need to be clear, is completely unnecessary. Changes to the Immigration Rules will be made in order to operationalise the differentiated asylum system, as well as other provisions within the Bill. Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 already sets out the primacy of the refugee convention in the Immigration Rules. It states:
“Nothing in the immigration rules (within the meaning of the 1971 Act) shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention.”
I must remind noble Lords that it is our unwavering position that all provisions in Part 2, including Clause 11, are compliant with our obligations under the refugee convention, but Section 2 of the 1993 Act will continue to act as an additional safeguard for policies covered in the Immigration Rules, and as such it does not need to be referenced within the Bill.
The amendment is also unnecessary as the best interests of child already are and will continue to be considered as part of the asylum decision-making process. This is clearly stated throughout our current decision-making guidance and will continue to be clear in upcoming publications. In addition, access to family reunion will be available to all group 1 refugees and group 2 refugees where a refusal would be in breach of their Article 8 ECHR rights, in line with our international obligations.
I turn next to Amendments 7F and 7G. These are nearly identical to previous Amendments 7B and 7C and, like those previous amendments, they would not only reward people who have in many cases arrived illegally in an attempt to undermine our economic migration system but would create enormous operational burdens for the Home Office to implement, very likely—as per the findings of the Government’s review into the policy—leading to a net yearly loss to the department in running costs. I once again reassure noble Lords that the Government want all claims to be settled within six months, so that people can get on with rebuilding their lives, including working. We are making every effort to ensure this is a reality under the wider new plan for immigration. I therefore advise the House that we cannot accept those amendments.
Turning briefly to Amendments 8B and 8C, as I have said many times before and the leader of the Opposition said on Sunday on television, those in need of protection should claim in the first safe country they reach. The first safe country principle is widely recognised internationally and is a fundamental feature of the common European asylum system. By enforcing this part of the Bill, we are taking the battle to the people smugglers, showing them that their horrible business will be made unviable. For this very important reason, we cannot agree to these amendments.
I turn to Amendments 53H to 53L and begin by addressing the announcement made by the Prime Minister recently. As noble Lords are aware—in fact, we discussed it yesterday—we have now entered into the UK and Rwanda migration and economic development partnership. This ground-breaking partnership addresses the international challenge of irregular migration by disrupting the business model of organised crime gangs and deterring migrants from putting their lives at risk. Those making dangerous, illegal or unnecessary journeys to claim asylum in the UK may now be relocated to Rwanda, where their claims will then be processed.
I should be clear that the objective of the UK-Rwanda partnership is to create a mechanism for the relocation of individuals whose claims are not being considered by the UK—the inadmissible—to Rwanda. In future, we may want to extend eligibility for overseas processing to those who have otherwise abused the UK’s asylum system, beyond undertaking dangerous or unnecessary journeys. That is the intention of this measure, which will make it easier for us to remove those who have pending asylum claims to another country for their claims to be processed.
At this point, I should say something about the partnership agreement. It is in full compliance with domestic and international law. Rwanda is a state party to the 1951 UN refugee convention and the seven core UN human rights conventions, with a strong history of supporting refugees. I would encourage noble Lords, if they have not already done so, to read the memorandum of understanding underpinning the UK-Rwanda partnership, which contains many of the assurances that they are looking to receive through these amendments. Not only that, but the MoU makes clear that these assurances will be monitored by a monitoring committee independent of the Governments of both the UK and Rwanda. This committee will have unfettered and unannounced access to relevant records, locations, officials and whatever else it needs to complete its assessments.
Much has been made, and was made in your Lordships’ House yesterday, of how this arrangement is underpinned by an MoU rather than a treaty. An MoU is a standard arrangement between states. By way of example, in 2019, the UNHCR and the African Union signed an MoU with Rwanda to establish an emergency transit mechanism; this partnership facilitates the relocation of refugees and asylum seekers from the conflict zones in Libya to the safety of Rwanda. The UNHCR recently extended this MoU, which will now run until 31 December next year. There is nothing novel, unusual or untoward about underpinning this arrangement with an MoU, the terms and monitoring mechanism of which give us the assurances we need to operate this arrangement safely and in line with our international obligations.
Outside the partnership, noble Lords need look no further than the safety criteria set out in these measures to be assured that we will only ever remove someone whose asylum claim is pending to a safe third country where it is in accordance with the refugee convention and the European Convention on Human Rights. Everyone considered for relocation will be screened, interviewed and have access to legal advice. Decisions will be taken on a case-by-case basis, and nobody will be removed if it is unsafe or inappropriate for them.
Baroness Chakrabarti
Moved by
At end insert “but do propose Amendment 5D in lieu—
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, in moving Motion B1 as an amendment to Motion B, I also support other amendments.
Extra-parliamentary events since your Lordships’ last consideration make anxious scrutiny today even more important. I refer of course to atrocities in Ukraine and the Maundy Thursday MoU with Rwanda, but also to the unsuccessful Home Office attempts to assert public interest immunity, or secrecy, in the High Court over parts of the subsequently withdrawn little boats push-back policy. Contrary to everything both Houses, voters and desperate refugees were led to believe, the Government always knew that there was no legal basis for repelling a boat containing souls declaring a wish to claim asylum.
The importance of such matters being justiciable in court is therefore clear. From her answers to yesterday’s PNQ, I am glad to say that I do not think the Minister disagrees with that. Nor, to his credit, did the Minister in the other place present any policy difference on that point. He repeatedly asserted ongoing intentions to comply with international law, and specifically to comply with the refugee convention and ECHR together.
I have listened—and indeed pre-empted the constitutional concerns that the Minister just set out—and redrafted to make the refugee convention protection in the Bill no more, but no less, than that already provided for in law by the ECHR, thus making the new Amendment 5D even more respectful of the primacy of the other place and reasonable than its predecessor amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I rise to support Motion B1. “Nothing matters very much, and very little matters at all.” So said Lord Balfour of Balfour Declaration fame a century ago. But Lord Balfour was not then faced, as your Lordships now are, with a Bill which most—if not all—disinterested lawyers recognise that, first, without the amendment now proposed, would breach international law under the convention and, secondly, at the same time would nevertheless make unchallengeable the question of this legislation’s legality. Noble Lords should note that if the Bill passes without this provision, the legality of these provisions cannot even be raised before a court of law.
That will be the position unless we have the guts or—let me rephrase that—unless we are sufficiently alive to what surely is our constitutional duty as a revising Chamber to insist on the amendment to pass Motion B1. So, pace Lord Balfour, this really does matter very much.
I hope noble Lords will allow me another few words. I read again yesterday the disheartening, positively dispiriting House of Commons debate last week, which summarily rejected our amendments from the last round of ping-pong. The amendment originally in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, was dealt with even more dismissively and cursorily than the first time round. This time, there was no pretence that the courts could decide whether or not this new Bill will be convention-compliant. Previously, the Commons had been—as I accepted last time round—entirely inadvertently misled into thinking that the courts would have a say on it.
It is acknowledged on all sides that the Bill as it stands would overturn a quarter of a century of established English law as to the proper meaning of the convention. Of course, that is also the view of the UNHCR, which advises that we would be breaking international law by passing this legislation without such an amendment as now proposed. Therefore, it is now recognised that if the amendment fails to pass, the Bill will—the words can be used—foreclose or pre-empt the question as to the legality of these clauses. The clauses, in effect, would therefore operate as ouster clauses.
All the Minister in the other place said last week was:
“The Bill—I insist on this in the strongest terms—is compatible with all of our obligations under international law. Our position has not changed and we do not consider it necessary to put this on the face of this Bill.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/4/22; col. 239.]
In other words, the Bill that we are now asked to approve without the amendment is simply proclaimed by the Government to be compliant. We are asked to accept the mere self-serving say-so—the assertion—that it is compliant, although, as I have said, it is unsupported, so far as I am aware, by any respected body of opinion charged to look into these things: the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Bingham Centre, et cetera, and including, as I said, the UNHCR, which is charged specifically under the convention with the superintendence of the proper interpretation and application of the convention.
That is enough. I am sorry if this imperils our hopes of Prorogation this week, but I urge your Lordships to summon up the blood, stiffen the sinews—not, I think, Lord Balfour in that instance—and to continue to reject and challenge this further melancholy attempt to usurp our law.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I too speak in favour of Motion B1, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. I declare my interest as a practising barrister who sometimes acts in immigration cases.
As the noble and learned Lord has said, the overwhelming view of lawyers and interested, informed persons is that the provisions of the Bill breach this country’s obligations under the convention on refugees, which this country has signed. Ministers have repeatedly asserted to the contrary that they have failed to respond in any way to the reasoning of the critics.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, while supporting all the amendments in this group, I speak to Motion D1 in my name, taking up the baton from the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, whom I thank for her persistent commitment on this issue, which remains undimmed. As previously, the amendment would give asylum seekers the right to work in any occupation after six months, but it introduces a review after three years—rather than four, as previously—to assess whether government fears about such a right creating a pull factor are founded.
The Commons reason for not accepting the previous amendment states that
“the Commons consider that asylum-seekers (save in limited circumstances) and their adult dependants should not be permitted to work while a decision on their claim for asylum is pending”.
This is the equivalent of a parent telling a child that they cannot do something “because”. It is not a reason.
During the debate in the Commons—such as it was—the Minister reiterated concerns about undermining the economic migration scheme, and our old friend the pull factor. But there is no reason why a right to work after six months should undermine the economic migration scheme, and, as Sir Robert Buckland pointed out, he and others
“have said on many occasions that there is simply no evidence to suggest that a limited right to work is a pull factor.”—[Official Report, Commons, 20/4/22; col.240.]
In fact, the academic evidence suggests the opposite, and the Migration Advisory Committee has expressed considerable scepticism.
The other argument put by the Minister in the other place, which was repeated by the Minister here, was that the Government want to see claims settled within six months. However, when he was asked by one of his Back-Benchers to confirm that the Bill and other measures
“will mean that there should be no asylum seekers still in a state of limbo, waiting for their asylum status to be determined, after six months”,—[Official Report, Commons, 20/4/22; col.253.]
thereby making the amendment unnecessary, answer came there none. It would be wonderful if the amendment proved to be redundant, so that there were no longer 62,000 people awaiting a decision for more than six months, but the Government’s resistance to it suggests they are not confident that claims will be settled within that timescale. The Minister this afternoon suggested that the amendment would create significant operational costs for the Home Office. I am not quite clear what those costs are, but presumably there are savings from asylum support, and calculations have been done, which I know are contested but suggest a considerable fiscal saving overall from the amendment.
If we believe in integration, for which, according to MAC, the right to work is a key foundation stone, in preventing poverty and in protecting mental health, we should not give up on this amendment. In the Commons, 11 Conservatives, including a number of former Ministers, supported its previous iteration and 53 abstained. Earlier, the noble Lord, Lord Bethell, in this House, emphasised that, on basic Conservative principles concerning paid work, current policy fails dismally. Public support has been growing steadily to a point where the latest poll last month showed that at least four in five support the reform, regardless of political affiliation.
Once more, I would like to give the final word to asylum seekers themselves. MIN Voices, which I recently had the pleasure of meeting virtually, in its call for the right to work, asks us to
“remember that we are human beings and we have dignity”.
I fear that, in its refusal to countenance change, the Home Office is failing to remember. Let us, at least, accord to asylum seekers their humanity and dignity by asking the Commons to think again.
Baroness Stroud (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment D1, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, for her eloquent introduction to the amendment. This is a common-sense change. It would be a boost for the Treasury, for recruiters and, not least, for asylum seekers themselves. They often wait years for a decision on their claim while battling poverty, isolation and mental ill-health. However, the Government appear to want to maintain a ban on employment for asylum seekers, even after the introduction of their offshoring policy. They say that giving people the right to work will still encourage more people to come to the UK.
This pull-factor argument, however, is simply not supported by the facts. Evidence for it remains unclear, unshared or—as many suspect—non-existent. A challenge to Ministers from the Government’s own Migration Advisory Committee to show proof of a link between the employment ban and a pull factor has so far gone unanswered. Publicly available and up-to-date figures show no correlation. If such a correlation, or even causation, existed, asylum migration would look very different from how it does today. Certainly, 28,000 refugees would not have risked their lives crossing the channel in boats in 2021 to come to the UK, where they cannot work; they would have headed to Sweden, which received just 10,000 applications for refugee status, even though asylum seekers can work after day one.
The 62,000 people who claimed asylum in Spain last year, where they must wait for six months to work, would have simply crossed the border into Portugal, whose 1,300 asylum applicants can get a job after one week. The people who applied for asylum in France—over 100,000 of them—where they must wait six months to work, could have just stopped in, or headed to, Italy, where they can work after two months. That some countries with stricter labour access laws often receive more asylum seekers, while, in many cases, fewer refugees go to countries with more relaxed rules around work, shows the lack of link between application numbers and employment rules. As we have repeatedly said in these debates, what the overwhelming evidence does point to as pull factors are those things that make almost all of us feel safe: our families, our friends, our communities, our language, a sense of shared history, and a country with a stable Government and respect for human rights.
We have an environment in which Ministers are nervous of appearing soft: I understand that. They are so nervous that even a widely beneficial, evidence-based, common-sense policy such as the right to work has yet to be accepted because it might make Britain a magnet. But I believe that this is wrong, and, while the negative and costly effects of this ban might not seem obvious, they are real. The ban costs the taxpayer an estimated £210 million a year. It leaves asylum seekers in poverty and institutionally dependent; it leaves businesses up and down the country without extra hands at a time of record job vacancies; it takes a terrible toll on people’s mental health; and it damages any attempt at integration and future employment success.
It should not be so hard to reach agreement on a policy that has so much cross-party support and so many benefits. I spent years at the DWP, as a Conservative special adviser, working to support people into work and off welfare, only to be hindered from advancing the same opportunity to those who have sought the protection of this nation.
The instinct to work, to contribute and to provide for one’s family is universal and integral to who we are as human beings. It is what it means to be human, each one according to their talent, gift, capacity and capability. We damage people when we forbid them to contribute. I urge the Government to keep thinking and to think again.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I confess that I thought I had finished with ping-pong when I laid down my bat as table tennis captain of my college at university more than four decades ago. This is my first time at it in this rather different setting.
I rise to speak in support of Motions F1 and H1 in my name. I am extremely grateful to my right reverend friend the Bishop of Durham for his excellent previous work on these Motions. He is unable to be in his place today, so we worked on them together. I am also grateful for a letter I received this morning from leaders of many of the main Christian denominations in the United Kingdom, urging me to continue to press on these matters.
Clause 11 continues to be the most challenging part of the Bill in the way it differentiates the treatment of those who seek sanctuary in the UK. Therefore, I continue to support Motions B1 and C1. I also support Motion D1 and pretty well all others in this group.
It is a long-established principle of UK law that, when removing an individual to a third country, the UK has an obligation to ensure that this will not violate the person’s human rights or the UK’s obligations under international law. It is also a long-established principle, affirmed by the Supreme Court, that it is not enough for the third country to have signed international human rights treaties; it must respect them in practice.
