Lords Chamber

Wednesday 3rd September 2025

(began 2 hours, 29 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:10
15:10
15:11
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:14
15:14
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:21
15:22
15:22
15:23
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:27
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
15:36
15:36
15:37
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
15:40
15:40
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
15:43
15:44
15:45
15:46
15:46
15:47
15:48
15:48
15:49
15:50
15:53
15:53
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Business and Trade) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, before the formal third reading of the bill, I will make a brief statement on the devolution status of the bill. During its development in Parliamentary passage the Minister for Employment rights competition has regularly corresponded and engaged with his devolved government counterparts. This has been supported by weekly engagement tween officials. As a result I can confirm that legislative consent motion's have been successfully agreed in both the Senedd Cymru and the Northern Ireland Assembly.

The Scottish Parliament have also agreed and LCM which covers the majority of the bill's provisions. However, we consider that certain amendments relating to the Social Care Negotiating Bodies table in my name at report stage and accepted by your Lordship's House also engage the consent process. Owing to the day these amendments were tabled in the Scottish Parliament summer recess, it's not been possible for a further supplementary LCM to be secured by the time of this statement. Now the Scottish Parliament has returned from recess and noting it has the support of the Scottish government, we are hopeful the process around the supplementary LCM will progressively.

More broadly ungrateful to ministers and officials in the Scottish Government, Welsh Government and the Northern Ireland Executive for their positive and collaborative approach towards this legislation. We remain committed to sustained engagement with the devolved governments for the remainder of the bill's passage including as we look ahead to its implementation the benefits of which will be felt across the United Kingdom.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is these -- this will be read a time. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The the contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. and Klaus Hunt and 62, Amendment Lord Burns.
15:55
15:56
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
for tabling this amendment which I acknowledge is a simple tidying up one, following changes made to the bill at report stage. As I say it's a tidying up amendment and therefore we accepted.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this amendment be agreed to. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The of the contrary, "Not content". The

**** Possible New Speaker ****

contents have it. I beg to move that this bill do

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I beg to move that this bill do now pass. It's been a privilege to now pass. It's been a privilege to be responsible for the passage of this landmark piece of legislation since its arrival from the other place in March. This bill is a cornerstone of our manifesto cornerstone of our manifesto commitment to make work pay. It seeks to address outdated provisions seeks to address outdated provisions and gaps in the current employment law framework and helps us turn the tide on the damaging trend of in tide on the damaging trend of in work poverty.

It will benefit millions of people across the country and this is physically the case for those in insecure and low paid employment. Taking just one paid employment. Taking just one example, over 2 million people on zero hours contracts could benefit from the rights to guaranteed hours from the rights to guaranteed hours and the right to payment for shifts cancelled, moved or cut at short cancelled, moved or cut at short notice. Alongside our newly published industrial and trade studies it will also help increase productivity and create the right conditions for a long-term sustainable and secure economic growth.

Throughout the Bill's second reading, 11 days of committee and four days of report, noble Lords from across your Lordship's House have carefully scrutinised its provisions. While we may not have ended up agreeing on every issue I believe we do agree on the importance of the bill, as well as the need to improve workers rights and level the playing field for good employers. I'm therefore grateful for the pleasure of engaging with noble Lords inside and outside the chamber and would like to thank all noble Lords that I and make ministerial colleagues are spoken to for their time and wisdom.

The mention every member of your Lordship's House that I've engaged with risks taking almost as long as the committee stage did. And so while I will refrain from doing that I would like to put on record my particular thanks to a number of noble Lords. My first words of thanks must go to my noble friends Lord Leong and Lord Katz for their dedicated support from the dedicated support from the frontbench. Over the course of the Bill's passage we have collectively had over 50 engagements with stakeholders including noble Lords and external bodies.

My noble friends have been generous with their time and their wisdom and I/O them a great debt. Similarly must give thanks to my noble friends Lord Collins of Highbury, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Baroness Smith of Mills, and Baroness Merron all of whom are presented from the Dispatch Box. This represents a whole government approach to bringing about a long overdue improvement to workers rights. It's been a pleasure debating the bill's many clauses with noble Lords, noble Lord Lord Sharpe of Epsom and Noel Hunt of Wirral.

Who have continuously made the case under half of the Official Opposition. Likewise the noble Lord Lord Fox, Lord Goddard of Stockport, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill and the noble Baroness Baroness Kramer who have made meaningful contributions on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. This includes in relation to non- disclosure agreements where I was delighted to see the amendment I brought forward at report being accepted to introduce a world leading framework on MDA productions. I would like to say how gratifying it is to seek the noble Lord Lord Fox back in his place and I'm sure I speak for all noble Lords when I say how thankful we are for his continued recovery good health.

