Immigration and Asylum Bill
Tuesday 20th October 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 21 hours, 27 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
09:25
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Scrutiny of the Immigration and Asylum bill. Before we begin, I would like to remind members to please switch electronic. We are now sitting in public and the proceedings are being broadcast today. We'll continue line by line. Devices to. Silent tea and coffee are not allowed during the sittings. The selection for today's sitting is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. This shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped together for debate. Members are reminded to Bob and catch my eye if they wish to speak in any part of the debate.
We begin with Group 16, amendment 61, clause 19, with which it will be convenient to consider amendments 104, 105 and 106. In clause 19 stand part I call Sian Berry to move amendment 61.
We begin with Group 16, amendment 61, clause 19, with which it will be convenient to consider amendments 104, 105 and 106. In clause 19 stand part I call Sian Berry to move amendment 61.
09:25
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, Doctor Morrison. It's a pleasure to have you in the chair today. And yes, I wish to speak to propose amendment 61, which would introduce a public interest test for survivors of violence against women and girls, domestic abuse and sexual violence into the public interest considerations, and to speak on the matter that we should leave out clause 19. I'll start with clause 19 and what it does. Clause 19 would fundamentally alter the balance that has long existed between article eight rights and the public interest. By restricting the courts ability to assess the individual circumstances of each case, our courts and tribunals carefully balance the right to private and family life against the public interest in an effective immigration system.
Our judiciary performs that task every day, helping to deliver justice, uphold the rule of law, and guard against abuse. Yet clause 19 assumes the balance is being struck wrongly, without the government having demonstrated that its main evidence is only a 2022 internal sample of Home Office decisions. The existing statutory framework already strongly favors the public interest, particularly in deportation cases, while preserving the ability to consider individual circumstances. Clause 19 would replace that with a more prescriptive framework. Here are my views on the main changes in clause 19. First, it would require courts to predict whether a person will remain financially independent.
This is an inherently speculative exercise because it fails to consider the uncertainties of ordinary life, including illness, disabilities or caring responsibilities, or economic downturns. The effect is likely to discriminate most heavily against disabled people, as well as those with long term health conditions and caring responsibilities. Second, it would discount genuine family life because of immigration status. Family life formed while a person was here with no leave to remain, would be given no weight at all. And then family life formed, while their status was precarious, would be given little weight. Precarious migration status covers everyone with anything short of indefinite leave to remain or citizenship care workers, skilled workers, international students, refugees and partners on the family route.
Under the earned settlement proposals, the qualifying period to become eligible for settlement would be extended to a baseline of ten years and in some cases, 15 and even 20 years for refugees. Many people will therefore remain on in a precarious position for years, during which the relationships they form and the children they raise would count for little or nothing. With this clause, the reality is that family relationships do not cease to exist or be formed. Just because an immigration status is uncertain. Strasbourg accepts that precarious status can reduce the weight that is given to family life, but it has not said that it counts for nothing.
Actually, in an important case, I've been given an S versus the Netherlands. The court found a violation even when the applicant had remained without leave for years because of the impact on her children. With a no weight rule as clause 19, subsection four says, says there would be no space to assess these cases and retain flexibility, and it would weaken protection for children. Finally, and perhaps most alarmingly, when courts assess a child's best interests, they do not look at one factor in isolation. They examine the full picture a child's age, health, education, friendships, cultural identity, family circumstances, personal development and connection to the UK.
Children are not there defined by a checklist . Yet. Clause 19 would introduce a closed checklist. It would be unreasonable to expect a child to leave the UK if and only if they would receive no education abroad , face very significant obstacles to integrating their or suffer a very significant and long lasting effect. Each is a very high bar. Remarkably, the government's impact assessment describes these factors as a non-exhaustive list. But the Bill says if and only if in subsection seven of clause 19, which is very clearly a closed list, the bill goes even further than even the government says it intends in terms of its effect on children.