Motion F1 would ensure that the UK can transfer an asylum seeker to another country only if that country is genuinely safe, both in law and in practice, for the individual being transferred, and where that individual’s rights under the refugee convention and human rights law will be respected. The Motion would also prevent transfers under agreements such as the recent Rwanda-UK memorandum of understanding, which as I understand it is not legally binding on either party, where the standards of treatment in the receiving country are unspecified and unenforceable in any court. It is essential that clear minimum standards are set to ensure the UK does not send people we consider to be refugees, both legally and morally, to a country where they may be denied protection and put at risk of refoulement.
I listened to the Minister’s assurances earlier and am grateful for them, but the UNHCR is clear:
“Such arrangements simply shift asylum responsibilities, evade international obligations, and are contrary to the letter and spirit of the Refugee Convention”.
In its latest annual report, Amnesty International set out that in Rwanda:
“Violations of the rights to a fair trial, freedom of expression and privacy continued, alongside enforced disappearances, allegations of torture and excessive use of force.”
Moreover, the Home Secretary’s response to understandable concerns about Rwanda’s human rights record that were raised in the other place demonstrates the risk that the designation of a particular country as safe may not be simply because it is safe but may become politicised or be influenced by broader foreign policy concerns. It is right that this country has foreign policy concerns, but they must not bleed into decisions about what is a safe country to which an asylum seeker could be sent. We need a clear, independent and enforceable legal standard.
My right reverend friend the Bishop of Chelmsford set out in a recent letter to the Home Secretary that the current plan to offshore asylum seekers to Rwanda
“treats the most vulnerable in our midst in a cruel and inhumane way”.
My most reverend friend the Archbishop of Canterbury has put it even stronger, in words I will not remind the House of this afternoon.
Without the provisions set out in this amendment, the only bar to relocating an asylum seeker to a country with which they have no connection would be for each individual asylum seeker to demonstrate that removal there would violate their human rights under the European convention. Furthermore, demonstrating a risk of refoulement from a third country requires demonstrating that its asylum provisions are inadequate. This is something that requires expert knowledge. That is not practical for the vast majority of asylum seekers to demonstrate in their individual cases.
Viscount Hailsham (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak to Motion F2, which stands in my name. Perhaps I might make three preliminary points. First, I apologise to your Lordships for having come late to this debate. I was moved to table Motion F2 by the Government’s announced decision to enter into the agreement to offshore responsibility for asylum seekers to the Government of Rwanda; that is what has moved me to participate. Secondly, as alluded to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the substance of Motion F2 is in fact drawn from the Motion moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, which successfully passed in this House on 4 April. Lastly, on a point alluded to by the right reverend Prelate, Motion F1, which he tabled, is of course to be considered before F2. I am sure that the right reverend Prelate, and certainly myself, will listen very carefully as to the sense of the House, as to whether there is support for either or both and, if so, in which order; that doubtless will influence us in deciding whether to test the opinion of the House.
The purpose of Motion F2 is a simple one: to ensure that the designation of a state as a safe country requires a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. As to the merits of the policy, I have very grave reservations about the cost and practicality of the Rwanda proposals. The experience of the Israeli Government, when they tried something rather similar, is not encouraging. I have great reservations about the legality of what is proposed. I accept of course that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has much greater expertise in this field than I do.
I note, of course, that Ministers have repeatedly said that the policy is consistent with international law and our obligations under the 1951 convention. Ministers repeatedly said that the policy of turning back the boats of asylum seekers was both legal and practical. However, it seems that, in the face of legal challenge as to both the practicality and the legality of the policy, the Home Office yesterday backed away from that position. I view the advice from this Home Office on these matters with very great caution.
Above all, my reservations about the Rwanda policy are based on my concerns as to its propriety. Can it be right to offload to somewhere else the responsibility for individuals who, for a time, have come into our jurisdiction? By doing so, we will have ensured that Ministers who are responsible for where they have gone are not accountable for the way in which they are treated, and I am finding myself extraordinarily uncomfortable with that concept. I might say, as someone who was here yesterday morning when the Minister had to answer a Private Notice Question on this matter, that I think she would agree the House was deeply concerned about that proposal.
However, if the Government wish to proceed with this policy, I can see no reason in principle why they should not seek as a precondition the express authority of Parliament. If I have correctly interpreted the Minister’s remarks in the debate on 4 April with regard to the 2004 Act, the principle of the affirmative resolution as a precondition to adding states to the list of safe countries has already been conceded. As I understand the 2004 Act—and it is not an easy one to understand—in respect of transfer to safe countries it provided for individual certification in respect of specific persons, whereas the present Bill is general in its application. But the principle of the affirmative resolution has been conceded; it is in legislation. So by all means have a debate about necessity but let us not have a debate about the principle, because that has been conceded.
The express parliamentary sanction for this policy is what Amendment F2 proposes—nothing more, nothing less. Before that consent will be given, the Government will have to satisfy Parliament that the criteria in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of new subsection (2B) contained in Schedule 3 are complied with.
The position of the Government as set out on the Order Paper is that it is not necessary to make the designation of a safe state by order dependent upon a statement as to costs. That was the position in the amendment moved by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham but it is not the position today, because the requirement for an assessment of costs has been removed from Amendment F2, which stands in my name.
In my view, it comes down to this: decisions of this kind, which affect the future and liberty of subjects of other countries but who have come here, is a matter that should be resolved by a vote of Parliament, not by the sole decision of the Executive. It is in furtherance of that view that I hope your Lordships, if circumstances allow, will support Amendment F2 in a Division.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
I shall speak to Motion C1, which takes us back to the refugee convention. The House may well think that, after the learned crescendo from the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, there is nothing left to say on the subject—but I will try. The fact is that the biggest and most blatant breach of the convention in this Bill is in Clause 11; this brings in the two-class system, with the underclass not allowed convention rights or access to public funds because they did not come directly from the country where they feared persecution.
I have to say to the Minister that the safeguard of Clause 36 is insufficient. You cannot come directly from Asmara, Sana’a, Kabul or Kyiv—and in any case, of course, the convention does not allow for such segregation. When we signed up to it, we agreed that the only check made would be whether the asylum seeker’s fear of persecution was real and well founded. That is what we have always done. Among those asylum seekers arriving by irregular routes—I note that, in every one of the last 10 years, there have been asylum seekers coming from Rwanda—75% of those coming by irregular routes have been found by the courts to be genuine asylum seekers and have been granted asylum. Their fears were well founded, but this Bill would put all of them in the underclass, with no convention rights.
This House has twice, by large majorities, thought that wrong, and that we should continue to honour the convention deal. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, reminded us, noble and learned Lords have repeatedly challenged the Government to explain why they see no incompatibility between the Bill and the convention. The Government’s silence has been eloquent. In the other place, on 20 April, a junior Minister took two sentences to dismiss our views. Our principled objections to Clause 11 were not refuted, explained, or even mentioned.
My amendment today concedes the differentiation that the Government want, but diffuses it. They can have their two classes, provided that the distinction takes account of the fact that you cannot come directly from a warzone, and provided that those in the underclass are not made destitute, losing all their convention rights. Although the Government say that it is, this is not about small boats in the channel. Illegal, inhumane differentiation would have no deterrent effect because these are desperate people. The way to defeat the traffickers is to open safe routes and not to close the family reunion route as this Bill seeks to do.
I am no lawyer, as is probably obvious, but I have served my country for long enough to see how international reputations are built over time and destroyed overnight. Britain’s reputation on humanitarian issues is a national asset, which should not be lightly thrown away. And for what? As the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, keeps reminding us, asylum seekers represent 4%, or sometimes 5%, of the annual immigration flow.
Finally, I have to say to the Minister that the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties does not permit a free-for-all of conflicting national interpretations, and it is misleading to imply that it does. In this House, we tend to insist that the rules-based system and international law matter. On the internal market Bill, we insisted, and our insistence carried the day. I think we must again insist that the other place finally address the big issue—better late than never—and think again about Clause 11. So, I am afraid, it is once more unto the breach, dear friends.
Lord Horam (Con)
My Lords, I shall add a little balance to this debate by speaking on behalf of the Government on this particular Bill. I speak in particular to Amendment C1 from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, Amendment B1 from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and Amendment H1 from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I say straightaway that I have great sympathy for the point of view they put forward in those three amendments. In particular, it is almost certainly the case that there are not enough legal routes for genuine refugees to this country. I recognise what the Minister said about the extent to which we have already accommodated refugees and the figures she quoted, but I still think that we do not have enough legal routes for the generality of refugees, leaving aside those from Hong Kong, the Afghans and Syrians and so forth.
The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, made the point very well on the previous group of amendments that if we compare the number of asylum seekers to the number of economic migrants—the number of work visas, for example—that is the real problem: in numbers. It is numbers I am concerned about principally and not the number of asylum seekers, which is comparatively small. I would trade a reduction in the number of economic migrants—people taking work visas, particularly the golden visas we have heard about more recently as a result of the Ukraine war—for an increase in the number of legal routes for genuine asylum seekers. That would be a very sensible thing to do. Not only that but it would be humane. I would do it on the simple humanitarian grounds that some people need legal routes more than purely economic migrants.
But the problem with that argument is that it only goes so far. First, there is the capacity to absorb new immigrants, given where we are with a large number of work visas, family visas and undergraduate visas each year and, on top of that, the Ukrainians, those from Hong Kong and the rest, and particularly as most immigrants go into the poorer areas of our country. If you read about or experience, as I have done as a former Member of Parliament, the effect on housing, schooling and GPs in the poorer areas of this country of a rapidly increasing number of immigrants over quite a short period, you can see the anger and despair of ordinary British people dealing with this situation. You cannot leave that out of account, particularly when one of the Government’s major objectives is the levelling-up agenda, which is precisely to help those areas most affected by the number of immigrants coming into the country, whether those are the large number of economic migrants or the smaller number of genuine refugees.
Finally on this point, however many legal routes we may have, we will not stop the traffickers in human beings just by having more legal routes. We have to tackle the problem directly. While there is a way of getting to this country by paying somebody £2,000 or £3,000 to come across the channel, people will take that opportunity. That is the difficulty. While I respect the views of the Opposition and the independents that we need more legal routes, that will not solve the problem of the traffickers across the channel. That is why we have this Bill; we need to tackle that problem directly.
I fully agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, on the important point they made about the 2001 refugee convention. I do not want this Government to step outside that in any way. It would be a tragedy if that happened. It should not be allowed to happen; I believe that it will not happen. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said that there had been no really serious arguments from the Government against his position on this issue, but he must have heard the arguments from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Tredegar, earlier in this Bill’s passage. At some length and across several columns of Hansard, he set out in detail exactly what the Government’s position was. Surely the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, must agree that the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, was very persuasive. He may not agree with him, but he was certainly persuasive in his full and detailed account of the Government’s position and why what they are doing remains within the refugee convention. That is the first point.
Secondly, lawyers such as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, and the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, are arguing this in theory and in absentia, being in the Chamber as we are. However, it has already happened in Australia, which has for many years had an offshoring policy agreed between all the parties. In the early stages of that process, its Government had to argue precisely what our Government are arguing now: that what they were doing by way of offshoring was within the 1951 convention and did not abrogate or step outside it in any way. There were court cases in Australia on precisely this point. The Australian Government won them all, because they showed clearly that they were not stepping outside the 1951 convention. So there is that evidence from another country which has done precisely what our present Government are doing.
In addition, the Australian Government did a sensible thing. Throughout the long development of their offshoring policy—it took two or three years; this is not something that will be resolved here overnight, perhaps not even in a year or two—they made a point of having a dialogue with the UNHCR, which is the guardian of the refugee convention. At every stage, they took the trouble to talk to not only the UNHCR’s headquarters in Geneva but to its local regional representatives and to allow them to inspect exactly what was happening in the offshoring areas and in Australia itself. This kept the UNHCR on board, if you like, so that it had no reasonable reason to disagree with what the Australian Government were doing. I hope that our Government will do exactly the same thing, because it is sensible to do so. We want the UNHCR to have an understanding that what our Government are doing is sensible and appropriate. We do not want to be excessively controversial.
There is a more general point about this Bill, which I have mentioned before. It is an enabling Bill. It simply sets the scene and gives the Government the power to do something. It is not the final policy. We are way off a final policy. For a start, we must have a sensible arrangement with France to deal with all this. I am sure that that will be a necessary part of any government policy. Having a sensible arrangement with France may be rather easier now that we know who its president is, but it will not be enough for Boris Johnson to say, “Donnez-moi un break, Emmanuel”. He will have to have a much more rounded policy, which may take several years given all the other issues we have with France on shipping, the Northern Ireland protocol and all the rest of it. It will take a long time to sort that out; it is far from finished.
Equally, on offshoring, although I hear what my noble friend the Minister said about what information is available, I still feel extremely vague about what is happening. I have no idea whether it will work. I have many questions about how this is going to be pursued. It may be a disaster for all I know. I think that a great deal will depend on how exactly it is executed. Again, the Australians, who did this, always say to me that it takes great effort to get these sorts of policies going because they are international policies involving other Governments and you have to get that all right.
So what we are saying here is that this is an enabling Bill. I ask the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, to think back to his period as a distinguished diplomat. He might well be saying to the Government, in these circumstances, “Keep the Bill as broad as possible. Give yourselves as much room to manoeuvre as possible, because you simply do not know what will come up in the course of these negotiations with France, Rwanda or whoever”. You have to allow for that and, if you find yourselves in a situation in which you would like to pursue a course of action but cannot, because the Bill simply does not allow for that and we do not have the legislation in place, it would be a disaster for the Government.
In that respect, we should consider that the Government do not have a final policy. We have an enabling Bill. Is it right for the Lords to prevent the Commons from even trying to have this policy, which may or may not eventually work? We should remember that, in the most recent votes on this, there was a majority of 70 or 80 in the Commons—more or less the government majority, without any dissent—on every single resolution put to it, against us and in favour of their arrangements. I cannot quote the present Attorney-General, but I can quote a recent one, Sir Robert Buckland. He is not necessarily any friend of the Government, as we know, because of the history there. He was the Attorney-General and is now the MP for South Swindon. He said that he worked with Priti Patel on the Bill and that
“it is in direct fulfilment of our manifesto commitment. There is no doubt in my mind about its importance and about the need for it to be passed.”—[Official Report, Commons, 22/3/22; col. 212.]
That was the view of a recent Attorney-General, Sir Robert Buckland, who is no one’s idea of a raving right-wing Tory.
Finally in all this, I think the Government should try to get as much consensus as possible, because I suspect this will be with us for several years—perhaps even over more than one Government, as it was in Australia. They should establish a forum for debate, where critics of the Government can talk and explain their worries and concerns. Maybe churchmen should be in it, and maybe the Refugee Council. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, is a trustee of the Refugee Council, so maybe he should be on this forum. Something like that would be a means of discussion whereby we do not just talk at each other across the Chamber and in the newspapers, but talk seriously about this very important problem, which any Government of whatever description would have to resolve—namely, these illegal boat trips across the channel.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I will be very brief after that monologue, which I found extremely boring. Forgive me if I am being rude; I do not know whether I am trespassing on any rules. But, really, if the noble Lord is coming to the Chamber, perhaps he could bring a speech and not choose to deliver some sort of long ramble, when we are quite short of time.