I should also pay particular contributions to the noble Lord Lord Goodlad, whilst of course Lord Fox's wisdom could not be replaced, Lord Goddard was a worthy and often entertaining substitute for that. I'm grateful to my noble friends Lord Hendy, Lord Brennan, Baroness O'Grady and Baroness Lister for the valued contributions in relation to seafarers bereavement league, trade unions and parental leaf. I would like to put on record my thanks to all the officials of public servants who have provided dedicated support throughout, including not only those in my department and the whips office but across government, and in the public sector.

In particular I would like to thank my private office and the bill and policy teams. Noble Lords had met with them will be as impressed as I am with the professionalism and knowledge. Finally I end by acknowledging and often quite yet essential work of house staff. This includes the clerks, the doorkeepers, dining staff, police, cleaners and countless others. This House Passat lady denied on many occasions, which is only possible because of these workers and those keeping us safe and cleaning up after us.

I'm sure that they will have watched the debate with interest and I hope that they will find their reward for their hard work and the renewed workplace rights that they will workplace rights that they will As we send this bill to the other place we can await their amendments. I'm sure we are all eager for a swift consideration to ensure the sooner people can access these rights the better. In the meantime, I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill do now pass. I'm conscious this is Third
16:02
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Portrait Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I'm conscious this is Third Reading and I fully support the bill, but I wanted to take this last opportunity to make a brief opportunity to make a brief intervention to ask for glitter -- greater clarification in relation to clause 40. It is an issue I raised a Committee stage. First I want to thank my noble from the Minister for helpful response at committee and in the subsequent letter she wrote. I know she shares an interest in ensuring the bill does not impose undue burdens on the HEE sector given the key role played by universities in the industrial strategy.

Universities wholeheartedly support the enactment of the bill and will be working to ensure fair employment practises are maintain and strengthen. As autonomous institutions, universities, unlike other organisations in the public sphere, will be requested to absorb the additional cost that this legislation imposes. In advance of the bill becoming law and ahead of the consultation process, I would like to seek further clarity and assurances on behalf of the higher education sector on three specific issues. First, in her letter, my noble friend indicated that the code would specify to which bodies and value of procurement activities clause 30 would apply.

It is possible that the procurement of universities are exempted due to their nature and value. As my noble friend able to elaborate further on this? And allay any outstanding concerns on the lead up to the consultation process. Second, it is still not clear whether pensions will also be subject to the no less favourable terms, which could result in considerable additional burdens for institutions where there are legacy arrangements in place. Third, there is uncertainty over whether the provisions in clause 30 would be retrospectively applied.

Decisions on both of these areas can make a material difference to the extent of financial impact experienced by the higher education sector. I recognise that these are likely to be significant subjects of the consultation, but if my noble friend is able to provide any reassurances in advance of this process, that would be very much welcome. The sector is so critical in delivering the skills needed for the UK's successful future and the hopes and aspirations of communities across the UK.
16:04
16:06
Lord Sharpe of Epsom Portrait Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Conservative)
-
-
I would like to also begin by expressing my gratitude to noble lords on all sides of the House for their excellent contributions throughout our deliberations on this bill. Their expertise, knowledge and careful scrutiny have been invaluable. I also wish to thank the ministers for the briefings in the meetings and for the extensive correspondence by letter. The data provided during the course of these proceedings. I would also like to thank the bill team in the ministers private offices.

Further I would like to place on record my thanks to the Public Bill Office for their diligent work on amendments and to all the staff in your Lordships House, as the noble Lady the Minister said, have enabled our debates to continue sometimes late into the night with such professionalism will stop and I also extend my thanks to our researchers on these benches who have been fantastic throughout. We take a slightly different view as to this bill, we think it is a terrible bill.

It's terrible for workers, it's terrible for businesses, particularly small businesses, and it is terrible for the economy as a whole. There is no support from anywhere in the business community for this legislation. The Office for Budget Responsibility has made it clear that the worst is yet to come unemployment has risen every single month under this government. The latest figures show that the rate is now set to reach five% and that is the highest since the pandemic. That is not a blip, that is a trend.

As a direct result of misguided economic choices and if this bill proceeds, the situation will only deteriorate further. The Chancellor has deepened the difficulty of long-term borrowing costs have reached their highest level since 1998, undermining stability and confidence. The spending plans are incoherent and once along the provisions of this bill, the picture is nothing short of a looming economic disaster. The bill itself imposes nothing new but new costs and burdens on business. A recent survey conducted by peninsula, the UK's largest HR and employment law consultancy...

Will have a negative impact on business. More than half expressed concern about the increased likelihood of tribunal claims and inevitability under these provisions was so-called day one writes in the ill thought out restrictions on workplace culture. Even the governments own impact assessment confirms those risks. The noble Lord confirmed by letter that the government itself is funding provision for some 33,900 tribunal sitting days. Yet the backlog already exceeds 15,000 cases. It doesn't take a genius to calculate that it would take a year and 1/2 simply to clear the existing caseload before even beginning to address the new claims that will inevitably arise as a result of this legislation.

