Lords Chamber

Tuesday 11th November 2025

(began 2 hours, 5 minutes ago)

Share Debate
Watch Live
Skip to latest contribution
14:37
14:37
14:38
14:38
14:39
14:39
14:40
14:40
14:41
14:42
14:42
14:43
14:44
14:45
14:45
14:46
14:47
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
My Lords, the arts have long been internationally mobile and are often musicians are often needed at short notice to plug a gap in an orchestra or in a West End production. In order for that to go ahead. I saw that as arts Minister as the sector bounced back from Covid. So what work is the the Minister's department doing with orchestras, concert promoters, theatres and others to help explain the visa requirements that are needed, but also to make sure that those decisions are made in a timely manner.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

I thank the noble Lord for his question. It's absolutely vital that people do get that because that people do get that because there is occasionally short notice, and there are occasionally the need to potentially put additional to potentially put additional concerts or gigs on because there's a greater demand that might overrun certain times and certain sectors. certain times and certain sectors. So the point he's made it absolutely valid in a European context, which is, I think, where context, which is, I think, where he's mainly focussed, that forms part of our examination on the reset.

We do have the best regime reset. We do have the best regime at the moment of any European country for allowing that movement between the United Kingdom and the European Union, but there is European Union, but there is obviously, if there are any difficulties, I would welcome discussion with him on what they are, how we can iron them out, and are, how we can iron them out, and how we can make sure that that big revenue earner for the UK continues
14:48
None Portrait Oral questions: Bring police force records in England and Wales under legislative control and to make police forces subject to the supervision of the Keeper of Public Records under the Public Records Act 1958
-



**** Possible New Speaker ****

to earn that level of revenue. Second oral question Lord Faulkner of Worcester. My Lords, I beg leave to ask the
14:48
14:48
14:49
14:50
14:51
14:52
14:52
14:52
14:53
14:53
14:54
14:54
14:54
14:55
14:56
14:56
14:57
14:57
14:58
14:58
None Portrait Oral questions: Implications of net airport expansion for the UK's net zero target and economy
-

I beg leave to ask.
14:58
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Portrait Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill, Minister of State (Department for Transport) (Labour)
-
-
The question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, the the Climate Change Committee. C.c.c. is the independent adviser to the government on climate change commitments, including aviation. The government has committed to routinely engaging the C.c.c. as routinely engaging the C.c.c. as part of the Airports National Policy Statement review on how expansion can be made consistent expansion can be made consistent with our net zero framework. We continue to work closely with the aviation sector on decarbonisation and growing the economy, including through the Jet Zero Task Force.



**** Possible New Speaker ****

through the Jet Zero Task Force. My Lords, the the aviation industry will never be industry will never be environmentally sustainable. I really think this government ought to understand that. And at the moment, what's happening is the 15% of people who take 70% of the flights are actually protected from flights are actually protected from paying fuel duty, whereas train travellers aren't, and potentially

**** Possible New Speaker ****

EV drivers as well. So why not tax frequent. Flyers, make train fares cheaper and leave EV drivers alone?

**** Possible New Speaker ****

and leave EV drivers alone? So this government is making huge efforts to make the aviation industry more sustainable. There's industry more sustainable. There's a bill before the House on sustainable, on the sustainable aviation fuel policy. It's also pursuing airspace modernisation and providing up to 2.3 billion over ten years to extend the Aerospace Technology Institute programme, supporting the development of next generation sustainable technologies. The distance band structure of Air passenger duty already ensures that those who fly furthest and have the greatest impact on emissions incur the greatest duty, and similarly, given that Air Passenger Duty is charged on all UK departing flights, those who fly most often pay more.

those who fly most often pay more.
15:00
15:01
15:01
15:02
15:03
15:04
15:04
15:05
15:06
15:07
15:08
15:08
15:08
15:09
15:09
15:09
15:10
15:11
15:11
15:12
15:14
15:15
15:15
15:15
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:19
15:20
Baroness Chapman of Darlington Portrait Baroness Chapman of Darlington, Minister of State (Development) (Labour)
-
-
I completely agree about the role of the BBC in soft Power, and particularly the World Service and BBC verify do a tremendous job. I will go as far as to say that they are saving lives every day with the work that they do. On the issue of art, I think it is right that the British Council makes these decisions. If they wish to dispose of assets and they have assets other than an art collection, of course that is a decision for them.