I am going to talk about Motion F1. I have listened to the Government and the Minister talking today about Rwanda and, quite honestly, I think their representation of Rwanda is extremely flawed. I draw the House’s attention to one report from Amnesty International, in 2021, last year, which produced a review on Rwanda that said that there were huge human rights concerns. For example, abortion remains illegal in most circumstances. The Government interfere in the right to fair trial, including torturing the accused, denying access to legal counsel and confiscating legally privileged material. They arrest journalists and opposition politicians, and there are deaths in custody.
What is happening? The Government talk all the time about stopping these trafficking gangs, but our Government are becoming a trafficking gang. They are going to take people abroad and leave them there. They are taking them to a country that has human rights abuses. This is inhumane and cruel, and I will be voting for every single amendment today, because the Government have overreached and are making themselves an embarrassment for us in the world.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak briefly—although I did think my noble friend Lord Horam, having been an MP, had a common-sense perspective.
I do not agree with Motion D1. The proposed right to work after six months here would be a significant pull factor, in addition to those already outlined by my noble friend Lady Stroud. It could even undermine the points-based system that is already leading to the UK welcoming many more people and more students now that Covid is largely behind us.
As noble Lords will recall, my main concern during the passage of the Bill has been the constantly expanding numbers of people arriving across the channel in small boats, sometimes with tragic consequences. The Rwanda proposal is a brave attempt to discourage the large number of young men, resident in France—which is a free country—who wish to come to the UK, mainly for economic reasons. Sadly, the vociferous critics of this proposal, some of whom we have heard from today, have no alternatives to propose. So I shall be supporting the Government today. I thank the Minister for all she has done to engage and for doing her best to progress this obviously difficult Bill.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I rise with some hesitancy because I feel I am likely to be chastised for rambling, saying the wrong thing and going on too long. But let me see if I can entertain you.
I think that this is a very important and serious moment in a discussion on a very important and serious matter. I do not feel that this Bill will resolve it. I have been critical throughout on a range of issues and I feel that the Government have wasted opportunities —but I am not going to remind noble Lords of that.
At this point in the passage of the Bill, having listened to the considerations in the other place, we should recognise with a certain humility that the failure of the Government or Parliament to deal with the arrival by irregular routes of so many people is seen by so many citizens of this country as making a mockery of border control. This has led people to welcome the Rwanda solution as “At least somebody is trying to do something”. People will ask, “What would you do about the boats crossing the channel?” It is fair enough for people to say that, if something appears to be a deterrent, maybe we should try it.
As it happens, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Horam, that there are not enough legal routes. I would like to open up a debate about more economic migration for unskilled workers. This might not go down well with my fellow citizens, but I should like to try to win that argument. I am fed up with having to describe people who want to come into this country as asylum seekers, when I know that many of them want a better standard of living—and why should they not have it? I defend them.
But we are not even having this debate. In this House, all the emphasis is on international obligations and the rule of law. There is little discussion about our obligations to the sovereignty of this country or the rights of British citizens of all ethnicities who worry about the fact that borders are not controlled. Perhaps I may remind noble Lords who are sighing that in a different context people are perfectly happy to grandstand about nation states, national sovereignty and the importance of border control—but that is only when you are talking about Ukraine. This is a different question.
On the Rwanda scheme, while I do not think that subcontracting our responsibilities to refugees to another country is against the nature of God, I actually do not like it. It is largely a cowardly decision. Despite what I have said, I would not choose this method. Over many years I have argued against such an approach, because I have always thought that any organisation that outsources or subcontracts its obligations on migration—particularly to heavily beleaguered countries—to police its borders on their behalf is washing their hands of a problem that they should tackle.
When I was criticising other places for doing this, I was criticising the EU—fortress Europe—which, for decades, has had a history of dumping asylum seekers on its non-EU neighbours. In 2016, the EU signed a deal with Turkey in exchange for £6 billion. President Erdoğan—that democrat—promised to stop Syrian refugees crossing the Turkish border into Greece and Bulgaria, and anyone found to have entered Greece was illegally deported to Turkey. The EU’s outsourcing of its migrant policy to, first, Colonel Gaddafi and, when he died, to warlords and militias or EU-funded Libyan detention centres has been a humanitarian disaster with torture and slavery at its heart. As it happens, Rwanda is not in that category, but I am always nervous about outsourcing to poor African countries that need the money; it seems unsavoury and cowardly. The reason these policies, which I feel avoid difficult problems, are greeted as they are by people is that they want something to be done. It equally avoids the problem and washes our hands of it to describe everyone in small boats as genuine refugees, and anyone who does not say that is seen as unkind. It also avoids the problem when you do not have an honest conversation about economic migration. It is equally cowardly and indulging in moral grandstanding to imply that “evil Tories” have turned into Nazis because they are actually putting forward a policy when no one knows what other policy to put forward. This does not help improve the level of debate about a very difficult situation.
Finally, and briefly, I support Motion D1, on the right to work, because it is ridiculous that we do not encourage people to have the right to work. In this instance, when the Government say that all claims should be settled within six months, I say to them: if they could get all the claims of the tens of thousands of people settled in a matter of months, we might not have a crisis where people say, “Bring in the Rwanda situation”. The claims go on and on for years and no one really trusts the processes to be done efficiently by Home Office civil servants in the background—no disrespect intended—so people sit around unproductively for years. For those who think that this would mean that they might undermine the wages and salaries of British citizens and workers, which is always a concern, let me tell noble Lords that, when they are sitting around for months and years, most are working but they are just working on the black market. That is perfectly legitimate because we will not let them work responsibly. Alternatively, if they are not working, they are sitting around doing nothing for years and years. That is not a very positive contribution to the UK, even if you are going to ask them to leave after their asylum status has been assessed eventually. I urge the Government, in this instance, to reconsider.
Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)
My Lords, I feel it necessary to say a few words because I was the Member responsible for bringing the amendments on offshoring to the House’s attention. I do not intend to make another Second Reading speech, because this not Second Reading. I do not intend to repeat the speech I gave when I introduced amendments in Committee. I am still opposed to the whole question of offshoring, particularly to Rwanda, for the reasons I have already given. I believe that it is inappropriate, legally dubious and very expensive, and I do not believe that it will have the effect, as is argued, of deterring the traffickers who should be dealt with in a harsh manner.
The other end of this place has twice now made it very clear that it does not support the wisdom that has come from this House. There is a constitutional issue here. Ping-pong is what it is; I believe that the will of the other place will prevail. As we have argued so forcefully, the responsibility for these actions must be laid squarely now on the shoulders of our friends in the other place—the Conservative MPs in particular and the Government—and, on that basis, I rest my position.
Lord Green of Deddington (CB)
I shall be extremely brief, noble Lords will be glad to hear. I should just like to draw attention to the state of public opinion, which is amazed by people arriving on our beaches in their tens of thousands. It was 30,000 last year; it could be double that this year. The public do not like it and they are right. It is very bad for the Government’s reputation. It is not so good for the Opposition either, in that the political system is failing to deal with an obviously very serious question.
The only way to deal with it is to break the business model of the traffickers. The Rwanda proposal is very far from ideal but for the present we have no alternative. I have to say, therefore, that it has my reluctant support.
Lord Cormack (Con)
My Lords, I just want to make three very brief points. First, I strongly agree with my noble friend Lord Kirkhope that ping-pong should not be an endless game. We should focus today on the two things which are recent and have come to our attention since the Bill came before us.
The first is dealt with by Amendment D1, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, and supported by my noble friend Lady Stroud. The Government have very rightly said that Ukrainian refugees should be able to work when they get here—so they should. We do not need a different policy for other asylum seekers—a point made very eloquently by my noble friend Lady Stroud. I think we can focus on that today.
The other thing, of course, concerns Rwanda, where I strongly sympathise with the points made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham. Whatever the merits or otherwise of the policy—and I strongly sympathise with the brief but trenchant intervention of Theresa May in the other place—it ought to be for Parliament to make the ultimate decision. To my mind, the right reverend Prelate’s amendment is far too long; my noble friend Lord Hailsham’s is straight and to the point. If we are to deport asylum seekers from this country to a third country, it should be with the approbation of both Houses. I hope this House will not indulge in too many votes tonight because we have to observe, as my noble friend Lord Kirkhope said, the constitutional conventions and proprieties which mean that ping-pong should not be an endless game.
Lord Dubs (Lab)
My Lords, I support the bulk of these amendments, particularly the Motion moved by my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti. I want to make some very brief comments because this is not a Second Reading debate, thank God.
I think the Minister said that the practice of claiming asylum in the first safe country one reaches is accepted Europe-wide. I would challenge that because the bulk of the refugees who have come to Europe have come through safe countries, whether they are the 1 million Syrians who went to Germany or the Ukrainians who are on their way to this country and elsewhere. That proposition, I am afraid, does not stand.
One theme that I have noticed in the debate this afternoon is the question of the validity of the 1951 Geneva convention. The Government, while accepting the convention in theory, seem to be challenging it all the way along the line. When the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees makes a statement about the Geneva convention, we should be very careful before we challenge it, because who else has the international authority but the keeper of that convention: namely, UNHCR? When the UNHCR is critical of what is happening as regards Rwanda, we should listen to it.
Lord McColl of Dulwich (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 26B. This House has been united in agreeing that improvements are needed to Part 5 of the Bill. The human trafficking sector has made that very clear in briefings to your Lordships. I have kept my endeavours to the support for victims who have been through the national referral mechanism and, by the Government’s own processes, have been confirmed as victims of modern slavery—as people who, by definition, have been through exploitation and trauma.
I am grateful to the Government for their commitment that victims in England and Wales will receive 12 months of tailored support. I am nevertheless extremely disappointed that the Government did not cross the next hurdle for victims and place this commitment in statute.
Last week, the Minister in the other place said that the Government were “unshakeable” in their position on my amendment. It is with regret that I have decided not to insist again—but I shall continue to be unshakeable myself in bringing this matter before your Lordships and the Government. I hope that the Minister will tell us the timetable to produce the guidance to which the Government have committed for confirmed victims. If not, will she give me details today; and, if not, write to me and place a copy in the Library?
I want to put on the record that I am grateful to all those in this House and beyond who have supported me during the passage of the Bill and voted for victims of modern slavery, and I pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Williams for all the help she has given me; I am most grateful.
Before I finish, I also want to raise several questions which fall within the scope of Amendments 53B and 53D. I understand the Government’s need to control immigration and, in my work on modern slavery, I am clearly opposed to organised crime. I understand why the Government have decided to seek a deterrent to those crossing the Channel, but I am extremely concerned that modern slavery victims who seek asylum are the subject of paragraph 14 of the Government’s memorandum of understanding with Rwanda.
We have spent months debating the care and identification of victims of trafficking, and it seems reasonable to assume that the UK is where that identification and care will occur. Please will the Minister set out the Government’s intention on identification and care of victims of modern slavery under the agreement with Rwanda, and in which country identification and care will occur?
Lord Hacking (Lab)
My Lords, I have listened to a debate of extremely strong argument and extreme persuasion, but I think it is now time that we got on with the task of sending back provisions of this Bill to the other place for it to reconsider. It is very touching for me to stand up for a moment here, because it is the 50th anniversary—exactly, to the day—of my maiden speech in this House.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)
I have been made anxious by the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, in this debate. I have to say that I do not think it is for me to decide whether this is in accordance with the law or not. The Law Officer of the Crown is the Attorney-General, and my understanding is that the Attorney-General has supported the Bill. Therefore, one can take it that her opinion is that it is lawful.
After all, lawyers sometimes disagree, and I am not prepared to put myself in the place of the Attorney-General of this Government. A very distinguished lady is in that office. Therefore, it is right for us to say that, so far as we are concerned, the Government have the advice of the appropriate Law Officer. It is also important that, if necessary, the Attorney-General is the adviser to this House. Therefore, it would be very difficult for us—or at least for me—to proceed on the assumption that this is unlawful. I of course understand the arguments about this, but the ultimate conclusion is that of the Attorney-General, and that, in my view, is why the Ministers in the other place asserted so strongly that this was lawful.
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, contrary to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Clashfern, has just said, I accept that the Attorney-General is a senior Law Officer. But she is also a member of the Government and, as far as I am concerned, in relation to Motions B and B1, it is vital that compliance of domestic legislation with the UK’s international obligations—in this case, the 1951 refugee convention—is decided by the courts. If a precedent is set that a UK Government can reinterpret its international obligations by passing domestic legislation, where does it end? This Bill would remove refugees’ fundamental human rights, as set out in an international convention to which the UK is a signatory, unless we support Motion B1.
Motion C1 applies the same principle. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood, said, the UK courts have held time after time that an asylum seeker’s temporary stop in another country on their way to the UK does not invalidate their claim for asylum in the UK, nor does a delay in presenting themselves to the authorities if they have good cause.
Motion C1 also, importantly, restates the provision in the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 that the Immigration Rules must not result in a breach of the refugee convention. It also states the importance of the best interests of the child and the right to family unity, and we support it.
On Motions D and D1, we have long campaigned for the right of asylum seekers to work, and we continue to do so. We do not believe that any so-called pull factor, as the Government claim the right to work to be, is as strong or as impactful as the push factors that force asylum seekers to seek sanctuary in another country—or is even a consideration compared to them. This is even more obviously the case if the right to work is the same or less generous than in other countries, as this amendment proposes. As the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, said, we wholeheartedly support it.
The issues in Motion E are arguably covered by Motion C1.
Motions F, F1 and F2 have been brought into stark relief by the Government’s announcement of the signing of a memorandum of understanding with the Government of Rwanda. An article in the Times yesterday, for which a considerable number of asylum seekers in northern France were spoken to, proves what the Home Office’s own civil servants have told the Home Secretary: that outsourcing, or offshoring, and the threat of permanent removal of asylum seekers to Rwanda will not deter channel crossings. That is what asylum seekers in northern France are saying.
The outrage of this House at these proposals was amply demonstrated yesterday, albeit unfairly directed at the Minister personally, in response to the Private Notice Question on the Rwanda deal. The Minister claimed that removal to places such as Rwanda had been legally possible for years. Can the Minister clarify whether offshoring is legally possible only if the Home Secretary certifies that a claim is without merit and that, even then, the claim can continue to be pursued from overseas? Is it right that there is no provision for a successful claimant of refugee status to be permanently excluded from the UK under current legislation?
The Minister talked about the cost of the asylum system being approximately £1.5 billion a year. Surely that is due mainly to the inefficiency and ineffectiveness of the Home Office, which has led to record levels of outstanding claims, despite the fact that the number of asylum claims is less than half of what it was a decade or so ago.