Indeed the governments own impact assessment accepts that the introduction of the so-called day one dismissal right will increase claims by around 15%. So while I commend the government's actions as it regards recruiting of new judges, the bill still adds more pressure into a system already creaking, creating delay and uncertainty for employers and employees alike. Lord Young of Acton tells me to free speech union has a belief discrimination case before the employment tribunal that has been given a hearing date of July 2027.

One cannot help but observe that the bill appears designed less to support workers or employers and more to resuscitate the relevance of trade unions. We have already seen the damaging consequences of the government's approach in their handling of the junior doctors dispute, but by also reducing the threshold for workplace recognition to potentially as little as two%, the government is preparing the ground for a surge in unionisation, leaving small businesses, many of which have no business -- experience in dealing with small unions completely unprepared.

I think we should be mindful of a darker history that accompanies union power. In the 1970s and 80s, communities were torn apart by the toxic culture of so-called scabbing. Workers who chose for reasons of conscience or necessity to cross the picket line were branded as traitors and subjected to intimidation and ostracisation. That tyranny of the minority silenced individual choice and left lasting scars on families, workplaces and entire towns. It's precisely that environment which this bill risks rekindling, where the decision of a small fraction can dictate the livelihoods of the many and where those who simply wish to work are punished for it.

One can only admire the courage of the union barons opposite for their own active scabbing today in crossing the PCS picket line to be here. At the same time, the governments own impact assessment is clear that the central economic challenge is productivity. Yet while ministers fail to acknowledge that the poor persecuted these -- activities in the... Soured industrial relations. Instead of addressing that, the government seeks to import those very problems into the private sector through this legislation and that will undermine competitiveness, discourage investment and damage growth.

The bill also takes a regressive step with regards to political funds. The government proposes that contributions to a union's political fund should once again be made on an opt out basis rather than an opt in. This undermines the principle of genuine consent. It also raises serious questions of accountability and transparency. I note that the Certification Officer requires unions to disclose payments above a threshold of 2,000 pounds. Many unions are already making only two or three such payments a year. Those transactions, one assumes, aren't recorded in their internal cows -- are recorded.

It should be a matter of cut and paste to include them in the statutory return. Why then, as described by the Minister as a notable administrative requirement. As is to be the standard disclosure for other organisations in the future. References have been made to practises prior to 2016 when opacity prevailed, yet rather than strengthening transparency, the government seems intent on concealment. That stands in stark contrast to what's applied to companies which must provide full disclosure of political donations.

Ministers argue that members can access the information through the usual democratic means of a voluntary organisation, but there is no such process. There is no requirement for unions to provide this information to their members at all. If the government is serious about transparency, it should be insisting on openness, not enabling the rivers. -- The reverse. An organisation called the General Federation of trade unions has invited me to various events at the Trades Union Congress conference. The programme contains, among other things, session on what is described as Employment Rights Bill two.

Some might say that such a bill would administer the coup de grace after the firing squad of this bill. It also features a session including -- entitled Viva LaSala Deraa dad, stand with Latin America against Trump. I laughed when I read that, it's not serious politics, it is infantile and pathetic. If they truly wish to offer international lessons, they might examine the havoc that their counterparts have wreaked upon Latin American economies, particularly where solidarity is too often with shared quality collapsing currencies and vanishing investment.

We are focused on the rights of British businesses and their employees in the TUC should do the same. I would also like to highlight clause 30 concerning the right to be a company

**** Possible New Speaker ****

which was tabled by Lord Palmer. The noble Lord Sharpe has reminded me what I've been missing
16:14
16:14
16:16
Lord Balfe Portrait Lord Balfe (Conservative)
-
-
I'm properly not going to find a lot of favour with what I'm about to say. I will start off by reminding the House that I'm the honorary president of the pilots union, union that does not go on strike, does not regard militant industrial action as being an achievement, indeed, a dispute that leads to a lot of work for our employees is a failure, not a success. I would also like to remind the House that 30% of trade union members vote for the Conservative Party.

Now, people might wish to say that there is something wrong with them. I don't think there is. The matter is that there is very little politics in trade unionism. I have sat through trade unionism. I have sat through several years of the executive of the organisation, we don't discuss politics. Occasionally things will, we have to comply with some relation or the other and there may be a discussion. But the discussion is probably about the cost of complying, and one of the things I have noticed is the huge growth in legal fees that the union is dishing out.

We are the nearest, the legal profession has got to recruiting agency. We always seem to be a lot of money to get us around the law. And I'm not aware our union has ever broken the law. I hope we will move forward and regard this bill as a starting point of a consensual approach to industrial relations. Because we are all basically in the same side. I mentioned that 30% of trade unionists vote Conservative. In my particular union, the pilot union, it's over 50%.