I'm not suggesting that they do this. They came to me previously with that suggestion. If there is a way of avoiding doing this and that would be their preference, then that is well within their powers to make that choice. There is no pressure from anyone that I can see to make them make a particular decision. But what they have to do, they have to do this and they would agree with this, is they've got to get themselves on a stable footing.

We have to arrange, we have to make an agreement with the Treasury on this loan, and we will we will do that because terms should be agreed. They should have been agreed at the time the loan was made. But, you know, other people will have to explain why that wasn't done, but that that needs to be addressed. But even if the loan is taken out of the equation, there must be a stable financial footing for the British Council with a modern vision for the future of their activities, because they are absolutely vital.

We'll work with them to make sure it happens, but

**** Possible New Speaker ****

they need to take responsibility for this. To my. Lords. That concludes our questions for today. Any members wishing to leave today. Any members wishing to leave My My Lords, My Lords, we My Lords, we now My Lords, we now come My Lords, we now come to My Lords, we now come to two instruments previously debated in Grand Committee.

Protection of Grand Committee. Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. Definition of Relevant Land Amendment Order 2025. Relevant Land Amendment Order 2025. Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill.
15:23
15:24
15:24
15:24
15:25
15:26
15:27
15:28
15:29
15:29
15:29
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:33
15:34
15:35
15:35
Lord Browne of Ladyton Portrait Lord Browne of Ladyton (Labour)
-
-
say content the contrary not content. The contents have it after clause 48, amendment 59. The Lord

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Browne of Ladyton. My Lords, I rise to speak to

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I rise to speak to amendment 59, in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, of the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, and the. And the noble Lady Baroness Hamwee, whom I thank for Baroness Hamwee, whom I thank for their support. I also again thank the noble and learned Lord Lord the noble and learned Lord Lord Hope of Craighead, and the noble and Right Reverend Lord Lord Sentamu, for the support and committee during which I proposed repeal of section 59 of the Illegal repeal of section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act, 2023.

I propose that we bring to an end the proposition that states may be declared safe, despite the objective evidence that they are not. I explained why there should be no blanket ban on considering human rights claims, when such claims have nothing to do when such claims have nothing to do with the states safety and everything to do with family unity. everything to do with family unity. Ties of dependency and the best interests of children. My Lords, I have no doubt that banning all have no doubt that banning all family claims of European wives seeking to live with their British husbands and children when American wives, for example, would face no such impediment, will make us no friends.

In Europe, however, section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act does precisely that. It extends what was a minimal pre-existing duty to declare asylum claims from EU nationals inadmissible to also cover human rights claims from EU nationals, and a much wider list of states that the former UK government has called safe. Despite these anomalies, noble Lords will recollect that I did not push to a vote my amendment to repeal section 59. Instead, I promise to return to the issue.

Lord Suri my noble friend, the Minister's response I understand the position of the government to be that the retention of section 59 is worthwhile, given the flexibility it offers in ensuring Unmeritorious claims do not unnecessarily absorb limited resources. However, further, on the 3rd of September, in response to the debate on amendment 59, my noble friend the Minister responding in particular to noble Lords Cameron and Davis, said the government is wary of inadmissibility duties that could result in a rapidly growing number of people whose claims would be inadmissible and who would be then in a holding position, unable to be removed.

Even if their claims are genuine. This part of my noble friends response can be found in Hansard for the 3rd of September at the volume 848, column 825. For the reasons which my noble friend set out, section 59 inevitably will gather in its net fish we do not intend to catch, including those with meritorious human rights claims whom we cannot lawfully remove. Therefore, while I appreciate that there must be a mechanism to manage claims fairly and efficiently, clearly that mechanism, I have to say now, given the minister's own words, is not section 59 in its current form.

Amendment 59, my noble Lords, that the numbering is an unintentional coincidence is an attempt, helpfully, to suggest to the government how it might turn section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act into something workable and operationally useful. It alters, rather than repeals, section 59. It furthers the government's objective of keeping a mechanism on the statute book that might be used to increase efficiency, while at the same time ensuring that it can be operated lawfully and in a manner that does not breach fundamental human rights.

Should the government ever wish to implement it. To this end, my Lord, the amendment does three simple and minimal things. First, it turns what would be an unworkable duty to declare claims inadmissible into a workable power. So to do interestingly, when by coincidence such a change is in harmony with clause 38 of the bill, which scraps other unworkable duties in the Illegal Migration Act in creating a workable power, our amendment frees the hands of the Secretary of State to give her true flexibility over when and in relation to whom the power is exercised.