I am also concerned that the clause applies to British children too. As drafted, it could result in a British child with a migrant parent either being separated from their parent or having to leave the UK, or having to leave the UK to preserve the family unit that results in a two tier British citizenship. The government's own impact assessment lists family separation among the consequences of these reforms, and says with little humanity that the new test will allow decision makers to consider whether parents can maintain their relationship with the child from outside the UK, or whether a British child can successfully adapt to life abroad.
The existing framework is not perfect, but it already places substantial weight on the public interest and has safeguards allowing courts to consider the facts of each case. Clause 19 risks upsetting that balance. At its heart, the issue here is a simple one do we trust our courts to weigh the facts before them, or do we seek to predetermine the outcome through statutory presumptions? I believe the existing approach of better serves both justice and the rule of law, and for that reason, clause 19 should not stamp out of the bill. Moving on to amendment 61, my amendment 61 helps reduce the harm of this clause if it remains and inserts a new public interest consideration into section 117 B of the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, requiring a court or tribunal to take into consideration the effects of violence against women and girls when deciding whether an interference with a person's article eight rights is justified.
In my view, whilst without this amendment, the Bill will remove or weaken application grounds or causes of appeal relied on by many women living in abusive or exploitative conditions, making them even more vulnerable. This may leave victim survivors at risk of being refused to stay removed or deported for factors that are a direct consequence of the abuse they have been subjected to. And to bring this point home, I want to provide some examples from organisations who are currently supporting these women. My first example shows how the stricter public interest factors risk undermining the evidence of how financial dependency and contact with the criminal justice system is usually the result of experiencing violence against women and girls.
Julianne was living in another country when she began her relationship with a British man. Whilst visiting him in the UK, she became pregnant with his child and he encouraged her to stay, promising to support her and secure her immigration status. Trusting those assurances, Julianne stayed and became an overstayer. Once her status became insecure, her partner's behaviour changed dramatically. He subjected her to domestic abuse, isolated her from friends and family overseas, and exploited the fact that she had no support network in the UK. The abuse escalated after the birth of their child. Julianne eventually fled with her child after a violent assault.
She sought medical treatment, medical treatment, reported the abuse to the police and received emergency support from the local authority. Traumatised and destitute, Julianne was left to navigate a complex immigration system alone, as she had been unable to secure legally aided advice and could not afford to pay for a solicitor. She lives with the constant fear of removal. I've changed Julianne's name. Julianne had a pathway to regularisation as the parent of a British child. However, if clause 19 becomes law, the barriers to regularising her immigration status would be significantly raised, potentially preventing her from qualifying to remain in the UK.
As the parent of a British child. By re-emphasising, the weight of financial independence without reliance on state support and public services. This will create pressure on victim survivors like Julianne to stay in abusive and exploitative situations instead of leaving and claiming support, as she did. Women who have been subject to economic and immigration abuse will be penalised due to their lack of financial independence. The public interest factors would weigh heavily against Julianne because she has access to support from the local authority, while protecting herself and her children from domestic abuse, and because no way would be given to her family life as it was established when she overstayed, with no discretion to consider the role her abuser had in causing her to overstay.
Without my amendment in respect of the redefinition of family, I have a further example of where limiting family life to cohabiting family and replacing a judicial assessment with a checklist will ignore nuances and external factors, forcing a family not to cohabit, such as coercive and controlling behaviour. More broadly, women who are convicted of criminal offences will also be part. We put at increased risk of deportation as a high evidential standard is needed to prove disproportionate impact on them or a family member. This includes women who are coerced or pressured into criminal activity, those driven to engaging with the criminal justice system due to unmet needs, such as being able to unable to afford food or having unaddressed mental health problems, and those who retaliated against the person abusing or exploiting them, or had a counter allegation made against them falsely.
All these women are vulnerable and deserving of protection and support, not the further punishment of possible deportation. My second case study is called Blanca. Blanca came to the UK with a visa to work. Whilst here she married a British man and had a baby. He had a good job so they agreed she would stop working. They then had two more children together. Over time he became more controlling. Although the children's benefits were registered in her name, he controlled the payments and did not give her access to the money. As Blanca did not have her own income, he gave her money for the family's food, but would demand she provided receipts and the exact change.