The Minister also said that noble Lords should read the memorandum of understanding. Some of us have. There is a section in it requiring Rwanda to provide appropriate support to those removed by the UK who are victims of modern slavery. Can the Minister confirm that the Government accept that victims of modern slavery will also be removed to Rwanda? Otherwise, why is that section contained in the MoU?
We will support anything that prevents this immoral and senseless government proposal being put into practice. If either the right reverend Prelate or the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, divide the House, we will support them.
On Motion G, as the Government have accepted in relation to Ukraine, family reunion is an important and effective means of providing sanctuary to asylum seekers, and we continue to support family reunion whenever and wherever we can.
On Motions H and H1, the Ukrainian refugee crisis has demonstrated how ill prepared the UK is and how uncaring the UK Government are in insisting on visas for dealing with the resettlement of refugees, compared with the generosity of the British people in offering to open up their homes. Setting a target and then gearing up to meet it is a sensible and pragmatic way of dealing with the issue, informed by local authorities.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, I too will try to be brief, which does not always come naturally to me. I start by congratulating my noble friend Lord Hacking on his 50th Lords birthday, or whatever the equivalent is; that is absolutely amazing.
This is a very serious group of amendments, and I will try to cut to the nub on each of them. I take the point made very well by the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, about how sometimes in this place—I have limited experience here compared to many other noble Lords—the policy with respect to the Bill changes as we read our morning newspapers. The Government have completely retreated on the pushback policy, which we see withdrawn from the Bill. There was a debate on whether it needed to be part of the Bill; we could not get a clear answer on that. I said that the MoD and the Home Office were at loggerheads, the Government told us that they were not, and then the MoD refused to do something, so the Government had to withdraw it before it gets to court. Is it any wonder that we say to the Commons, “Do you know what you’re doing?” and “You need to think again”?
I say to noble Lords, as I have to many people, that if the Commons had debated the 12 amendments and votes that went from this place for longer than an hour before they voted, we may have thought that this had been considered properly. While it is the constitutional right of this place to revise legislation and to say to the Commons to think again, we may have accepted that they had done that. However, in this case, as the House of Lords we are perfectly entitled to say to the Commons, “You spent an hour on it a couple of days ago; you can spend another hour on it this evening to think about whether you’ve got it right.”
Of course, at the end of the day, the elected Chamber has the right to get its way, but so has this place the right to say to the Commons, “Do you really think you’ve got it right?” On serious matters, when we are talking about asylum and refugee status, we have the right to say to the Commons, as each and every one of these amendments does, “Are you trebly or doubly sure that you’ve got it right?”
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I turned around then because thought I was back in the Commons being heckled. That is why these amendments are so important.
Very briefly, on Motion C1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and my Motion J1, which essentially deal with the same thing—the offence of arrival and the differential treatment—the Government and the Commons have failed to answer how on earth anybody can claim asylum in this country if they arrive here through an irregular route. They cannot; they are automatically assumed to be illegal. We are saying to the Government: surely that cannot be right.
Nobody wants unlimited irregular migration, but without Motion C1 or Motion J1 we are essentially saying in this Bill that Uighurs, Christians fleeing persecution and people from Ukraine or any of the hot spots of the world who come to this country are criminalised and are second-class refugees. Is that what we really want? On something as fundamental as that, we are perfectly entitled to turn around to the Government and ask, “Are you sure you’ve got that right? Is that what you really want?”. If in the end they say yes, as I suspect they will, of course we will have reluctantly to give way, but do we really want to say that a Ukrainian being bombed and fleeing on 3 January or whenever the illegal Russian invasion started—it applies from 1 January—who arrives in this country without a visa, a passport and the proper papers is illegal and a second-class refugee? Is that right? All the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and me seek to do is to ask, “Do you not need to think again on that?”. I suggest that they do.
The right reverend Prelate’s amendment essentially deals with safe and legal routes and the importance of what we have seen with respect to Rwanda. We saw in the Private Notice Question yesterday and the short remarks made today that there should have been a full and fundamental debate about Rwanda and the rights and wrongs of that policy. Rather than seeking workable safe return agreements with our closest neighbours, which we have successfully used in the past, the Government have instead spent millions of pounds press-releasing a deal that the Civil Service could not even sign off as being value for money. That is what we are being asked to accept and what Motion F1 on offshoring, in the name of the right reverend Prelate, seeks to deal with.
In closing, so that people get the gist that I support the amendments—I think we are right in sending a few back, if we and other noble Lords are lucky enough to get a majority in this House—I will speak to my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and some other noble Lords have supported Motion B1. What I am going to read is so important; it speaks for itself. The Government say the Bill conforms to the refugee convention. Motion B1 is saying, “Let’s put that in the Bill, then”. Why is this so important? It is because this country flies in the face of what the UNHCR said. I will read the paragraph. I hope noble Lords will bear with me while I read this, then I will finish. The UNHCR said:
“The Nationality and Borders Bill follows almost to the letter the Government’s New Plan for Immigration Policy Statement, issued on 24 March 2021, in some cases adding further restrictions on the right to claim asylum and on the rights of refugees. UNHCR must therefore regretfully reiterate its considered view that the Bill is fundamentally at odds with the Government’s avowed commitment to upholding the United Kingdom’s international obligations under the Refugee Convention and with the country’s longstanding role as a global champion for the refugee cause.”
That is why Motion B1 is so important, why the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and other noble Lords have made the remarks they have, and why my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti has moved this Motion. The UNHCR has said that our global reputation is at risk. That is why we should ask the House of Commons to think again, and we are perfectly entitled to do so.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I join other noble Lords in wishing the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, a very happy 50th anniversary of his maiden speech. I do not think I will be here on the 50th anniversary of my maiden speech; my family will not let me.
Yes, people have taken longer in this debate than they might have. It is an incredibly important Bill, so I do not accuse my noble friend Lord Horam of being long and rambling. As is the convention of your Lordships’ House, everyone has a right to have their say. In my time I have listened to many a long and rambling speech and managed to keep a smile on my face, so I think we all should.
I will first talk to the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, supported by my noble friend Lady Stroud, on the cost of the right-to-work amendment. We have carefully considered all the evidence put forward on the issue, and the financial assumptions made by the Lift the Ban report are not supported by our findings. They are optimistic and do not reflect the nuanced reality of asylum seeker employment. To the extent that there would be any savings at all—that is doubtful—they are likely, in all cases, to come with a loss to the Home Office stemming from operating a more relaxed policy. There are a number of operational challenges, but the main ones relate to the likely need for many asylum seekers either to transition in and out of support while working, due to the nature of low-paid transitory jobs, or to continue to be supported while working. This would mean that savings on support payments would be extremely limited, while setting up and maintaining a system to calculate adjustments to such payments as wages rise and fall, week to week and month to month, would be complex and costly.
As a result, the Government’s view is that our resources would be better deployed in reforming the end-to-end asylum system and reducing unfounded intake, thereby resulting in faster decisions and genuine refugees being able to work and integrate more quickly. My noble friend and I agree on the ends, just not on the means to get there.
I turn next to the speech made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. I repeat that the UK is a global leader in resettlement. We have provided a route to resettlement for more than 100,000 people.
On the refugee convention, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern said, the Attorney-General has signed off this Bill. We maintain that our policy complies fully with our international obligations and is a good faith interpretation in line with the Vienna convention. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said, the Vienna convention is not intended to be a free-for-all; there are parameters in it. Where the terms of the refugee convention are open to some interpretation, there may of course be more than one good faith, compatible interpretation. I notice that the noble Lord is shaking his head—I never expected him to agree with me—but that is our view. My noble friend Lord Wolfson has set out at great length his view on the refugee convention.
The noble Lord, Lord Pannick, challenges me to make the statement that we do not think it complies but are doing it anyway; he will not be surprised that I am not going to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said it is for the courts to decide our interpretation. No, it is for Parliament.
In response to the speech made by my noble friend Lord Hailsham, supported by my noble friend Lord Cormack, I reiterate that these amendments would go significantly beyond existing legislation, which has of course been in place for decades.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, asked me to confirm that there will be a chance to debate the Rwanda partnership in both Houses before any individual is removed. There has already been significant debate on the partnership in a Statement by the Home Secretary, in Commons Questions, in a PNQ and again in this House today. I know there will be many more opportunities to debate this.
The noble Lord, Lord Dubs, also asked about family reunion. As I have said to him on many occasions, those with family links in the UK who want to be considered for entry to the UK should seek to do so via legal and safe routes. No one should put their life into the hands of criminals by making dangerous and irregular journeys. I assure the noble Lord that access to family reunion will be available to all group 1 and group 2 refugees where a refusal would breach their Article 8 rights, in line with our international obligations.
My noble friend Lord McColl and the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, asked how the Rwanda partnership would apply to victims of modern slavery. Decisions on the partnership will be taken on a case-by-case basis and nobody will be relocated if it is unsafe or inappropriate for them. Everyone considered for relocations will be screened, interviewed and have access to legal advice. The provision in the MoU ensures that Rwanda supports everyone who is transferred. Again, I reassure noble Lords that we will only ever act in line with our commitments under our international legal obligations, including those that pertain to potential and confirmed victims of modern slavery.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords without exception, and especially to the Minister for her characteristic calm and courtesy, if not for the content of some of her message. She had one substantive argument against Motion B1, which was her constitutional objection that, somehow, the courts would trump the will of Parliament if we put the Government’s commitment to this legislation honouring the refugee convention on the face of the Bill.
With all due respect, not least to the noble Baroness and her hard-working advisers, if there was anything in that argument, it would have been better addressed to the previous iterations of my amendment. This time, the amendment on the Marshalled List says that this legislation
“must be read and given effect”,
subject to the refugee convention,
“So far as it is possible to do so”.
If a provision of this Bill is found to be so clearly incompatible with the refugee convention, the court or tribunal would have to respect the will of Parliament and simply make a declaration to that effect. With respect, I think that constitutional balance point has been pre-empted by the new draft of this amendment. That is what we do for the ECHR. The sentiment of the short remarks of the Minister in the other place seem to be that we honour both the ECHR and the refugee convention. It seems illogical, in legislation that is for refugees, not to put those two matters on the same statutory footing.
Further, in her earlier remarks, the noble Baroness said that rules that are made under the 1993 legislation cannot be made in a way that is incompatible with the refugee convention. So rules under the 1993 Act would be subject to refugee convention protection, but acts of discretion by individual prosecutors, immigration officers or the Home Secretary under this legislation would not be subject to the same protection. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Horam, for his significant assistance with that argument, because he referred to this as “enabling” legislation. Whether noble Lords agree with that particular adjective, he is right that there are many discretions in this part. My modest amendment would ensure that these discretions, where possible, would have to be exercised in a way that is compatible with the refugee convention. If it is not possible to do so, the language cannot be interpreted out of existence by the courts under the new draft. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Horam, for that.
Finally, refugees and asylum seekers did not feature significantly in the Conservative manifesto of 2019, but it said this:
“We will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution, with the ultimate aim of helping them to return home if it is safe to do so.”
“We will ensure no matter where in the world you or your family come from, your rights will be respected and you will be treated with fairness and dignity.”
That was the manifesto commitment.
In a jurisdiction that has no entrenched Bill of Rights or written constitution, no Supreme Court or constitutional court with strike-down powers, this place, your Lordships’ House, has a significant role to play when fundamental and constitutional rights are at stake, and where there is no conflict with the Government’s manifesto commitments or their repeated and expressly stated policy. Motion B1 honours all of that: the manifesto promise and the policy stated expressly and repeatedly by Ministers in both Houses of Parliament. I ask noble Lords to agree it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6C.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion C, so I beg to move.
Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard
At end insert “and do propose Amendments 6D, 6E and 6F in lieu—
“(2A) A refugee is not to be regarded as failing to comply with the requirement in subsection (2)(a) if, in coming to the United Kingdom, they have stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom with the intention that the stopover in the intermediate country was to be a brief transit on the way to the United Kingdom.
(2B) A refugee is not to be regarded as failing to comply with the requirement in subsection (2)(b) if they had good cause to delay the point at which they presented themselves to the authorities.”
“(4A) It shall be for the Secretary of State to prove a failure to comply with the requirement in subsection (2)(a), (2)(b) or (3), as the case may be.”
“(8A) In accordance with section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, no such immigration rules shall lay down any practice or differentiate in any way which would be contrary to the Refugee Convention.
(8B) Immigration rules implementing this provision must take due account of the best interests of children and the fundamental right to family unity in all cases.””
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 7B and 7C, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 7D and 7E.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
I have already spoken to Motion D, so I beg to move.
Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)
Baroness Lister of Burtersett
At end insert “and do propose Amendments 7F and 7G in lieu—
“Changes to the Immigration Act 1971
(1) The Immigration Act 1971 is amended as follows.
(2) After section 3(2) (general provisions for regulation and control) insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (2) must provide that persons, and adult dependants of persons, who are applying for asylum in the United Kingdom are granted permission by the Secretary of State to take up employment if—
(a) a decision at first instance has not been taken on the applicant’s asylum application within six months of the date on which the application was made, or
(b) a person makes an application or a further application which raises asylum grounds, and a decision on that new application, or a decision on whether to treat such further asylum grounds as a new application, has not been taken within six months of the date on which the further application was made.
(2B) For the purposes of subsection (2A), regulations must ensure that permission granted allowing people applying for asylum in the United Kingdom, and their adult dependants, to take up employment, is on terms no less favourable than the terms granted to a person with recognised refugee status.
(2C) Such permission is to be valid until the claim is determined and all appeal rights have been exhausted and individuals granted permission to work must be issued with physical proof of the right to work.”
(3) The Secretary of State may, by regulations made by statutory instrument, repeal subsection (2) of this section, if the conditions set out in subsections (4) and (5) have been met.
(4) The first condition is that within three years of the coming into force of this section, but no sooner than two years after the coming into force of this section, the Secretary of State has commissioned a review of whether the provisions inserted into the Immigration Act 1971 by subsection (2) have acted in such a way as to encourage persons applying for asylum, and adult dependants of such persons, to travel to the United Kingdom.
(5) The second condition is that the Secretary of State has, within three years of the coming into force of this section, published the outcome of the review under subsection (4).
(6) Regulations under subsection (3) may not be made unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.”
“(aa) section (Changes to the Immigration Act 1971);””
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 8B and 8C, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 8D and 8E.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion E, so I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 53B, 53C and 53D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reasons 53E, 53F and 53G.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F, so I beg to move.
Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 53H in lieu—
“1 In section 77 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (no removal while claim for asylum pending), after subsection (2) insert—
“(2A) This section does not prevent a person being removed to, or being required to leave to go to, a third State, where all of the following conditions are met—
(a) the removal is pursuant to a formal, legally binding and public readmission or transfer agreement between the United Kingdom and the third State;
(b) the criteria for removal are public, transparent and non-discriminatory;
(c) the State is a safe State, as shown by reliable, objective and up-to-date information, in that there are, in law and practice—
(i) appropriate reception arrangements for asylum-seekers;
(ii) sufficiency of protection against persecution, threats to physical safety, violations of fundamental rights, and other serious harms;
(iii) respect for human rights in accordance with international standards;
(iv) protection against refoulement;
(v) fair and efficient State asylum procedures, with sufficient capacity to process asylum claims fairly and in a timely manner;
(vi) the legal right to remain during the State asylum procedure; and
(vii) if found to be in need of international protection, a grant of refugee status that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2 to 34 of the Refugee Convention;
(d) the person will have access to such fair and efficient asylum procedures, or to a previously afforded refugee status or other protective status that is inclusive of the rights and obligations set out at Articles 2 to 34 of the Refugee Convention;
(e) it has been determined following an individualised assessment in which the person has an effective right to participate that it is reasonable for the person to go to that State in light of their individual circumstances, including—
(i) their ties to the United Kingdom;
(ii) their vulnerabilities and specific needs, including but not limited to their sexual or gender identity and any history of modern slavery, torture, or gender-based violence;
(iii) the prospects of their long-term integration into the receiving State; and
(iv) any reasons that the State may not be safe for them; and
(f) the person is not a national of that State.
(2B) The Secretary of State must in each year lay a report before both Houses of Parliament which includes—
(a) the number of people who have been removed to a third State while their asylum claim is pending;
(b) the cost of removal per person.”””
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I wish to test the opinion of the House.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10C.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion G and I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 11B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 11C.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion H and I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 13B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 13C, or on its Amendment 15, to which the Commons have insisted on their disagreement.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion J and I beg to move.
Motion J1 (as an amendment to Motion J)
Lord Coaker
Moved by
At end insert “and do propose Amendment 13D as an amendment in lieu and Amendment 13E as a consequential amendment—
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 20B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 20C.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion K, and I beg to move.
Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K)
“(3A) Subsection (1) does not apply to a person whose action is taken for humanitarian reasons including the preservation of life.”””
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 25B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 25C.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion L. I beg to move.
Motion L1 (as an amendment to Motion L)
“Identified potential victims etc: disqualification from protection
(1) This section applies to the construction and application of Article 13 of the Trafficking Convention.
(2) A competent authority may determine that it is not bound to observe the minimum recovery period under section 60 of this Act in respect of a person in relation to whom a positive reasonable grounds decision has been made if the authority is satisfied that it is prevented from doing so—
(a) on the grounds of public order; or
(b) where the person is claiming to be a victim of modern slavery improperly.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(a), the circumstances in which there are grounds of public order are where—
(a) the person has been convicted of a terrorist offence; or
(b) the person is subject to a TPIM notice (within the meaning given by section 2 of the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011).
(4) The Secretary of State must, within one year of this Act being passed—
(a) prepare and publish a consultation on whether the circumstances in which there are grounds of public order under subsection (3) should be expanded to include circumstances where a person has been convicted of any specific offence listed in Schedule 4 to the Modern Slavery Act 2015, other than a terrorist offence; and
(b) lay a response to the consultation before each House of Parliament.
(5) A consultation response published under subsection (4)(b) must include a statement setting out how any proposed additions to subsection (3) are compliant with the Trafficking Convention.
(6) In subsection (3) a “terrorist offence” means any of the following (whenever committed)—
(a) an offence listed in—
(i) Schedule A1 to the Sentencing Code (terrorism offences: England and Wales), or
(ii) Schedule 1A to the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (terrorism offences: Scotland and Northern Ireland);
(b) an offence that was determined to have a terrorist connection under—
(i) section 69 of the Sentencing Code (in the case of an offender sentenced in England and Wales), or
(ii) section 30 of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 (in the case of an offender sentenced in Northern Ireland, or an offender sentenced in England and Wales before the Sentencing Code applied);
(c) an offence that has been proved to have been aggravated by reason of having a terrorist connection under section 31 of the Counter- Terrorism Act 2008 (in the case of an offender sentenced in Scotland).
(7) Any determination made under subsection (2) must only be made—
(a) in exceptional circumstances;
(b) where necessary and proportionate to the threat posed, including that the person in question poses an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order; and
(c) following an assessment of all the circumstances of the case.
(8) A determination made under subsection (2) must not be made where it would breach—
(a) a person’s rights under the European Convention on Human Rights;
(b) the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Trafficking Convention; or
(c) the United Kingdom’s obligations under the Refugee Convention.
(9) For the purposes of a determination under subsection (2)(b) victim status is being claimed improperly if the person knowingly and dishonestly makes a false statement without good reason, and intends by making the false statement to make a gain for themselves.
(10) A good reason for making a false statement includes, but is not limited to, circumstance where—
(a) the false statement is attributable to the person being or having been a victim of modern slavery, or
(b) any means of trafficking were used to compel the person into making a false statement.
(11) This section does not apply where the person is under 18 years at the time of the referral.
(12) In section 49 of the Modern Slavery Act 2015 (guidance about identifying and supporting victims), after subsection (1)(c) insert—
“(d) under what circumstances a person may be considered to pose an immediate, genuine, present and serious threat to public order, for the purposes of the application of Article 13 of the Trafficking Convention.”
(13) Nothing in this section affects the application of section 60(2).””
Baroness Williams of Trafford
Moved by
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 26B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 26C.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion M. I beg to move.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Wednesday 27th April 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 152-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (27 Apr 2022)
18:23 - Division on Motion A1 - Ayes: 157 / Noes: 212 - Motion A1 disagreed.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendment 5D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5E.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Williams of Trafford) (Con)
My Lords, I beg to move Motion A that this House do not insist on its Amendment 5D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 5E. With the leave of the House, I will also speak to Motions B and C.
We return again to consider the Nationality and Borders Bill, and I am grateful to noble Lords on both sides of the House for the careful consideration they have given to the issues at hand and the care with which they have scrutinised this Bill. We must now make progress to pass this on to the statute book.
I turn first to Motion A and Amendment 5F, which would require that the provisions of Part 2
“must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Refugee Convention”.
The Government’s position remains that the provisions of this Bill are compliant with the refugee convention. The other place has consistently accepted this position. Ultimately, though, I cannot support this amendment as it is an attempt to copy Section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the effect of which on the interpretation of the legislation is unique and far outside the ordinary rules of statutory interpretation. The amendment goes on to provide a mechanism for the courts to declare that certain provisions may be incompatible. Again, I must take issue with this for the same reasons, because we absolutely assert that the interpretations of the refugee convention which we are taking in this Bill are fully compliant. I will explain to the House why it is open to us to take this view.
The refugee convention leaves certain terms and concepts open to a degree of interpretation by contracting states. This ensures that it can stand the test of time and be applied across many jurisdictions with different legal systems. Necessarily, therefore, there is a need to define and apply such terms in domestic legislation in accordance with the principles of the Vienna convention —the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, made that point yesterday —taking a good-faith interpretation in accordance with the ordinary meaning of the language of the convention.
The provisions in Part 2 are in line with this. They are clear and unambiguous, and are a good-faith interpretation of the refugee convention. The plain fact is that there may be differences in interpretation in different contracting states—that is how international law necessarily must work to allow it to remain relevant and applicable across a range of jurisdictions—but this does not mean that the interpretation we are taking here, to which we ask Parliament to agree, is not a good-faith interpretation. We have considered carefully the compatibility of these provisions with the refugee convention, and a great deal of the Government’s position was comprehensively set out in the all-Peers letter sent by my noble friend Lord Wolfson.
We need to consider one of the primary purposes of Part 2: to provide a clear interpretation of key components of the refugee convention. This will benefit all those who interact with the asylum system, be they Home Office decision-makers, the courts, legal representatives or, most importantly, asylum seekers themselves. We have talked at length about how people seeking protection deserve a clearer, quicker and more just system. Let us not take away from the gains made by this Bill by casting doubt on what Parliament has agreed are fair interpretations of the convention.
The new amendment is not only unnecessary because the contents of Part 2 are fully compliant with our international obligation; it is also contrary to a fundamental purpose of this Bill, which is, where possible, to tightly define the nature of our obligations under the refugee convention while remaining compliant with those obligations to support consistent and accurate decision-making.
Yesterday, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, said that her Amendment 5D, to which this amendment is similar in effect, was intended to do
“no more, but no less, than that already provided for in law by the ECHR”.—[Official Report, 26/4/22; col. 148.]
The ECHR has been given effect in domestic law through the Human Rights Act 1998 and is constitutionally different, as the ECHR has a supranational body whose judgments relating to interpretation are binding. The Human Rights Act therefore gives courts the authority, so far as it is possible to do so, to read and give effect to primary legislation and subordinate legislation in a way that is compatible with the convention rights.
However, the Act goes further and recognises the primacy of Parliament, as a declaration of incompatibility does not invalidate either the primary legislation or subordinate legislation where primary legislation prevents removal of incompatibility. The refugee convention has no supernatural court—I mean supranational court; things are getting spooky—and is not incorporated into domestic law. It is no different to other international instruments beyond the ECHR, and there is no rational reason to treat it or Part 2 of this Bill differently to other parts of the Bill in this regard. The amendment would have wider cross-government implications.
The amendment now includes a requirement for the Secretary of State to be notified when the court or tribunal is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility with the refugee convention, and allows the Secretary of State to join proceedings. Unfortunately, that does nothing to alleviate our objections to the amendment, as I have just outlined. Our position remains that the provisions in Part 2 are fully compliant with our international obligations, in particular those under the refugee convention.
Turning to Motion B and Amendments 6H and 6J, I must again insist that we cannot accept anything that goes against one of the absolutely fundamental aspects of this Bill: deterring people from making dangerous and unnecessary journeys. The status of Clause 11 as a deterrent is closely tied to the “first safe country” principle. Although the inadmissibility policy encourages asylum seekers to claim asylum in the first safe country they reach, it might not always result in an asylum seeker being removed to a safe third country; for example, due to some documentation or logistical issue. Consequently, the differentiation policy is required to add an extra layer of deterrent to the asylum policy framework, and we have a moral obligation to act to prevent such dangerous and unnecessary journeys. I cannot, therefore, accept this amendment.
I turn now to Amendment 6H, which again seeks to shift the burden of proof in applying Clause 11 on to the Secretary of State and seems to intend to make it more difficult for the Government to apply one of their core principles. First, I assure noble Lords that my officials are developing detailed guidance for decision-makers to assess whether the claimant qualifies for refugee status and, where they do, whether they are a group 1 or group 2 refugee. As is currently the case, we will continue to support claimants throughout the asylum process to ensure that they are able to present all evidence substantiating their asylum claim, including in relation to whether they are group 1 or group 2 refugees, for example via a substantive asylum interview with a Home Office official. As I explained, while Home Office officials will continue to provide this support, it remains necessary for the claimant, not the Secretary of State, to demonstrate whether they are group 1 or group 2. I therefore cannot accept this amendment.
I turn now to Amendment 6J, which, to be clear from the outset, is completely unnecessary. The Government, as I and my colleagues in the other place have said many times, are fully committed to complying with our international obligations. All the clauses in this Bill, the changes to the Immigration Rules which will be required to implement them, and the New Plan for Immigration more broadly will be compliant with all our international obligations. This includes our obligations under the refugee convention, the European Convention on Human Rights, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
In fact, there is already legislation which ensures compatibility between the Immigration Rules and our obligations under the refugee convention. Section 2 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 already sets out the primacy of the refugee convention in the Immigration Rules. It states:
“Nothing in the immigration rules (within the meaning of the 1971 Act) shall lay down any practice which would be contrary to the Convention.”
I remind noble Lords that it is our unwavering position that all provisions in the Bill, including Clause 11, are compliant with our obligations under the refugee convention. I also assure noble Lords that Section 2 of the 1993 Act will continue to act as an additional safeguard for policies covered in the Immigration Rules, which will include differential treatment of refugees. As such, I cannot support the amendment.
Turning lastly to Motion C, Amendments 7F and 7G would effectively create an amnesty to allow people who have claimed asylum prior to the commencement of the Bill, along with their adult dependants, the right to work after six months rather than the current 12 months, as well as removing the condition restricting jobs for people who are allowed to work to those on the shortage occupation list. The amendment would not only reward people who have in many cases arrived illegally in an attempt to undermine our economic migration system, but it would create enormous operational burdens for the Home Office to implement, very likely—as per the findings of the Government’s review into the policy —leading to a net yearly loss to the department in running costs.
I reassure noble Lords that the Government want to see all claims being settled within six months, so that people can get on with rebuilding their lives, including working. We are making every effort to ensure this is a reality under the New Plan for Immigration. I therefore advise the House that we cannot accept this amendment. I conclude my remarks there and beg to move.
Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)
“Interpretation of Part 2
(1) So far as it is possible to do so, the provisions of this Part must be read and given effect in a way which is compatible with the Refugee Convention.
(2) If a court or tribunal determining a question which has arisen in connection with the provisions of this Part cannot read and give effect to those provisions in a way which is compatible with the Refugee Convention, it must make a declaration to that effect.
(3) Where a court or tribunal is considering whether to make a declaration of incompatibility, the Secretary of State is entitled to notice in accordance with rules of the court or tribunal.
(4) In any case to which subsection (3) applies the Secretary of State is entitled, on giving notice in accordance with rules of the court or tribunal, to be joined as a party to the proceedings.
(5) Notice under subsection (4) may be given at any time during the proceedings.””
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
My Lords, once more I thank noble Lords for caring about the refugee convention, and I thank the Minister for the courtesy of each and every one of our exchanges over many months.
Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (CB)
My Lords, I rise, I hope for the last time—a hope which will be shared by every Member of this House—to support this amendment. There are not many issues that it is worth going to the stake for, but surely the rule of law is one. I have spent 60 years of my life on it and do not propose to stop here. I suggest that your Lordships support this too.
This Motion as now put fully respects the sovereignty of Parliament, just as the Human Rights Act does. It is the one simple provision that is needed to ensure that questions about the legality of this Bill can be brought before our courts and decided by an independent judge, and it is surely the least contentious way of achieving that. Indeed, it is beyond logical objection. In truth, the only objection raised is that it is unnecessary —surely the weakest objection that one can ever produce. If we never passed a provision which was unnecessary, the statute book would be a good deal lighter and the better for it. But here, it is needed, unless Parliament—your Lordships’ House and the other place—is happy to oust the courts’ jurisdiction in the whole area of what constitutes a right to refugee status, to asylum sanctuary.
It did not appear seemly yesterday to intervene during the short contribution of—if he will allow me to call him this—my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. My reverence for him is boundless, not least because 30 years ago he had the sagacity to promote me to the Court of Appeal. However, he surely cannot maintain that, because the Attorney-General advises, as she may well have done, that this Bill is refugee convention compliant, that is that and we should just buy into it without thought: that this would be a sufficient basis for putting the whole Bill beyond the purview of the courts. Think about Miller 2; think about the prorogation order. We were told very plainly, and none of us doubts, that Geoffrey Cox, QC and then Attorney-General, had said that this is perfectly lawful. But that did not put it beyond the courts. If ever there was a case for not putting compliance with international law beyond the courts, this surely must be it.