If my noble friend the Minister disagrees with her amendment, I should be grateful if he would clarify when and why a statutory duty gives greater operational operational flexibility than a statutory power. If the Minister is able to give an example, that would be greatly helpful to noble Lords, Second Amendment provides the simplest and most minimal of safeguards. By inadmissibility, the government is saying, we do not wish to even consider this claim. All this amendment does is say you need not consider it if if to fail.

So to do would result in the UK breaching its obligations under the Human Rights Convention, a convention to which our government has committed to remaining a party. Undoubtedly, the courts will not presume it is the government's intention to breach its international law obligations, rather than leaving the murkiness of exceptional circumstances to save the government from illegality. It is much simpler if we. And by we I mean Parliament, were to write what we mean on the face of the statute book, rather than hoping what we mean will be read by the courts into the legal uncertainties of a non-exhaustive list of exceptional circumstances.

I appreciate that if section 59 were ever fully commenced, the government would have to issue guidance giving its interpretation of exceptional circumstances. But such guidance is not an aid to statutory interpretation, as this government intends to comply with its human rights convention obligations. Our proposed minimal safeguards should not pose any obstacle to it. However, it provides guardrails that future governments that should should future governments have different intentions, and that may be a possibility that is nearer than we would like to think.

If this government does not intend to implement section 59, they should amend it. If they will not repeal it. If the government does intend to implement it, they must be prepared for litigation and to be tied up in the courts for the rest of this Parliament, trying to explain whether it is compliant with human rights and what they mean by exceptional circumstances, will the exceptional circumstances should not be made to do all the hard work and be interpreted expansively in order to comply with human rights that will only bring unnecessary criticism down upon our human rights framework and overcomplicate the matter for our courts.

I would also suggest, as a matter I suggest, a matter as important as this should not be left to guidance to be interpreted by the government of the day, it is our job. It is Parliament's job to set the appropriate boundaries. If the Minister disagrees with me on this point, I should be grateful if he would clarify how the exceptional circumstances test would apply to EU nationals making private life claims, or even seeking entry to live here with their families, would they really only be considered exceptionally, or would they be considered as a matter of course? How about Georgia? Would protection claims from Georgian nationals only be considered exceptionally? What further exceptional circumstances would the government need simply to admit the two above claims? Third, and finally, the amendment creates a simple mechanism for a state to be removed from the safe state list.

If the Secretary of State considers that it is no longer safe in general, or safe for a recognisable section of the community, and this amendment, we have listed the descriptions of persons who may be unsafe because of their sex, language, race, religion, nationality, membership of a social or other group, political opinion or any other appropriate attribute or circumstance. Only truly safe states should be on the list at all. This again furthers operational efficiency, as it ensures caseworkers need not make hard case by case decisions about whether to declare a claim inadmissible when the government already considers that the state generally is unsafe or ordinarily unsafe for minorities.

Fortuitously, the government already has agreed to undertake a continuous review of the safety of the states on the list and has agreed to remove from the list states that are no longer safe. Therefore, this amendment wholly is in line with their own commitment. Also, my Lords, I would urge the government, if they resist legislative amendment to the status quo, to consider how future governments might behave and whether they might share in the government's commitment continuously to review safety. The future governments wish to act as if unsafe states are safe because they were added to a list.

Once upon a time, we must be able to have a proper debate in this House. I need not remind noble Lords of the tortuous fiction that followed Rwanda being added to a list of safe states. No state should be legislated as perpetually safe. I know this government recognises that fact. Therefore, in section 59, it is only logical for there to be a clear safety valve, a review mechanism to avoid repetition of the idea of a state once designated as safe, being forever deemed safe.

I urge my noble friend, the Minister, to consider these three practical recommendations. This government need not retain and be haunted by unworkable and performative provisions, by past governments of its intentions or operational flexibility. Upholding our obligations under the Human Rights Convention and balancing efficiency against the need for

**** Possible New Speaker ****

fairness. I beg to move the. Amendment proposed after clause

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Amendment proposed after clause 48. Insert the new clause as printed on the marshalled list. My
15:46
Lord Cashman Portrait Lord Cashman (Non-affiliated)
-
-
printed on the marshalled list. My Lords, I rise in support of amendment 59, to which I have added my name, along with the name of the noble Baroness, Baroness Hamwee, and which was moved so effectively and powerfully by my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton. I spoke during Committee stage, my Lords, on the importance of our amendment then, and the one before your lordships today reflects changes which we believe will make it attractive to the government, as well as being a balanced and effective approach.