And they are just not really impressed with this punch and Judy approach to trade union legislation which has become so much, what is happening in recent years. So I appeal to all of the House, government and the opposition, to work together in a consensual basis for trade unionism. I look across and icy my friend Brendan Barber, who did enormously good work at ACAS, and that is the sort of organisation that we need. But attempts to smooth out the problems that we have in industry, because at the end of the day, yes I'm going to wind up, at the end of the day, our employers want a wage, and our employers want a successful business.

We've had nice that there should help to. I certainly hope it

**** Possible New Speaker ****

will. And I wish the bill well. We have certainly improved this
16:20
Baroness Noakes Portrait Baroness Noakes (Conservative)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

We have certainly improved this bill during its passage but it bill during its passage but it remains very bad bill. It's bad for business, which means it's bad for the economy, and it's just terrible for people who want jobs. It's also a dreadful time to be making such significant changes. The economy is stressed. The government has failed to time inflation and we now have the highest rate in the G7. Speculation abounds about how big the blackhole is in the Chancellor's budget preparations and bond markets can see our economy is in trouble and they have heightened gilt yields to levels not seen since 1998 full stops telling is on the slide.

It feels like the 1970s all over again. Businesses are still reeling from the impact of the national insurance increases, on top of the significant increases in minimum wage release. This is orally taking its tail. Already. The valleys Ocean foundation have said that they reckon that the payment rate will having might have increased to 5% this month. Almost all the employment data are negative. Payroll numbers are down, job vacancies down, the PMI employment index, down, economic activity, op. Against this background creating new employment rights going back to 1960s trade union legislation is not far short of suicidal for the economy.

The government say this bill will cost £5 billion, adding to employment costs, and most of that wilful the Assembly sector. -- Most of that wilful on the Assembly sector. The bigger problem is that the bill will work against economic growth is said of creation, we will have more job destruction. My Lords, any other place the government has an opportunity to accept that modest changes that your Lordship's House has made to this bill. These changes are moderate and they will not remove all of the bill's harmful effects but I hope that the government at least take this opportunity to modify the impact of this bill.
16:22
Lord Londesborough Portrait Lord Londesborough (Crossbench)
-
-
I think we have spent 13 days in this chamber's good nursing this critical bill so I do think the ministers on the front bench for the stamina and perseverance. This bill has tested the patience of noble Lords from all sides of this House so I will not test your patience further by going over the same arguments that we heard during committee and report, very often the same arguments. I will simply raise one overriding question expressed by the FSB, the CBI, the ICAEW, the British Chambers of Commerce and pretty much the whole of the private sector.

They are asking in light of this bill how committed the government really is to delivering on its overriding number one mission, of real sustainable economic growth. And how this bill would impact on the two crucial ingredients on growth, job creation and as we have heard, productivity. In terms of job creation, vacancies have now fallen to an effective 10- year low when you exclude the exceptional pandemic years and this bill that is set to accelerate that downward trend.

Secondly, the need for greater productivity across our 30 million workforce, for employers, are currently paying an average 5% annual wage increases for close to 0 productivity gains. The Prime Minister and Chancellor have hailed this as an achievement, putting more pounds on workers pockets. But I'm afraid it's as illusory as it is inflationary and will only contribute to ever widening black holes. This bill will as the government admits push up even further cost of employment, and damage the risk would equations behind recruitment, promotion and employers ability to conduct those crucial performance reviews.

A that is bad news for productivity and I fear it will not go unnoticed by investors.
16:24
Baroness Jones of Whitchurch Portrait Baroness Jones of Whitchurch, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Department for Science, Innovation and Technology) (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, firstly, can I respond to my noble friend Baroness Warwick about the concerns of university UK. Given this stage of the parliamentary passage of the Employment Rights Bill's reached and the fact the House has agreed to close 36 should stand part of the bill, the clause will not be considered further during ping-pong. But as noble friend knows, I have written to her on this whole issue and the letter is available for all members to read. I would say to her that we do fully recognise the need not to impose disappointed burdens on smaller procuring organisations such as universities and to this end we intend to consult in the autumn on the detail and scope of the two tier code.

The consultation will consider the extent to which the public authorities, including higher education provisions, providers are required to follow its provisions. While I can't comment on whether we can carve out particular sectors before this consultation I can assure my noble friend that we will carefully consider the issues, particularly applied to Higher Education Bill of. Secondly can I thank the noble Lord Lord Goddard for his kind comments. And I think it's fair to say we have enjoyed working with him.

I'm sorry that we have ended on a note of discord in this debate. I thought that we had up until this point had very courteous discussions around all of this. And the fact that there are relatively few issues that are now remaining between us I think is a sign of the enormous work that this House has done over the last few months on this issue and I hope that because there are so few areas continuing disagreement that we can reach a conclusion on this bill delicately.