I will make three short points on the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Horam, yesterday, which attracted a rather ungenerous rebuke, although that is by the way. His first point was the general one that this is merely “an enabling Bill” giving the Government “power to do something”. That is surely not so in respect of the important group of clauses we are considering here, which, under the heading “Interpretation of Refugee Convention”, redefine it. Without our amendment, the courts would have no alternative but to apply those provisions, whether or not they are regarded as compatible with the convention. There is nothing by way of this being merely an enabling Bill; it is a declaratory Bill beyond question.
Secondly, the noble Lord, Lord Horam, reminded us of the five-page letter circulated by the then excellent Minister, whose ears must be burning already from the previous debate, and quite rightly, because his loss is a terrible one for us all. The letter set out the Government’s legal arguments for contending that these definition provisions can be viewed as convention-compliant. I have the greatest regard for the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and certainly there is not a soul at the Bar who could have made more persuasive arguments to that effect. But they are just that: arguments. They should not therefore, of themselves, necessarily win your Lordships’ support. Included among those arguments were many that had been roundly rejected in the course of this country building up a quarter of a century’s worth of plain, authoritative jurisprudence that decided the questions of what the refugee convention required, which the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, acknowledged are now being overturned by the Bill.
Thirdly and finally, the noble Lord, Lord Horam, at col. 157 of yesterday’s Hansard, said that he fully agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and myself,
“about the 2001 refugee convention”.
He called it the 2001 convention; obviously there is the 1951 convention. He continued:
“I do not want this Government to step outside that in any way. It would be a tragedy if that happened. It should not be allowed to happen; I believe that it will not happen.”—[Official Report, 26/4/22; col. 157.]
But surely he must accept that there needs to be scope, therefore, for somebody to look at it independently once the statute is enacted.
Finally, if we look at the front cover of this Bill, we will see a statement, required by the Human Rights Act, by the Minister—the noble Baroness, Lady Williams —which says, under the heading of the European Convention on Human Rights, that it is her view that
“the provisions of the Nationality and Borders Bill are compatible with the Convention rights”.
She may well indeed have been so advised by the Attorney-General, but surely nobody has ever doubted that that means that it is enough in itself; it is not. What the Act says is that you should try to construe it compatibly and if you cannot you declare it—precisely the mirror image of what is now proposed for this self- same legislation.
I urge your Lordships—not at this stage because it is so late in the day and the ping-pong ball has been returned two or three times already—to consider whether we really should quit on the constitutional issue on this vital rule-of-law question. At this stage, I urge the noble Baroness to divide the House on the issue and let it be supported by all those who want this country to abide by the rule of law.
Lord Pannick (CB)
My Lords, I support what was said by the noble and learned Lord. When this matter went back to the House of Commons last night, the Minister there said that the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, was “unnecessary, inappropriate and unconstitutional”. What the Minister failed to recognise, with great respect, is that whether there has been compliance with the refugee convention has been a matter for the courts of this jurisdiction for at least the last 40 years.
Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)
My Lords, I attended throughout the debate on the Bill yesterday and remained completely silent, and I arrived today intending to follow that good advice again, because I was actually unable to attend the earlier stages of the Bill at any scale and thought it would be quite wrong for me to join so late. But this is an important issue, which I have listened to very carefully, and I would quite like to register my views.
Yesterday, I voted with the Government against all the amendments to the Bill, because I think we have reached the stage where the opinion of the Commons should prevail, and I am not fundamentally against them trying this new innovation of offshoring illegal immigrants. I very much doubt that it will work, but I think they are allowed to have their way and see what happens. But I did vote yesterday in favour of the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, and the more I listen to the debate, the more it seems to me that there are hugely important constitutional issues here. We are not getting a satisfactory reply, and we are not even getting, in the House of Commons, any very considered response from the Ministers available.
We all know that the present Government particularly dislike their important subjects being subject to judicial review: they were very upset when their Prorogation was overturned. Many other Governments have rather regretted it, but I think it is a vital protection. The Government’s view that what they are doing complies with our international legal obligations and with our own unwritten constitution—which has no force if the courts could not sometimes apply it—is very unwise. I think we should just defend that essential protection. The idea that the opinion of the Attorney-General, whoever he or she may be, in a Government of whatever complexion, if accepted by the Government, should not be a matter that goes any further or be a subject either for Parliament or for the courts, is sweeping and, with the greatest respect, slightly absurd, because no Attorney-General, however distinguished, has ever been infallible on these matters. So I do believe that, among the many important provisions of the Bill, this is the most important of all because of its wider constitutional questions.
I congratulate the parliamentary draftsmen on their ingenuity in producing terms that exclude the jurisdiction of the courts entirely on such matters. I am sure that, if it were done this time, we would find it happening with ever more regularity, in Bill after Bill presented by future Governments to this House. We should make one last attempt to stop that and I am afraid that I have not been persuaded to turn away from my support for the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, if she presses her amendment again.
Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)
My Lords, it is a great challenge as well as a great honour to speak after the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke. I shall speak to Motion B1, which again seeks to bring the Bill into line with our international commitments. I believe there is a very important point of principle at stake here. There may actually be two points of principle—I am not sure about the second one—but the key one is pacta sunt servanda. The rules-based system works only if the rules are respected by all. We have just heard again—and we could hardly have heard more authoritatively —that this Bill is in breach of our commitments under the refugee convention.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, reminded us yesterday that UNHCR, to which we gave the job of supervising the interpretation of the convention, has confirmed yet again, authoritatively, in the strongest possible terms, that the Bill breaches that convention. We have heard from the Government Front Bench chop logic about how the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties allows conflicting national interpretations—but that really will not wash, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has reminded us. We agreed to UNHCR’s supervising role: it is in the convention. We can complain from the stands when the referee rules our man offside, but we are not allowed to send on a substitute referee, and the referee’s ruling stands. So, it is not surprising that this House has voted three times to remove or improve Clause 11, which is where the breach of the convention is crystallised.
Yesterday, we heard from the Conservative Back Benches suggestions—I think it was just one suggestion—that all this was foreshadowed, and so legitimised, in the 2019 Conservative manifesto. Not so. I have checked. What the manifesto says is:
“We will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution”—
and, later on:
“We will ensure, no matter where you come from, your rights will be respected and you will be treated with fairness and dignity.”
“Fairness” and “dignity” are fine words, but how can they be reconciled with depriving desperate people of their convention rights and their access to public funds, condemning them to destitution without even the miserable £5 a day subsistence that we pay to those stuck for years in the asylum process queue? Can we honestly say that those to whom we would in future be giving nothing at all would be being treated with fairness and dignity? No: Clause 11 is wrong in principle—pacta sunt servanda—and it would be shaming in practice.
My second point I put much more tentatively. Again, it is one the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, touched on yesterday. I put it tentatively because I have never served in the other place, but he has, with some distinction. It seems to me that this House is being treated with contempt. Of course, the elected Chamber must have the last word, but its view must surely be informed by an understanding of the considerations that led the revising Chamber to propose the changes it did. If I am right, are the Government, with all due respect, not cheating when they blandly assert no incompatibility the convention, when they make no attempt to refute—but simply ignore—this House’s demonstration that there is clear incompatibility, and when they allow minimal time to discuss an issue that is so important to our reputation as a law-abiding country?
Lord Paddick (LD)
My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, whom I have the greatest respect for, I am not a lawyer, so it is with some trepidation that I enter the arena. But that is my role. As far as my common sense tells me, international agreements such as the 1951 refugee convention mean nothing if each and every signatory to the convention can reinterpret the agreement to suit its own political ends. The whole point of the refugee convention, like the European Convention on Human Rights, is to prevent rogue states passing domestic legislation that overrules the rights of refugees or the basic human rights of their own citizens in the wake of what was then the recent history of the Second World War.
On the back of their attempts to reinterpret the 1951 refugee convention, this Government appear to be about to remove the United Kingdom from the European Convention on Human Rights, judging by the comments of the Deputy Prime Minister on BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme this morning. In the context of those convicted of terrorism offences challenging their segregation in prison, Dominic Raab said, at two hours and 21 minutes into the programme,
“it shows you why our Bill of Rights is so important to replace the Human Rights Act.”
So much for the Minister relying on the Human Rights Act in her arguments. I am reminded of “First they came” by the German Lutheran pastor, Martin Niemöller. If we do not speak out about this Government eroding the rights of refugees, as they seek to do in this Bill, the next step will be to erode the rights of each and every one of us.
Motion A1 is a final attempt to at least make the Government honest. As the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, said yesterday, if the Government were to say, “We know this Bill does not comply with the refugee convention, but we are going to enact it anyway”, they would at least be being honest. Motion A1, as I understand it, simply allows the courts to make a declaration that any parts of the provisions in Part 2 of the Bill are incompatible with the refugee convention and require the Government to take note of the finding—the Government having been given the opportunity to be joined as a party to the proceedings. If the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, divides the House, we will support her. I understand why she may not want to divide the House, but if this were our amendment, we would. This time, it is refugees’ rights; next time, it could be our rights that are in danger if the Lord Chancellor, the Secretary of State for Justice, the Deputy Prime Minister, gets his way.
We also strongly support Motion B1 for similar reasons. It should be for the Secretary of State to prove why a genuine refugee is to be categorised as a class 1 or class 2 refugee. In any event, any Immigration Rules that are applied to whichever group a genuine refugee is categorised by the Secretary of State as falling into must not permit any practice that would be contrary to the Government’s international obligations. If this were our amendment, we would be dividing the House, but we respect the noble Lord’s decision.
On Motion C, I can understand why the noble Baroness, Lady Lister of Burtersett, having won the argument yesterday by one vote, has chosen not to pursue the right to work for refugees, despite the Government being unable to produce a shred of evidence to counter the comprehensive and compelling evidence provided yesterday by the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, which clearly demonstrated that the right to work is not a so-called pull factor. The arguments made by the Minister about costs, devoid of any facts based on real-world experience unlike those of the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, were speculative and, never having been presented before during the passage of the Bill from my recollection, smacked of last-gasp desperation.
Liberal Democrats have long campaigned and will continue to campaign for the right of asylum seekers to pay their own way, to secure the dignity that comes from being able to support themselves and to integrate more effectively in society by being able to work. In case this is my last opportunity to speak on this Bill, may I say how appalled and disgusted I am by it? There is only one political party to blame for this shameful legislation, and that is the Conservative Party.
Lord Coaker (Lab)
My Lords, let me start by saying that I totally agree with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti; I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kerr; I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and I totally agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown. Along with many noble Lords and Baronesses in this House, I have argued time and again against a Bill that most of us think is wrong and unethical. We have argued against the Government time after time on these issues, and I am going to spend a couple of minutes saying why I support the amendments from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, and my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti.
I wanted to put that on record to start with because I do not want the position that we have taken—thinking that we have come to the end of the parliamentary political process with this—to be misunderstood to mean that we do not agree with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti or with the noble Lords, Lord Kerr, Lord Pannick and Lord Paddick, or with any other Member who supports these amendments, because I do, and we do. But there comes a point—even I accept this, after what I said yesterday—where you have to recognise that this would be the fourth time that we would have sent this back.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, was kind enough to say what he did about me in the Commons, but I think that the Commons currently guillotines legislation far too quickly, which means that things are not properly considered. Frankly, that causes resentment—as happened the other day when we sent 12 amendments back and they were discussed in an hour—and people to ask why we should not send things back more often.
That is the root of the problem. But as someone who has stood for election on many of these issue and, like others, lost, fighting for this out in the community, I accept that the battle or argument now has to go beyond Parliament and out into the country. This is what elections are about. The Government get their way in the end because they won the 2019 general election and can pursue their agenda in Parliament. I can be angry, and this House can send a Bill back 10 or 12 times, but if the Conservative Government have a majority in the Commons, they will simply reject it. Of course we have a right to ask the Commons to think again, and in some cases it has done. I accept that there is a debate around how many times we should send Bills back, and whether we should send this one back once more; there is a legitimate question as to whether three times is enough or whether it should be four. But the position we have come to is that we think we are now at the end of the line. That is clearly not a view that everyone agrees with, but let it not be said that the disagreement is about the content of the Bill or the worth of the amendments; it is not. It is just about the best way to take this forward. That is the point I wanted to make.
It is worth reiterating that, as much as any other, the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, goes to the heart of the Bill. Essentially, it was trying to say that the differential treatment of refugees would mean that vast numbers of people who come and claim asylum in this country would be criminalised. I cannot believe that that is acceptable, and that is what the amendment is getting at. We had the almost farcical situation where we were trying to imagine how someone could actually get here legitimately to claim asylum. We are an island, so what country can you come through unless you fly? But you cannot fly, because of the database checks that are carried out when you get on a plane, and so by definition you must come through a safe country to get here. According to the Bill we have before us, anybody doing that is coming illegally and should be stopped—unless they have come on one of the safe routes, but these are unavailable to large numbers of people.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, goes absolutely to the heart of the matter. He and other noble Lords pointed out that this would have criminalised Ukrainians fleeing at the beginning of the conflict, and Afghans who had helped the British Army. That is why the noble Lord’s amendment is crucial, but these arguments have to be won not only in this Chamber but out in the country. But instead, to be frank, the Government say that we have a real problem with illegal immigration in this country and they are the only ones who will fix it—ignoring the fact that they have been in power for 12 years and have not managed to sort it out in that time.
The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, will appreciate that this is not a debate as to whether the amendment is right but about where we go to now. That is a position that noble Lords will have to consider for themselves, but we have considered it very carefully and come to the view that we have.
I have not always agreed with my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti, but on this she is absolutely right and I totally agree with the points she has made. Other noble Lords have joined in: the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, made his usual excellent contribution, as did the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown, supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clarke, who pointed out the importance of obeying international law and respecting our international obligations.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. I made the point yesterday about the time we have spent on this; I do not think your Lordships have ever felt that we in any way have tried to rush this or any other legislation. We have gone many days in Committee, for 12 hours or more, discussing at length all the concerns and issues at hand. Many of the points have been remade today in a very articulate way.
I think my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay feels that he has been slightly misrepresented by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood. I wonder if he might check Hansard and come back to my noble and learned friend.
In response to the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, this has been clearly set out, as I have said before. These provisions are clear and unambiguous and a good faith interpretation of the refugee convention. The courts of course have an important role in ensuring that legislation is applied correctly, but it is for Parliament to make that legislation. That is the rule of law and is the result of our dualist system.
Turning to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, we maintain that the general rule of interpretation in Article 31(1) of the Vienna convention requires a treaty to be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to its terms in their context and in the light of its object and purpose. On that basis, as the noble Lord, Lord Pannick has quoted, we have taken a wide-reaching exercise to understand this and considered relevant factors, such as the law in other jurisdictions, case law and the words of academics. We believe that all provisions reflect a good faith, compatible interpretation of the refugee convention.