And I hope the government will agree with that opinion. As has been said, once fully commenced, section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act would make far reaching amendments to the general inadmissibility of asylum and human rights protection claims from EU and other nationals introduced by the Nationality and Borders Act 2022. We believe, my Lords, that this will likely result in violations of the United Kingdom's international human rights obligations at Committee stage, our amendment one 104 sought to repeal, as my noble friend had said, section 59 of the IMA in full.

It was widely supported, and I was particularly pleased by the intervention of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead. Following my recognition of the importance of the Supreme Court judgement of 2010, H.J. Iran versus the Secretary of State, Home Department, he was, as we know, my Lords, one of the justices in that case, the concern at committee and the concern now is about the efficacy and the legality of section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act.

As currently drafted. The government has made it quite clear that it believes section 59 of the IMA must be retained, hence why we have tabled this new amendment, which looks to make changes to section 59, with the intention, my Lords, of ensuring that it can provide the flexibility that the government may require. But in an effective and legal manner that has as few unintended consequences as possible. To put it briefly, my Lords, this amendment would turn the duty of the Secretary of State into a power.

It clarifies the exceptional circumstances test. It provides an effective mechanism for the management of the safe states list and the removal of states which are no longer safe. Importantly, it would enable the United Kingdom to uphold the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights and would therefore be less likely to be challenged within the courts for a state to be safe, my Lords, it must be a state where, and I quote, its citizens are free from any serious risk of systemic persecution, either by the state itself or by non-state agents, which the state is unable or unwilling to control, and for a serious risk to exist in general.

And I am quoting from the Supreme Court judgement of 2015, R Brown, Jamaica versus the Secretary of State. As I said during Committee stage, there can be no general safety presumption if there is a risk of persecution to even one recognisable section of a community. In relation to H.J. Iran's Supreme Court judgement, the hard won legal rights for LGBTQ plus refugees are meaningless if the safety of states does not account for their safety. Such refugees will have to hide fundamental parts of their identity if they cannot leap over the exceptional circumstances test currently in place, and if they are sent back home in contravention.

My Lords of the Iran judgement. But surely, even if there clone claims are declared inadmissible, this government will not return them home and force them to live in hiding in a state the UK has called safe but is not in reality safe for them. Therefore, I look to the Minister to reassure me on that particular point. If there is a real risk, a person will suffer inhuman and degrading treatment upon return to their home country, it would be a breach of their human rights to fail to rigorously scrutinise their claim.

Therefore, I believe such claims must be considered. This means if the wider inadmissible inadmissibility test is to be kept, it must be altered. Similarly, hard won gay marriage rights will mean little. My Lords, if we must still show exceptional circumstances before a national of a safe country may be permitted to live here with their British or settled partner. These are some of the reasons we have had. We have added to the exceptional circumstances. Test the requirement for the government to the to consider these claims.

If failure to consider them would breach the Human Rights Convention. Arguably a minimal safeguard to ask for. In conclusion, my Lords, I hope the government will have the courage to do the right thing and accept its human rights obligations and adopt this amendment, or at the very least, further reflect upon the amendment and our submissions. I look forward to the Minister's response.

**** Possible New Speaker ****

My Lords, I did support the amendment when it appeared in committee, and I think it has been quite improved. And therefore, I
15:53
Lord Sentamu Portrait Lord Sentamu (Crossbench)
-
-
quite improved. And therefore, I want to say that I agree with the comments of the noble Lords, Brown and Cashman. So I don't want to go more than what actually they've said, because they put the case fairly clearly, and I think it must be a welcome that this particular amendment actually turns the duty into a power, because to declare as a visible human rights asylum claim, which may not actually, in the end, be exercised if the failure to consider a claim would contravene the UK's obligations under the Echr.

That's that, to me, is the nub of it, and therefore Secretary of State, instead of just simply having a duty, has actually a power to do something about it. It is inability under the Human Rights Act sometimes for people to know this has been breached, but then we should put it right. And it seems to me this particular bill gives the opportunity of turning a duty into a power. But also it does another thing, it turning a duty to remove states from the safe states.

List of no longer safe. And I think to have a list of which you can't actually have the power to do so, or the duty to do so can prolong are really a misnomer. And people therefore think when they come from some places that were safe yesterday and tomorrow, they are no longer safe. It seems to me that the Secretary of State needs actually be given this particular duty to do so, because we are living in a world that is just so changeable.