I don't want to rehearse the debates that we have had again. I have to say listening to this debate this afternoon is a miracle that we have only got 10 also issues that are still outstanding because it feels like we're back at square one but I do feel that we made some progress during the course of the discussions. I would just say to noble Lords that when we came into office we inherited an economy that was on its knees and employment rights which was way out of date and these are the issues that we have been and are continuing to work to address.

We are doing it in all sorts of ways, if you look at our small business strategy that we lost over the summer, the Industrial Strategy, the trade strategy, all of that is designed to make the UK a place that can do, to do business with an international basis and where jobs will be protected in the future. Just in terms of the course I have been provoked on this in terms of the state of the economy, in the three months to June the GDP grew by 0.5% meaning punitive growth has already exceeded the OBR forecast.

Since the start of Parliament 380,000 also been added, Britain has become the most active place to invest in the world, joint top with India, following it still with the US. The FTSE 100 index rushed to the 9,000 point mark this July, sustained growth throughout last month. Middle market businesses are growing at the fastest rate since the last election, according to research in NatWest and confidence amongst UK businesses has grown, with 54% of companies feeling positive about the current environment according to the Lord's business barometer.

I could go on. We are positive about the opportunities ahead for our economy and in that context we are positive about the jobs that will be provided and they will be good jobs and they will be jobs where people feel that they have a stake in the employment and feel they have a positive future. I'm sorry we ended up on that note and I'm sure we will come back and continue to try to iron out the remaining points of difference but in the meantime I beg to move.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

The question is that this bill do now pass. As many are of that opinion say, "Content", and of the contrary, "Not content". The contrary, "Not content". The contents have it. Committee on the Border Security, Asylum and
16:29
None Portrait Legislation: Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill –committee stage (day 4) - part one
-

Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Bill, Lord Hanson of Flint.
16:29
16:30
Lord Browne of Ladyton Portrait Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise to speak to amendment 104 in my name. And in the name of my in my name. And in the name of my noble friend Lord Cashman. In so doing also I should like to take this opportunity to thank my noble friend Lord Dobbs who in my absence moved and spoke to amendments in my name. He did so with characteristic thoughtfulness, eloquence and I'm pleased to have this chance to record my gratitude and pleased to have this chance to record my gratitude to the noble Lord Lord Cashman who is willing to move and This amendment does something essentially very simple.

In the sense of the bill before you Lordships House in the legislation that it relates to. I hope the committee will bear with me. It requires a complicated explanation in some ways and I will do my best to try not to complement -- complicated anymore. Essentially it seeks to repeal section 59 of Illegal Migration Act and in so doing remove seven anomalies I will come to. Section 59 extends the current inadmissibility process for certain asylum claims and other human rights claims from what was initially, broadly, those who came from the EEA states were one of two other European states or countries that were deemed safe.

The mechanism for this in section 59 is a list of safe states which are countries from which an asylum or human rights claim must be declared inadmissible unless exceptional circumstances apply. That list can be added to and the list that was originally drafted and the clause was increased to and the clause was increased to include both India and Georgia. By regulations that were laid on 8 November 2023. If I could detain your lordships committee -- I could detain your lordships committee for quite a time explaining what these countries were in and respect for human rights on that day, but I will read this short in telling the committee what is the source of this information, noble lords can find and read it for themselves.

What I intend to do is read from the United States 2022 country report on human rights practises in Georgia, which included a statement which I will read in short. Significant human rights issues included credible reports of torture or inhuman, cruel or degrading treatment. Arrests or incarcerations, serious problems with the independence of the judiciary, along with investigations and prosecutions widely considered to be politically motivated. Arbitrary or unlawful invasion of privacy, serious expression in media.

I will not read the rest of it. In the case of India, the first three lines of the United States 2022 country report practises in India included the following, significant human rights issues included credible reports of unlawful and arbitrary killings, including extrajudicial killings by the government or its agents. Torture of cruel or inhuman degrading treatment by police and officials. Harsh and life- threatening conditions, arbitrary arrest and detention, political prisoners or detainees, arbitrary or unlawful in privacy. I will stop there.

There are many other lines that come with this, but despite this information and other information, the government then thought that these two countries thought that these two countries were candidates for states and would therefore be places from which certain asylum or human rights claims would be declared inadmissible. It seems to be this amendment to repeal to this I believe is in harmony with the animating spirit of this legislation. In repealing section 59 and in doing so not only it terminates this proposition in section 59 that you can declare states to be safe in this way despite the evidence, it will remove certain anomalies I will come to.

It does privately extend -- presently extend other human rights claims. The extension between human rights claims and claim to asylum is critical but section 59 conflates them. Unlike asylum claims, many human rights claims are founded not on assessment of the country safety, but individuals connection with this country, the family ties, the relationships. You risk imposing what amounts in an anomalous fashion to a blanket ban in consideration of human rights for the country because they are deemed to be safe when it's irrelevant to the nature of the claim.