If she bought anything he considered unnecessary, he would be angry and make her return it. This included sanitary products. Blanca found this humiliating and confusing. He also became verbally and physically abusive towards Blanca, and she became more and more scared of him. One day when she was in the supermarket, her period started. She did not know what to do and was scared of her husband, seeing she had bought something he thought was unnecessary, she stole a box of sanitary pads, but on her way out of the shop, she was stopped by security who reported her to the police she was charged with and later convicted of theft.
So you can see that if part two of the bill were fully implemented, Blanca's conviction would put her at high risk of deportation. No consideration would be given to the abuse she experienced, and that pushed and pushed her to commit it. Nor would her vulnerability and trauma. In addition, she did not have lawful status for much of the time she was in the UK. Her private and family life may be deemed to hold no weight or, at best, little weight if it was held to have been established when she arrived with precarious status. So you can see that the clause 19 has all these knock on effects into further parts of the bill as well, and that this additional public interest consideration is necessary.
Therefore, I hope the Committee will discuss and support this amendment of clause nine. This amendment, if clause 19, is to remain in the Bill. I am happy for this to be a probing amendment. If the government will consider these risks and make its own similar changes to the bill later. Thank you. Chairman.
Our judiciary performs that task every day, helping to deliver justice, uphold the rule of law, and guard against abuse. Yet clause 19 assumes the balance is being struck wrongly, without the government having demonstrated that its main evidence is only a 2022 internal sample of Home Office decisions. The existing statutory framework already strongly favors the public interest, particularly in deportation cases, while preserving the ability to consider individual circumstances. Clause 19 would replace that with a more prescriptive framework. Here are my views on the main changes in clause 19. First, it would require courts to predict whether a person will remain financially independent.
This is an inherently speculative exercise because it fails to consider the uncertainties of ordinary life, including illness, disabilities or caring responsibilities, or economic downturns. The effect is likely to discriminate most heavily against disabled people, as well as those with long term health conditions and caring responsibilities. Second, it would discount genuine family life because of immigration status. Family life formed while a person was here with no leave to remain, would be given no weight at all. And then family life formed, while their status was precarious, would be given little weight. Precarious migration status covers everyone with anything short of indefinite leave to remain or citizenship care workers, skilled workers, international students, refugees and partners on the family route.
Under the earned settlement proposals, the qualifying period to become eligible for settlement would be extended to a baseline of ten years and in some cases, 15 and even 20 years for refugees. Many people will therefore remain on in a precarious position for years, during which the relationships they form and the children they raise would count for little or nothing. With this clause, the reality is that family relationships do not cease to exist or be formed. Just because an immigration status is uncertain. Strasbourg accepts that precarious status can reduce the weight that is given to family life, but it has not said that it counts for nothing.
Actually, in an important case, I've been given an S versus the Netherlands. The court found a violation even when the applicant had remained without leave for years because of the impact on her children. With a no weight rule as clause 19, subsection four says, says there would be no space to assess these cases and retain flexibility, and it would weaken protection for children. Finally, and perhaps most alarmingly, when courts assess a child's best interests, they do not look at one factor in isolation. They examine the full picture a child's age, health, education, friendships, cultural identity, family circumstances, personal development and connection to the UK.
Children are not there defined by a checklist . Yet. Clause 19 would introduce a closed checklist. It would be unreasonable to expect a child to leave the UK if and only if they would receive no education abroad , face very significant obstacles to integrating their or suffer a very significant and long lasting effect. Each is a very high bar. Remarkably, the government's impact assessment describes these factors as a non-exhaustive list. But the Bill says if and only if in subsection seven of clause 19, which is very clearly a closed list, the bill goes even further than even the government says it intends in terms of its effect on children.
I am also concerned that the clause applies to British children too. As drafted, it could result in a British child with a migrant parent either being separated from their parent or having to leave the UK, or having to leave the UK to preserve the family unit that results in a two tier British citizenship. The government's own impact assessment lists family separation among the consequences of these reforms, and says with little humanity that the new test will allow decision makers to consider whether parents can maintain their relationship with the child from outside the UK, or whether a British child can successfully adapt to life abroad.