Who believed that when a South Sudan became independent and everybody was so full of rejoicing, I was involved in a lot of asylum people coming to Uganda because I was a judge up in the North and actually hearing cases and the sheer carnage that went on in that country. So many years of people's lives ruined, destroyed. And then peace came and everybody rejoiced. It wasn't long before warring factions and almost tearing apart that country. The carnage in Darfur was just quite unbelievable.

And then what happens? Sudan, which was being ruled by a dictator, and then that government is overthrown. And overnight law and order begins to collapse. And it wasn't very long before you had two warring factions actually test tearing that that country. Yes. We go we hold the pen on behalf of the United Nations. But, my friends, we almost haven't got the the wherewithal to actually deal with such brutality. So a country which was safe a few months ago could suddenly end up in a real mess sexual state because we created a list under that particular act should have the duty to remove that country, because it's been judged as no longer a safe country.

My Lords, those amendments, I think, are in keeping with what? And I'm very grateful how much this government at the moment, which says that they are going to be ruled and governed by the rule of law, and there is nothing here which is not being

**** Possible New Speaker ****

supported by the rule of law. So I support the amendments. Here, here.
15:56
Lord German Portrait Lord German (Liberal Democrat)
-
-


**** Possible New Speaker ****

Here, here. Very briefly. My Lords, can I first of all give apologies from the noble Baroness Hamwee again, the noble Baroness Hamwee again, who is still not well. And I know that she would have intended to support this amendment, as it is now. Quite clearly, what Lord Browne has done here is presented us with a very neat solution to a problem which the Minister noble Lord, the Minister, espoused during Committee stage, and quite clearly also he is sought to do what I think is the purpose of this whole amendment to make sure that previously unworkable and unsatisfactory legislation was converted into something which had a sense of purpose and direction, and was understandable and had clarity and definition within it.

I would just the House what the noble Lord, the Minister, said to me in reply to the question. Part of the Illegal Migration Act. And he said, we are in the event that we see asylum claims from individuals, from countries that we would generally consider safe. That's the reason that was given for attaining this particular clause section. And of course, the word generally safe. I think the noble Lord Cashman has just expressed it. There are many, many countries which may be safe for some people, but not safe for all people.

In fact, the one that sticks out an absolute mile at the moment, of course, is Georgia. If you have any political thought, which is nothing to do with the Georgian Dream, you will be in prison. I think I've lost count of the number of politicians who I have met, and I know that other noble Lords in this House have also met, who actually, after the day after we met them, said, well, I'm going back to go to prison because I'm going to be arrested simply because they were not speaking on the they were politicians elected by the people, but who were not speaking on behalf of the government and were speaking out against the government.

So that's that generally considered safe means well, in the generality, it's safe to send people to Georgia. You'd be absolutely wrong to send somebody who had a political opinion, because we know that there are very disgraceful ways in which these politicians in that country have been have been treated. So in conclusion, I would say to the noble Lord, the Minister, this is a worthy solution to a problem which has been identified in the context of having wanted to retain that section of the Illegal Migration Act section 59.

You have before you a workable solution to make it, to make sense of it and to convert it from an unworkable, unsatisfactory position to something which is exactly the opposite. So we on these benches would commend it.
15:59
Lord Cameron of Lochiel Portrait Lord Cameron of Lochiel (Conservative)
-
-
My Lords, can I thank the noble

**** Possible New Speaker ****

Lord Lord Browne of Ladyton. For bringing his amendments and

**** Possible New Speaker ****

For bringing his amendments and for his submissions today, which I listened to very carefully to indeed, and to the case that he indeed, and to the case that he made for for this change. I have a great deal of respect for him, and I acknowledge the intentions behind this amendment, which we did explore in terms of the general explore in terms of the general issues at Committee stage. That said, regretfully, we cannot support this amendment. I don't support this amendment.

I don't think that will come as a massive surprise to the noble Lord because this amendment, in our view, would this amendment, in our view, would weaken the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which was and Asylum Act 2002, which was amended under the previous government. We are clear that those who come from safe countries should who come from safe countries should not be able to make asylum or human rights claims, and consequently, we rights claims, and consequently, we cannot agree with the noble Lord on his attempt to downgrade the duty his attempt to downgrade the duty under section 88 A to a power that may, rather than must be exercised by the Secretary of State.