Section 59 deprives individuals of a right to appeal as these claims because they are disregarded from the outset, unconsidered rather than refused and therefore there is no right to appeal. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, but what might be considered exceptional circumstances are defined in the legislation in a nonexhaustive way with narrow examples such as human rights obligations under the ECHR, suspension from the EU by country itself. They are inapplicable to states such as India, leaving us with legal uncertainty over and above all the other problems that are with this process.

Noble lords will no exceptional circumstances have been narrowly interpreted by the Court of Appeal in the past, with compelling reasons to believe that there is a clear risk but the individual be liable to persecution in the country of origin. This test is incorrect for private and family life claims. Again, result of the conflation of human rights and asylum claim. Returning to the list of safe countries, I believe this involves the other place and you Lordships House being asked to do something it is ill-equipped to do.

A list of safe states in section 59 of the illegal migration act may be altered by the government, but I for one would feel myself placed in a bad situation when asked about whether a member of a religious minority could be considered safe and parts of India. Whether a young boy or girl is safe in India given to the very high instance of FGM in that community or whether a gay man in Georgia can be considered as residing in a state country.

To reach an informed judgment in these issues would require something I don't claim to possess.... In the case of Georgia drew my attention to a case of a man who mere months before Georgia was declared safe was granted refugee status in the UK. What happened to him after coming out as gay was he was physically attacked by his own family members, forced to stay in hospital for people with mental illnesses and had an exorcism performed on him at his local church.

His family was detected with the police and Georgia do not get either of them. But the United Kingdom did, despite his legislation being in power the time. Considering this case and others like it, lack of an obligation to keep a list of safe countries under review is troubling and above all the criticisms I have. You Lordships House needs no reminder of what accompanied the decision to legislate this to the absolute and perpetual safety of the country of Rwanda.

I worry the absence of a reviewing mechanism for this list threatens to put us in a similarly insidious position. It is not been fully commenced, but given the home office is granted asylum or humans rights protections to hundreds of people from the countries in the lists in recent years, even a shadow of the section 59 provision is damaging. If commenced, these individuals will have no way to challenge a decision wrongfully to deport them. Either the Home Office have spin granting asylum and human rights claims been acting out of superfluity of compassion of these countries that they are in all circumstances safe is wrong.

It's my belief that section 59 of Illegal Migration Act's ill-conceived, ties the hands of the Home Secretary under this provision must declare asylum and human rights claims in these countries as inadmissible save the largely undefined exceptional circumstances are detected and it fully risks involving us going forward under a new government and multiple breaches of our obligations to international law. I urge the committee to support and I begged to move. -- I beg to move.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Member proposed, page 38, leave out 58 and insert 59. -- Amendment

**** Possible New Speaker ****

proposed. Arise to support amendment 104
16:40
Lord Cashman Portrait Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)
-
-
and I am proud to follow my noble friend for the passionate and eloquent way he introduces amendment. He spoke passionately and deeply about the young man Noah and the experience he had in Georgia. Before I speak further in support of this amendment, to which I vetted my name, I wish to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord Lord Etherton who died on 6 May this year. And with whom I had the privilege to work alongside on immigration and asylum legislation in your Lordships House.

He was always seeking to bring justice and fairness where there was none, to give a Vos -- voice to the voiceless. His contributions will be greatly missed. Having listened previously to interventions on this bill, it is clear to me and to the media stigmatisation of migrants, that this vital work of bringing justice and fairness to the system must go on. I support amendment 104 which has been put to your Lordships House so eloquently by my noble friend and I also welcome and support amendment 203E.

These amendments bring us back to addressing the primary reasons of those seeking asylum. It is vital that each case is processed solely on its merits and not on the presumption of safety of the country from which the person has fled. Despite the issue of exceptional circumstances, to which my noble friend has already referred. Lord Brown has put the case exhaustively and therefore there is very little for me to add. I believe this amendment to be essential because section 59, once fully commenced, will make far-reaching amendments to the general inadmissibility of asylum claims from EU nationals introduced by the Nationality and introduced by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

This could result in violations of the UK's international human rights obligations and I am grateful to the briefings that I've received, particularly from the Refugee Council. Section 59 of Illegal Migration Act extends the current general inadmissibility of asylum claims from EU nationals of EU member states to cover human rights claims and to cover nationals of other countries deemed to be safe. Despite concerns expressed about the safety of those three states, namely India, Albania and Georgia.

There can be no general safety presumption if there is a risk of persecution to even one recognisable section of a community. Concerns have been raised by numerous organisations, protection issues and Albania, India and Georgia. Including those facing women and girls, victims of trafficking and minorities including certain religious groups and LGBTQ+ people. In relation to the latter, we must recall and recognise the Supreme Court judgment of 2010, Hg Rand and HT Cameroon versus the Home Secretary.