With those words, and echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I think that it is time to pass this Bill.
Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)
I thank all noble Lords once more. It is often a huge privilege to hear debates from all sides in this Chamber, but sometimes that privilege comes with an awesome burden, as the Minister knows all too well. I am referring not just to this Chamber but to noble Lords in other places in this building where they beaver away at their work.
I have had the privilege in recent months to serve on the new and important Justice and Home Affairs Committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, which had the privilege of hearing not so long ago from the Home Secretary. While I will repeat my admiration for the Minister and the way in which we can disagree well, this is not the case with everyone.
I want to say a word about good faith, which has been cited a few times. Before that committee, the Home Secretary gave evidence about the pushback policy. The committee has members far more august than me, including my noble friend Lord Blunkett, who quizzed the Home Secretary about the legal basis for pushing back boats in the channel and the controversy that had raged. She assured us that there was a legal basis and that the purpose of the policy was to deter refugees and the evil trade. The purpose was to deter asylum seekers and we were assured that there was a legal basis, as was Parliament and the public. When that policy was judicially reviewed, the Home Office sought public interest immunity over provisions in the policy document that revealed that the Home Office knew that it would be contrary to the refugee convention to ever repel a boat with a person who said, “I need asylum. I am a refugee”. It was only because the courts were able to say no to the public interest immunity that the Government and the Home Secretary were exposed and that policy is now over. That is how important the rule of law is.
I have been torn in making my mind up about this Division right now. I have been so grateful for the support of my noble friends—my noble friend Lord Coaker in particular— but when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood says he will go to the stake for the rule of law, I will go with him. I have moved the Motion and would like your Lordships’ House to agree it.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 6D, 6E and 6F, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6G.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion, so I beg to move.
Baroness Williams of Trafford
That this House do not insist on its Amendments 7F and 7G, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7H.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I have already spoken to this Motion and I beg to move.
Motion C agreed.
Nationality and Borders Bill
Tuesday 26th April 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Nationality and Borders Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: HL Bill 152-I Marshalled list for Consideration of Commons Reasons - (27 Apr 2022)
22:28 - The House divided: - Ayes: 296 / Noes: 206 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:42 - The House divided: - Ayes: 299 / Noes: 205 - Question accordingly agreed to.
22:57 - The House divided: - Ayes: 288 / Noes: 212 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Tom Pursglove)
I beg to move, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5D.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
With this it will be convenient to consider:
Lords amendments 6D, 6E and 6F, and Government motion to disagree.
Lords amendments 7F and 7G, and Government motion to disagree.
Tom Pursglove
I hope that this will be the final time in these proceedings around the Nationality and Borders Bill. I will first turn to compliance with the refugee convention. All measures in this Bill are compatible with our obligations under international law. We therefore cannot accept this amendment, which would put our duty to comply with the refugee convention on the face of the Bill.
Jacob Young (Redcar) (Con)
Does the Minister agree that the amendments on the Order Paper are very similar to the amendments that we debated only a few days ago? Will he therefore join me in saying to the other place that this elected House was given a mandate in the 2019 general election, as we were in the 2016 EU referendum, to take back control of our borders, and that it should allow this Bill to pass so that we do not have to continue this ping-pong?
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The time has now come to get on, to pass this Bill and to make the changes that we so desperately need to shift the dynamic, to end these dangerous channel crossings and to put together an asylum system that is fit for the future and able to cope with the demand.
Christian Matheson (City of Chester) (Lab)
I do not want to detain the House too long but, with all this talk of taking back control of our borders, why are we outsourcing that control to Rwanda?
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Gentleman’s remarks are effectively a charter for doing nothing. What is unacceptable is for people to continue putting their life in the hands of evil criminal gangs whose only regard is for turning a profit—they do not care whether people get here safely. We have a moral responsibility to stop this, and we have a moral responsibility to act, which is precisely what we will do through this Bill.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
Will my hon. Friend accept my congratulations on the Patel-Pursglove plan vis-à-vis Rwanda? And will he ensure that, when people arrive here, they are on a plane as quickly as possible before some dodgy activist or fat-cat human rights lawyer can get their hands on them?
Tom Pursglove
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary should rightly take a lot of credit for getting this new world-leading partnership over the line. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) has been a passionate advocate for this approach, and I am pleased we are delivering it. I think it will make a genuine difference in acting as a deterrent and ensuring that we have global solutions to a global challenge.
In that sense, I welcome the steps that have been taken in the last few days. I hope my right hon. Friend will be reassured to know that we are working hard to make sure this is operationalised without delay and that, of course, people are on flights as quickly as possible. What we do not want at any stage—this goes back to why we need fundamental reform of the asylum system—is delay in the system. We want people to have certainty either way.
Jonathan Gullis (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Con)
I warmly join my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) in congratulating the Home Secretary and the Minister on this fantastic legislation. On the amendments we are disagreeing with, does the Minister agree that this is part of a wider package, with offshoring, push-backs and deterring people by saying there will be differential treatment, that will be brought together? It is sad that the Labour party is happy to accept the status quo, allow people to risk their life, or die in the English channel, and put money in the hands of smuggling gangs.
Tom Pursglove
I am afraid that we often hear long and convoluted explanations of why we should just accept the status quo, why we should do nothing and why all the interventions are wrong. We hear no credible alternative for putting right the problems in the system. Reform is required and is overdue. That is why we are determined to get on with delivering it.
Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
The Minister will recognise that, when we last debated the Bill, the Chair of the Justice Committee, the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), pointed out that one alternative for dealing with the asylum backlog is investing in the current system.
The central premise of this Bill is that, as an alternative to irregular routes, there should be safe and legal routes. Aside from the specific programmes for Ukraine, Afghanistan and Hong Kong, will the Minister spell out clearly to the House what legal routes are available to asylum seekers?
Tom Pursglove
I will not repeat the many, many occasions on which I have set out on the Floor of the House and in Committee during the Bill’s passage the many and varied safe and legal routes that exist. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), the Chair of the Justice Committee, has rightly touched on the need to reform the casework situation, which is precisely what we are doing through the new plan for immigration. I encourage him to be in the right Lobby this evening to help us get on with delivering on that priority, which is one priority among a number as we reform the system.
It is simply unnecessary, inappropriate and unconstitutional for the courts to have a duty to make declarations of incompatibility in circumstances where questions of compliance have already been determined by Parliament, so we cannot accept Lords amendment 5D.
On differentiation, Lords amendments 6D to 6F would make it harder to differentiate by placing significant evidential burdens on the Secretary of State. They would also set out our existing legal obligations on the face of the Bill, such as our duties under the refugee convention and the European convention on human rights, especially the article 8 right to family life. All of this is either unnecessary or unacceptable. We therefore do not accept these amendments.
Finally, the arguments on the right to work have been well rehearsed at several points in the passage of the Bill. In principle, we are concerned about the way in which this would undercut the points-based system, which we believe is the right system for facilitating lawful migration into our country—that skills-based approach, exactly as the British people voted for in the referendum in 2016. I go back to this point: our objective is to speed up caseworking, which then, of itself, ensures that we do not need to go down the route—
Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)
Does the excellent Minister know the majorities the other place had for sending these amendments back to us? Given the large built-in anti-Government majority in the Lords, it seems to me that they must have been quite large.
Tom Pursglove
My hon. Friend probes me on this with good reason. Off the top of my head, I believe that one of them was won by one vote, one was won by eight votes and one was won by 25 votes. So they are not particularly hefty majorities. The time has come to get on and pass this Bill. This Government’s new plan for immigration will tackle illegal migration and reform the asylum system.
Alison Thewliss (Glasgow Central) (SNP)
The Minister was talking about delays in casework, but those are nothing new. My seven years as an MP have been marked with delays in Home Office casework. Some constituents have been waiting now for two years—not for a decision, but for an interview. Can he explain exactly when they will get interviewed under this system because I have seen no difference at all?
Tom Pursglove
I refer the hon. Lady to the new plan for immigration and the steps we have consistently set out that we will be taking to improve the situation on caseworking. It is imperative that we do that, for two reasons.
Tom Pursglove
The hon. Lady can shout from a sedentary position, but perhaps she will listen to the answer, which is that we believe not only that it is very important that those who require sanctuary get it as quickly as possible, but that it is right that those with no right to be here are removed as soon as possible and without needless delay. That is why we are reforming the broken system. We have a Home Secretary and a ministerial team who are committed to doing just that. Again, I encourage the hon. Lady to be in the Division Lobby to support our measures tonight.
The Bill is an essential element of the plan, and the sooner it passes, the sooner we will be able to deliver the longer-term solutions we need to protect vulnerable people. I note again the lack of alternative being offered from other parts of the House. I therefore commend our Bill to the House.
Stephen Kinnock (Aberavon) (Lab)
Last week, the Home Secretary told the House that our asylum system is “broken”. Yesterday, her Minister, who is sitting before us today, again stated clearly that our asylum system is “broken”. We on the Labour Benches completely agree, but what Conservative Members seem to continually miss is the fact that the Conservative party has been in power for 12 years. The problem is that they never stand up and take responsibility; they always try to blame others—the civil service, the courts and even the media. It was revealed this week that the Home Secretary banned the Financial Times, The Guardian and the Mirror from the press delegation accompanying her to Rwanda. That was a truly Orwellian move—cancel culture at its worst.
The truth is that, with every decision this Government make and every ill-conceived scheme they put in place, they make fixing our broken asylum system ever harder. The first of these failures is on the asylum waiting lists. Under this Home Secretary, the Home Office is processing 50% fewer cases than five years ago—the result: 37,000 asylum seekers languishing in expensive hotels, costing the taxpayer an eye-watering £4.7 million per day. Labour would invest to save by increasing the number of caseworkers and decision makers so that processing times and hotel bills are radically reduced. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Come on, let us have a bit of reasonable behaviour. I appreciate that it is late, but it is simply rude to shout to such an extent that we cannot hear the hon. Gentleman. It is not reasonable. There is nothing wrong with a bit of banter, but it should not be at such a level that I cannot hear him.
Stephen Kinnock
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
It is in this context that we are supporting Lords amendment 7F today, which would give the 60,000 asylum seekers on waiting lists the right to work, to be reviewed after two years, thereby reducing the burden on the British taxpayer and boosting the Exchequer.
Secondly, during his negotiations with the EU, the Prime Minister completely failed to replace the Dublin III regulation, which means that we can no longer return refugees to the country in the EU where they would have first sought asylum. Numbers have increased because this Conservative Government lost control of our borders by losing our long-held power to send people back.
Jonathan Gullis
The hon. Gentleman says Dublin III is about not returning people back to Europe. Does he not agree that those people—illegal economic migrants—leaving France should just be claiming asylum in France?
Stephen Kinnock
Well, of course, but they are not doing that. The reality is that if we had a returns agreement in place, which this Prime Minister completely failed to negotiate, that would be the deterrent effect that we all want to see. The deterrent effect of a returns agreement would be so much stronger than the threat of being offloaded to Rwanda, because it would mean that every small boat refugee would be returned rather than just a tiny percentage, which is the most we can hope for from the Rwanda deal.
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman tell us how many of those asylum seekers who came from France were returned to France in the period before we fully left Brexit?
Stephen Kinnock
I can tell the hon. Gentleman that it will be a hell of a lot more than what will be returned under the Rwanda scheme. He knows that it is forecast that 23,000 people will seek to make that dangerous journey. The Rwanda scheme will not even scratch the surface. That is the reality. The only way to deal with this problem is through a proper removal agreement.
Only the Labour party can reset the UK’s relationship with France and the EU, and from there strike a robust removal agreement that would truly act as a deterrent against the criminal people smugglers by breaking their business model. A Labour Government would also engage with Europol and the French authorities to create effective co-operation in the pursuit and prosecution of the criminal gangs who are running the people smuggling and human trafficking, rather than the constant war of words with our European partners and allies, which is all we ever get from this headline-chasing Government. Cheap headlines are all they care about, as everybody on the Labour Benches knows.
Thirdly, absolutely none of the Government’s safe and legal routes seems to work. The Afghan citizens resettlement scheme is not even off the ground. The Syria route has been ditched. The Dubs scheme for unaccompanied children has also been cancelled. The Ukraine scheme today had a queue three hours long in Portcullis House of MPs’ staffers fighting for Ukrainians on behalf of their constituents, because the visas simply are not getting processed. Somehow, the Home Secretary has managed to turn an inspiring tale of British generosity into a bureaucratic nightmare. Labour would make safe and legal routes work, which in turn would strike another blow against the people smugglers.
Mr Bone
I have a lot of time for the shadow Minister, but he is on a really sticky wicket here. Can he just answer these two questions? Is it the Labour party’s policy that we should not take any migrants to Rwanda? Secondly, is he not then scared that by not doing that it will encourage the evil people smugglers in their work?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman will know that the Home Secretary’s top civil servant has said that the Rwanda scheme will not work as a deterrent and it delivers no value for money whatever for the British taxpayer. What matters is what works, and that scheme will not work.
Jacob Young
The hon. Gentleman explained to me last week that he did not support the Rwanda scheme and he has just reiterated that. I am curious to learn. What is Labour’s plan to deal with illegal immigration in the channel?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman has clearly not been paying attention. I set out Labour’s plan last week. I have just told him about the returns agreement and giving more resources to caseworkers and decision makers. If he would care to listen to the rest of my speech, he may not need to make another meaningless intervention.
Fourthly, in respect of the Government failures that I touched on earlier, the Bill is emblematic of the Home Secretary’s tendency to make the challenges of our asylum seeker system even harder to overcome. She claims that the Rwanda offloading plan will solve the challenges that our immigration system faces, but her Minister for Refugees dismissed the plan as impossible just a week before the announcement, saying:
“If it’s happening in the Home Office, on the same corridor that I’m in, they haven’t told me about it…I’m having difficulty enough getting them from Ukraine to our country. There’s no possibility of sending them to Rwanda.”
Up and down the country, the British people are counting the cost of this Government—£4 billion of failed or overrunning defence contracts under this Prime Minister since 2019 alone; £16 billion of covid fraud; and a £7-a-year increase on energy bills without any meaningful support whatsoever—and now British taxpayers are told that they have to foot the bill for this pie-in-the-sky Rwanda plan, which will cost at least three times the amount we currently spend on asylum seekers, and possibly even 10 times more.
Kim Leadbeater (Batley and Spen) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposal to ship asylum seekers to Rwanda is not only extremely expensive but almost certainly ineffective? It is also inhumane. The evidence from Australia shows that offshore detention often has a massive impact on the mental health of people who are already vulnerable, and can lead to self-harm and suicide if no adequate support services are available. How can we, as a fair-minded and generous nation, stoop to this?
Stephen Kinnock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As we know, the Australia scheme ended up costing approximately £1 million per person. The Israel scheme on which the Rwanda scheme is based failed completely, with just about every single person who was sent to Rwanda leaving the country within days and many of them trying to come back to the place from which they were sent. It is an absolute farce.