Despite that he does rightly, the noble Lord does rightly draw the Lord does rightly draw the attention of your Lordships' House to the list of safe countries under section 88 with his amendment. That's an important part of the act. So to conclude, can I simply ask the noble, the Minister, a couple of questions about that list? Can I ask him whether the government has plans to expand the list to better reflect the number of safe countries there are across the world? And can he set out the process of engagement that exists between the Foreign Office and the Home Office to ensure that that list is kept up to date?
16:01
Lord Hanson of Flint Portrait Lord Hanson of Flint, The Minister of State, Home Department (Labour)
-
-
I'm grateful to my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton and my noble friend Lord Cashman, and with the support of the noble Lord for the amendment today, I was also pleased to have the opportunity to meet with my noble friend outside of the committee to hear his concerns at first hand, and may I just also wish the noble Baroness Hamwee again all the best for a speedy recovery. Back to this place. The amendment 59 seeks to change the way in which section 59.

That is confusing, I know, but the section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2022 would, if fully commenced, amend the inadmissible inadmissibility provisions of section 80 and section 81 of the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. Now, I'm grateful to my noble friends for the consideration they've given to this matter, and I acknowledge the importance of the issues raised. As my noble friend has said, section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act has not been fully commenced. The government have been clear that we're retaining it to allow for flexibility.

That goes for, again, the point that the noble Lord German mentioned for its future implementation in a way that best assist us to address the significant challenges brought by asylum and migration. Section 59 itself will, if commenced, amend section 80 A of the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, with the effect that the existing inadmissibility provisions in respect of asylum claims made by EU nationals will extend to human rights claims made by nationals from a wider list of countries set out in section 81 of that act.

Now, the first part of the amendment in my noble friend's name seeks to change the duty at section 88 to a power and to add an explicit provision allowing the power to be exercised only where it would not result in a person's human rights being breached. Now, again, I understand both the reasons for my noble friend Lord Cashman and my noble friend Lord Browne of Ladyton why this amendment has been put forward. But as I hope to explain, it is not necessary and could prevent us from implementing section 59 in a different, more robust way.

Those bringing this amendment are aware of the provision currently set out in section 88 of the 2002 act, which displaces the duty to declare an EU asylum claim inadmissible in the event that exceptional circumstances are identified. Although section 85 sets out some examples of when an exceptional circumstance will arise currently in respect only to certain EU claims, these examples are not exhaustive or indeed rigid. Exceptional circumstances can already be applied more broadly on a case by case basis to ensure fairness and lawfulness in all EU asylum claims and well established case law already sets this out very clearly.

Now, if section 59 is commenced in its current form, updated policy guidance will be published to set out clearly how the exceptional circumstances safeguard should be applied for all claim types, taking account of the different considerations due in asylum and human rights claims. This, my Lords, will allow us to robustly and promptly process Unmeritorious asylum and human rights claims at the earliest juncture. But this is the important point that goes to my noble friend Lord Cashman's point as well.

Whenever necessary, it will also allow us to divert claims from inadmissibility action and instead consider them substantively ensuring that individual's rights under the Refugee Convention, and indeed the European Convention of Human Rights are maintained. It is not our objective to not have those rights upheld. This amendment also seeks to impose a duty for the Secretary of State to remove a country from the list at section 81 of the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act if that country no longer satisfies the rules in that section for being added to the list.

Now again, I say to my noble friend that the intent of this amendment is clear and commendable. It is well understood. And this goes again to the point that the noble Lord Sentamu mentioned that countries conditions may change, and they may mean that a country previously assessed as safe can no longer be regarded as such. It's for that reason, and this again goes to the power that the noble Lord Cameron of Lochiel was seeking. Further clarification on. This goes to the power of section 86 B, under which regulations made to remove countries from the list can be made.

If section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act is commenced in its current form, and the list at section 81 has effect, it is unquestionable that a country assessed to be unsafe would be removed from the list by the Secretary of State under regulation in the short term, however, ahead of regulations being made in such cases, the exceptional circumstances safeguard would apply, displacing that inadmissibility duty, allowing the claim to be considered substantially and whilst again going to the point that the noble Lords have mentioned which essentially is around, the question is why are we keeping inadmissibility under section 88 of the Nationality and Immigration Act as a duty, rather than a power that was mentioned by my noble friend? Whilst the exceptional circumstance provision does admit a measure of discretion, allowing for individual risks or changes in circumstance to be taken into account, the overall duty provides for greater consistency and focus in processing such claims.

So I hope that the meeting I've had with my noble friend, the issues that he's raised, the debate that we've had today, I hope I can reassure him that the points that he has raised are valid, but are covered by the discretion and the legislation currently in place, and that in that instance, he will withdraw his amendments. he will withdraw his amendments.
16:07
Feed Live - Click to view video
Return to start of debate - Return to top of page