Particularly in relation to the lived experiences of such individuals seeking asylum. Finally, there is, I believe, a fundamental issue with legislating for so-called member safe states. While the list of safe states in section 59 of Illegal Migration Act may be altered by the executive through affirmative regulations, members of this House have expressed concern time and time again and particularly throughout the passage of the safety of Rwanda act 2024 that we are institutionally ill-equipped to deal decisively and to determine the safety of a state.

We have also expressed in your Lordships House concerns that we have been repeatedly asked to rubberstamp such decisions of the government of the day. It is our contention that the safety of the state must be designated by a review on the basis of reliable, objective information from a range of sources and regularly updated and published. I urge the government to consider and reflect widely on this sensible and notable amendment and to work with us and with the noble Lord, with us and with the noble Lord,
16:47
Baroness Hamwee Portrait Baroness Hamwee (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
with us and with the noble Lord, I'm certainly not seeking to take issue with the noble Lord Lord issue with the noble Lord Lord Brown. I appreciate we are in very topical territory, and I confess topical territory, and I confess that I have found it quite difficult to know how to approach this bill to know how to approach this bill following the statement on Monday, following the statement on Monday, because there is a lot to come, and I know the Minister was her last, we will have the opportunity to debate will have the opportunity to debate it but of course we don't have that much detail, and what we are asked much detail, and what we are asked to consider is a bill written before that statement.

But we will have that statement. But we will have opportunities to consider the Home opportunities to consider the Home Office's proposals. And today's debate will give the Minister a flavour, if he needs it, because I don't think he will be surprised by don't think he will be surprised by it very much of what is to come by way of our responses. I can too, and grateful to the various organisations which briefed us on section 59. They have clearly spelled-out the distinction between asylum and human rights claims, and as they say, the latter, human rights claims, in many cases have nothing to do with the country's general safety or perceived safety.

They are about someone's connections to this country, their dependency and family ties here, as I said, this is topical. Made by people seeking lawfully to enter or remain with their UK-based family. Among other things, this means, because there's no right of appeal, the course claims are not refused, they are just not considered. Of course, and it is of course, to me, as the noble Lord Lord Cashman has said, a country may be safe generally but not to particular groups or sections of the community and the Supreme Court has recognised that a serious risk of persecution can exist as a general feature of life which applies to a recognisable section of the community.

This amendment takes us back to the 2002 act which is what section 59 amends, that act allows for exceptional circumstances, and what they may include is the subject of my The new 85, A, that would provide that they include where the claimant is at substantial risk of significant personal harm, either as a member of a minority group or as an individual. The amendment also would omit Albania, Georgia and India from the list of those countries which are automatically safe, which I put in 'so, for everyone -- which I put in inverted commas.

Noah has been example and he was my example for Georgia. Where there is a lack of effective state protection for LGBTQIA plus people in the face of the considerable violence. To add to what has been said, he said no one can know you are gay, if you are gay you have two options, hospital or exorcism. This man was attacked by his own family, forced to stay in hospital for people with mental illnesses, and subjected to exorcism. The Home Office country note for India refers to gender-based violence, with women and girls in Ruble areas or from certain castes and tribes, especially vulnerable.

-- Rural areas. Institutional prejudices meaning violence against Muslims, Christians and again certain castes and tribes, going unpunished, into the country note describes the active involvement of the police. In Albania, trafficking is rife. In the top three nationalities, should we call on the top of the bottom three, of people referred into that national referral mechanism, recognised to be victims of trafficking, Albania is one of those three, whether you regarded at the top of the bottom. It is internationally recognised that domestic and international trafficking, including trafficking to the UK, is rife.

And the families of victims themselves are threatened. I have been involved with the case of a young, well he was a young man when he came, his application has not been determined yet, but the threat to his family has been a major factor in his response to what has affected his life. Sexual and domestic violence is widespread in Albania. So wherever we are going in legislative terms, with this, we have to agonise the situation that noble Lords have already described.
16:52
Lord Murray of Blidworth Portrait Lord Murray of Blidworth (Conservative)
-
-
I rise to address amendment to hundred and three, J, and I will declare my interest as a barrister practising in public law and in the immigration space. As noble Lords will have noticed, the amendment to hundred and three, J, doesn't sit happily with the other amendments in this group. It is not directly about the inadmissibility of an asylum claim. But it is on a very important point. The Refugee Convention of 1951 says that if an asylum seeker has entered the country illegally, he is not to be punished or penalised for doing so, provided he came directly from a territory where his life or freedom was threatened by persecution.