Tom Pursglove
It would be useful, for the benefit of the House and of the country more generally, if the hon. Gentleman could confirm whether an incoming Labour Government—in the eventuality that there were to be one—would cancel the Rwanda plan?
Stephen Kinnock
What I would contend—[Interruption.] I am going to tell him. What I would contend is that with the Rwanda plan the wheels are going to fall off the bus very soon, so we will not need to answer that question. It will completely fail. Rather than chasing headlines, the Minister should be doing the nitty-gritty work of negotiating a returns agreement, giving resources to caseworkers and sorting out safe and legal routes. It is about not the razzle-dazzle of Daily Mail headlines but getting the job done.
At Home Office oral questions yesterday, the Minister could not answer a single question that I asked him about the cost of the Rwanda plan. I asked him: how many refugees does he expect to send to Rwanda each year? The Prime Minister says “tens of thousands”; is that correct? What will the cost be per single refugee going to Rwanda? What will the £120 million sweetener being paid by the UK to Rwanda actually be spent on? How many asylum seekers can Rwanda’s detention centres house at any given time? Finally, given that the top civil servant at the Home Office refused to sign off on the Rwanda plan, citing concerns over value for money, when will the Minister publish a full forecast of the costs?
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
The hon. Gentleman has outlined his opposition to the Government’s proposal, but will he confirm, in answer to the Minister’s question, whether an incoming Labour Government would cancel the plan or go ahead with it?
Stephen Kinnock
We have made it absolutely clear that the plan is going to fail, as the Home Office’s top civil servant said, so the question will not arise. We will not need to deal with it; the wheels will fall off the bus. We certainly would not be spending £120 million on a press release.
The Rwanda offloading plan is not only a grotesquely expensive gimmick that is unlikely to deter people smugglers in the long-term, but deeply un-British. Dumping this challenge on a developing country 4,000 miles away, with a questionable record on human rights, raises serious concerns about whether this legislation complies with the UN refugee convention. That is why we will back Lords amendment 5D.
Another deeply un-British part of the Bill was the idea that the rubber dinghies could be pushed back out to sea. Yesterday, we witnessed the Home Secretary’s latest screeching U-turn—this time reversing a particularly unhinged part of the legislation. The Home Secretary’s pushback policy was almost completely unworkable, as she was told by the Border Force, by the French, by the Ministry of Defence and even by her own lawyers. As we learned from court documents published yesterday, she had actually agreed that pushbacks could not be applied to asylum seekers in the channel, but she tried to keep that secret so that she could keep up the bravado and tough talking. We hope that she will correct the record.
I have already pointed out—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I want to let the House calm down for a moment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, who is an experienced and efficient Member of this House, will know that he should not be making a general speech at this stage; this is not Second Reading. This debate is very narrow: we are discussing only the amendments that have just come back from the Lords, not general issues. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will now stick to the narrow matter before us—and so will everybody else.
Stephen Kinnock
Thank you for your wise counsel, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I have already pointed to the work and refugee convention amendments, but we also need to address differential treatment. Lords amendments 6D, 6E and 6F provide that a person can be a tier 1 refugee if they have travelled briefly through countries on their way to the UK, as somebody from Kabul or Kyiv would have to, or if they have delayed presenting themselves to the authorities for a good reason. They would also require compliance with the refugee convention and state that family unity must be taken into account. The Government should get behind the amendments. What in them can there possibly be to disagree with?
The channel crossings have been taken out of the Home Secretary’s hands and handed to the Ministry of Defence and the Royal Navy. The Ukrainian refugee scheme has been handed over to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities. This Sunday, the former director general of borders and immigration called for a new immigration Department to remove responsibility from the Home Office. With her Department now effectively in special measures, will the Home Secretary not just for once do the right thing and accept the amendments today, so that we can begin to repair some of the damage done by this deeply counterproductive legislation?
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I will not delay the House unduly; my colleagues would not want me to. I just want to make two points. The first is that the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) is right: these matters should have been addressed earlier, by successive Governments—including Labour Governments, by the way. Our immigration policy has not been planned strategically, as it might have been. The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point.
The hon. Gentleman also said that the system needs to be efficient. I spoke about Edmund Burke on Second Reading; he said that the test of civil society and the policy that relates to it was justice, and that when a policy ceased to be just it was barely a policy at all. For a policy to be just, it has to be ordered, efficient and consistent. Immigration policy has struggled with order, efficiency and consistency for a very long time. On that, the hon. Gentleman was also right.
However, the hon. Gentleman is fundamentally wrong about the amendments for the following reasons. First, the Lords seem unwilling to grasp a nettle that, as he described, previous Governments have also failed the grasp. That nettle is sorting out and amending a broken system to ensure that we can continue to give safe refuge to people in desperate need, and that the system cannot be routinely and persistently gamed—by people traffickers and, actually, by economic migrants pretending to be asylum seekers. That is the fact, and we have to face it and reform the system so that we can differentiate between the two. The Government are trying to do that. It is not an easy process, but the Lords seem to me to misunderstand the Government’s intention, which is to create a consistent, ordered and effective system.
In specific terms, the amendment pertaining to the Refugee Council is unnecessary because part 2 of the Bill is already in line with the Refugee Council. I am amazed to hear the hon. Gentleman say that asylum seekers should be allowed to work. What sort of signal does that send out to legitimate migrants who have come to this country seeking to perform a role in our economy to serve this country? What sort of signal does it send out to indigenous Britons—of all types and races, by the way—who are unemployed and seeking a job, when they are told they must compete with people arriving in the country as asylum seekers? That seems to be a nonsense, yet that is what the Lords amendment suggests.
Stuart C. McDonald (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (SNP)
I will start by recalling that what we are debating this evening is the fate of Syrians, Afghans, Eritreans, persecuted Christians, trafficking victims and others who seek sanctuary in the United Kingdom.
A rather perplexing set of votes in the other place means that we are down to just three Lords amendments. While the remaining amendments may be small in number, however, they are huge in significance. Assuming that this place fails to do its duty by agreeing to them, I hope the other place, unlike the Minister, will do its duty by continuing to insist on them.
With the exception of some welcome provisions on nationality, we continue to believe the whole Bill should be scrapped. However, for as long as it is before us, we support amendments that seek to ensure as far as possible that the Government act in accordance with the refugee convention and allow that compliance to be considered by the courts. That means accepting their lordships’ amendments on interpretation and on restricting the offensive clauses on differentiation.
The Government have totally lost the argument. The overwhelming weight of legal opinion, as well as that of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, is on our side of this argument. No one with an ounce of common sense would just accept this Government’s assurances that everything accords with the refugee convention, nor would they give up the ability to test it in court—and we certainly should not. Today, it seems that the Minister’s argument is basically that it is Parliament’s role just to declare itself in compliance with the refugee convention. Of course that is absolute nonsense.
I reiterate SNP support for the right to work for asylum seekers, and pay tribute to the Lift the Ban coalition members, including in particular the Maryhill Integration Network and many others who have campaigned with passion and integrity on this issue. This policy is the right thing to do for integration, it is right for the public purse and therefore it is right for our citizens and overwhelmingly right for asylum seekers.
The evidence against the policy remains pathetically weak to non-existent, and warm words about deciding cases within six months mean nothing when that prospect appears as remote as ever. The reality is that people are being left in limbo for years, and excluding them from the labour market for years risks effectively excluding them from work forever and undermining integration.
The Home Secretary has repeatedly told us that she is all for safe legal routes. Indeed, last week she told my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts), the leader of the Plaid Cymru group in Parliament, that this Bill
“actually puts safe and legal routes into statute.”—[Official Report, 19 April 2022; Vol. 712, c. 41.]
The Home Secretary has complained on various occasions that I have not read the Bill, but I am beginning to question whether she has read her own Bill, because that is clearly utter baloney. There is not a single sentence in the Bill as it stands that puts a safe legal route into statute. On the contrary, clause 11 empowers the Secretary of State to diminish safe routes for family members. Their Lordships’ amendments give just a little bit of protection for those rights.
The final argument I want to make relates, believe it or not, to the 2019 Conservative party election manifesto. In advance of this debate, I forced myself to look at that document; indeed, I forced an unfortunate member of my staff to look at it as well. As far as we can see, the words “asylum” and “refugee” feature in that manifesto only once, and in the following terms:
“We will continue to grant asylum and support to refugees fleeing persecution, with the ultimate aim of helping them to return home if it is safe to do so.”
The manifesto also said:
“We will ensure no matter where in the world you or your family come from, your rights will be respected and you will be treated with fairness and dignity.”
This Bill not only breaches the refugee convention, but is utterly contrary to the 2019 Government manifesto. There is nothing in that manifesto about driving a coach and horses through the refugee convention. There is nothing about criminalising—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. I stopped the shadow Minister, so I have to give the same advice to the spokesman for the SNP. We are not here to talk about manifestos and general matters this evening; we are here to talk about Government motions to disagree to amendments 5D, 6D, 6E, 6F, 7F and 7G, and only that. This Bill has been properly heard in general terms. We will stick to the exact points in front of us now.
Stuart C. McDonald
The point I am trying to make, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I would be allowed, is that these amendments would bring the Government much closer to fulfilling their 2019 manifesto commitments than anything in the Bill today. The Bill rides roughshod not only over the refugee convention but over the Government’s own manifesto commitments. That is the point I am trying to make. It is an important point for this House, for the Conservative party and for this Government. It is also an important point for Members in the other place, because, yes, this is a Bill that breaches international law in egregious ways, and totally undermines the refugee convention and treats asylum seekers appallingly, but it is also, as I said, contrary to the Conservative manifesto. For that reason, if this is not the sort of Bill that the House of Lords should be using its modest powers to delay, then I really do not know what is.
Patrick Grady (Glasgow North) (SNP)
You are right, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the House is considering narrower and narrower aspects of the Bill, but despite the fact that this is the fifth time it has come to the House, still no Minister has been able to explain how the United Kingdom, which is surrounded by water, can ever be the first safe country of arrival for an undocumented asylum seeker.
The proposals in the Bill, and the Government’s determination to overturn repeated amendments of the House of Lords on this aspect, are literally inhumane. The Minister stands at the Dispatch Box and says that we fully comply with the refugee convention and therefore an amendment to put the refugee convention into the Bill is unnecessary. He is contradicting himself in his own terms. Instead the Government want to make criminals out of Eritrean human rights defenders fleeing for their lives, LGBT+ women and men from Rwanda seeking a more tolerant society in which to live, and Ukrainians who, for whatever reason, cannot get through the interminable Home Office visa processing system to reunite here with friends and families.
When the Minister winds up, can he explain whether the effect of the Bill and the agreement is that if a young Ukrainian man arrives at the UK border without documentation, he will be criminalised—or will he be sent to build a new life in Rwanda? Indeed, when an asylum seeker from Rwanda arrives here on a small boat, will they be sent back to Rwanda to seek asylum and rebuild their life? How is that possibly supposed to work? In what world could that possibly match with the provisions and duties that this country has under the terms of the refugee convention as outlined in Lords amendment 5?
It is not just the Archbishop of Canterbury who is speaking out on this—and incidentally he has every right to do so, because he is a member of the legislature as a Member of the House of the Lords—because religious leaders across the country have written to us. In amendment 7, the Lords calls once again for asylum seekers to be granted the right to work—not granted the right to work but for their right to work to be recognised, because the right to work is a fundamental human right that cannot be taken away. Using your labour to earn your keep is such a right. I echo the tribute that my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East (Stuart C. McDonald) paid to the work of the Maryhill Integration Network in this regard. Denying that opportunity to asylum seekers, along with the denial of access to public funds in some cases, is not only degrading to them but actively harmful to our own economy and to wider society.
This Bill has been of huge concern to constituents in Glasgow North who have followed it right the way through every single level of amendments that we have had from the House of Lords. Over the course of the Bill’s progress, I have had literally hundreds of messages, ultimately asking for the whole Bill to be withdrawn, but if not, then at least to try to humanise it wherever possible, as their lordships have tried to do this evening. If the Government will not listen to the House of Lords and will not listen to people in Scotland, where is the precious Union? Where is what we are supposed to be doing in working together? The Scottish Parliament is ready and willing to accept responsibility for immigration law, and the people of Scotland are ready to accept it and all the other powers that go along with being an independent country.
Beth Winter (Cynon Valley) (Lab)
I rise to speak in support of Lords amendments passed earlier today. It is clear that, even today, Members of the Lords have made efforts to table new text to find a route to conclude debate on this Bill. Let us remind ourselves that the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees has warned that the Bill undermines the 1951 refugee convention and that its policies would risk the lives and wellbeing of vulnerable people.
I wish to support, in particular, Lords amendment 5D, moved by Baroness Chakrabarti, who has worked tirelessly in her opposition in tabling significant amendments to this horrendous Bill. This amendment sets out that the provisions of this part of the Bill must be read and given effect in a way that is compatible with the refugee convention.
I express my concerns about the Bill’s compatibility with our international obligations, particularly following the announcement of the memorandum of understanding between the Home Secretary and the Rwandan Government. Senior legal representatives have commented on that agreement, including Stephanie Boyce, the president of the Law Society of England and Wales, who recently said that there are
“serious questions about whether these plans would or could comply with the UK’s promises under international treaty”.
We all know that the Government’s proposal of pushbacks of boats in the channel has been abandoned this week in the face of legal scrutiny in the courts. I put on record my thanks to the Public and Commercial Services Union—the trade union of Home Office staff, including Border Force staff—and the charities Care4Calais, Channel Rescue and Freedom from Torture for taking on this legal challenge. As PCS general secretary Mark Serwotka, a fellow Welsh person, said:
“This humiliating climbdown by the government is a stunning victory for Home Office workers and for refugees. There is little doubt that lives have been saved.”
This action has demonstrated that the Government’s bluster about a legal basis for the pushback policy was just that. Are we now meant to take at the Home Secretary’s word that the “New Plan for Immigration” and the horrendous, inhuman, unethical Rwanda policy are just as legally watertight? Forgive me if I am sceptical.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Eleanor Laing)
Order. Will the hon. Lady please stick to addressing the Lords amendments?
Beth Winter
I remain totally opposed to this Bill. These proposals are deeply—
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Lady is opposed to the Bill, and she was perfectly entitled to say so on Second Reading and on Third Reading, and I think she probably did, but at this point, her opposition to the Bill is of no interest to the House; we are talking about the specific amendments. Will she please stick to the specific amendments?
Beth Winter
I therefore urge Members of this House to back the Lords amendments tonight.
Tom Pursglove
With the leave of the House, I will conclude by observing that we have long debated these issues. The other place asked us to reflect, and we have, repeatedly. This House has been crystal clear. What is also crystal clear is that unlike all the other parties in this House, we have a credible plan. We stand with the vulnerable. We stand against evil people smugglers. There must be no more delay. It is now time to act, and I call on all Members of this House to back the Bill and on the other place to let it pass.
Question put, That this House disagrees with Lords amendment 5D.
Royal Assent
Thursday 28th April 2022
(1 year, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text