Specifically, the 1951 Convention says, the contracting States shall not impose penalties on account of their illegal entry or presence on refugees who coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened, in the sense of article 1, that is the persecution provision in the convention, enter or a present in their territory without authorisation provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry and presence. As Professor Jonathan Haidt, the professor emeritus of law and legal philosophy at Oxford, and I pointed out in our paper published in 2020 by this exchange, entitled immigration, Strasbourg and initial overreach, the drafting of proper meaning of article 31.1 of the refugee were compellingly expanded by the noble Lords Lord Wood of else very and Lord Marks.

Dissenting in the case of Ashour against the Crown, 2008, UK House of Lords, 31. In doing so, they demonstrated the error of the living instrument interpretation, advanced by the majority, in that case and by the divisional Court in the case of the crowd at Oxbridge Magistrate's Court, ex parte demic, 2001, Queens bench, 667. The erroneous but raining interpretation is predicated on that motion, plainly rejected by the draughtsmen of article 31 of the Refugee Convention. But refugees passing through safe country A en passing through safe country A en route to safe country B and/or C or DoE, should have the option to choose to seek asylum in B, C, or D, or a.

This is plainly wrong. It's plainly not what was intended by that state bodies when they signed the Refugee Convention in 1951. It is time that we corrected the law in this regard. Amendment 203, J, together with amendment 203, I, to be debated in a later group, restores the proper meaning of coming directly. And in doing so, it provides a solution to the nightmare of the dangerous channel crossings and uncontrolled entry. Refugee Convention purposefully distinguishes between those who are directly from a country where they are in danger and those who do not and there is no immunity from immigration law for those not coming directly.

This was entirely intentional. This amendment aims to vindicate the distinction and 6 to bring an end to the practice of widening the Refugee Convention beyond the terms the United Kingdom and the other states agreed. Let's look at the terms of the amendment to hundred and three, J. The amendment works like this: Secretary of State has a duty to refuse a claim for asylum. If a person meets the conditions set out. The first condition you will see at subclause to is that they have entered, they require lead into the United Kingdom and they have done so without such leave, whether illegally or otherwise.

And the second condition at subclause three is that in entering or arriving, as mentioned in subsection number two, that the person did not come directly to that UK country in which the person's life and liberty were threatened by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. But the words taken from the convention. Subclause letter for four clarity specifies for the purposes of subsection 3, a person is not to be taken as having come directly to the United Kingdom from country in which the life and liberty are threatened as mentioned liberty are threatened as mentioned in the subsection if incoming from such a country they passed through all stopped in another country outside the United Kingdom where their life and liberty were not so threatened.

In paragraph 5, to make it absolutely crystal-clear, for the removal of doubt, but without limitation, for the purposes of subsection 3, a person has passed through all stopped another country outside the UK if they depart in a boat, vessel, or aircraft from France, or any other European postal stage. If this provision were enforced, would you risk your life in the channel in a small boat if you knew that you asylum claim would be bound to be refused? You would not suggest.

This amendment to use the slogan so favoured by the prime minister, this amendment would smash the gangs by destroying the business model. And it does so remaining a member of the Refugee Convention. Unlike the timid tinkering around the edges, we see in almost all of this rather performative bill, this amendment proposes a real beneficial solution and the Home Office should grab this amendment with both hands.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

I rise briefly to support Lady Hamwee's amendment to hundred three, Hamwee's amendment to hundred three, E and declare my interest as a vice president of the Alliance of Liberals and Democrats in Europe and chair of human rights liver chair of human rights liver international and I want to be fully just mention something that has happened this afternoon in Georgia. happened this afternoon in Georgia. Today, somebody who was imprisoned Today, somebody who was imprisoned by the Georgian Dream on trumped up by the Georgian Dream on trumped up drug cases and imprisoned has finally been freed.

Astonishingly after the regime admitted in court planting drugs on him at a protest.
16:59
Baroness Brinton Portrait Baroness Brinton (Liberal Democrat)
-
-
This is the third such case to have come in recent weeks. Many, many others, thousands of others, remain in prison and over the last four months, leaders and senior activists, were told by the regime they had to go into Parliament and kowtow to the new regime, immediately imprisoned after that, and that became a contempt of Parliament and some of them have got sentences of 7 to 15 years. These are the high-profile people hundreds of thousands of protesters on the streets every night, some of them are finding that like this man they are ending up in prison that strictly no roots.

Georgia is not a safe place. I support my noble friend's amendment for this. During the passage of the safety of Rhondda two act, we repeatedly said Rhondda was not safe and that continues. The government has imprisoned macro. government has imprisoned macro. She has been nominated for prizes, she has spent most of the last 20 years in prison and members of her party the same, many have tried to escape and seek asylum elsewhere for their safety.

Rwanda was not then and is not now say. I'm really pleased to see that at least we are now discussing that. These amendments are important and will recount to another group later today, I'm going to raise the issue about how appropriate it is to have a list in a regulation when things can move as fast as they have happened in Georgia recently. And I think that that is worth exploring, I will leave that until we get to
17:01
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page