The existing framework is not perfect, but it already places substantial weight on the public interest and has safeguards allowing courts to consider the facts of each case. Clause 19 risks upsetting that balance. At its heart, the issue here is a simple one do we trust our courts to weigh the facts before them, or do we seek to predetermine the outcome through statutory presumptions? I believe the existing approach of better serves both justice and the rule of law, and for that reason, clause 19 should not stamp out of the bill. Moving on to amendment 61, my amendment 61 helps reduce the harm of this clause if it remains and inserts a new public interest consideration into section 117 B of the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, requiring a court or tribunal to take into consideration the effects of violence against women and girls when deciding whether an interference with a person's article eight rights is justified.
In my view, whilst without this amendment, the Bill will remove or weaken application grounds or causes of appeal relied on by many women living in abusive or exploitative conditions, making them even more vulnerable. This may leave victim survivors at risk of being refused to stay removed or deported for factors that are a direct consequence of the abuse they have been subjected to. And to bring this point home, I want to provide some examples from organisations who are currently supporting these women. My first example shows how the stricter public interest factors risk undermining the evidence of how financial dependency and contact with the criminal justice system is usually the result of experiencing violence against women and girls.
Julianne was living in another country when she began her relationship with a British man. Whilst visiting him in the UK, she became pregnant with his child and he encouraged her to stay, promising to support her and secure her immigration status. Trusting those assurances, Julianne stayed and became an overstayer. Once her status became insecure, her partner's behaviour changed dramatically. He subjected her to domestic abuse, isolated her from friends and family overseas, and exploited the fact that she had no support network in the UK. The abuse escalated after the birth of their child. Julianne eventually fled with her child after a violent assault.
She sought medical treatment, medical treatment, reported the abuse to the police and received emergency support from the local authority. Traumatised and destitute, Julianne was left to navigate a complex immigration system alone, as she had been unable to secure legally aided advice and could not afford to pay for a solicitor. She lives with the constant fear of removal. I've changed Julianne's name. Julianne had a pathway to regularisation as the parent of a British child. However, if clause 19 becomes law, the barriers to regularising her immigration status would be significantly raised, potentially preventing her from qualifying to remain in the UK.
As the parent of a British child. By re-emphasising, the weight of financial independence without reliance on state support and public services. This will create pressure on victim survivors like Julianne to stay in abusive and exploitative situations instead of leaving and claiming support, as she did. Women who have been subject to economic and immigration abuse will be penalised due to their lack of financial independence. The public interest factors would weigh heavily against Julianne because she has access to support from the local authority, while protecting herself and her children from domestic abuse, and because no way would be given to her family life as it was established when she overstayed, with no discretion to consider the role her abuser had in causing her to overstay.
Without my amendment in respect of the redefinition of family, I have a further example of where limiting family life to cohabiting family and replacing a judicial assessment with a checklist will ignore nuances and external factors, forcing a family not to cohabit, such as coercive and controlling behaviour. More broadly, women who are convicted of criminal offences will also be part. We put at increased risk of deportation as a high evidential standard is needed to prove disproportionate impact on them or a family member. This includes women who are coerced or pressured into criminal activity, those driven to engaging with the criminal justice system due to unmet needs, such as being able to unable to afford food or having unaddressed mental health problems, and those who retaliated against the person abusing or exploiting them, or had a counter allegation made against them falsely.
All these women are vulnerable and deserving of protection and support, not the further punishment of possible deportation. My second case study is called Blanca. Blanca came to the UK with a visa to work. Whilst here she married a British man and had a baby. He had a good job so they agreed she would stop working. They then had two more children together. Over time he became more controlling. Although the children's benefits were registered in her name, he controlled the payments and did not give her access to the money. As Blanca did not have her own income, he gave her money for the family's food, but would demand she provided receipts and the exact change.
If she bought anything he considered unnecessary, he would be angry and make her return it. This included sanitary products. Blanca found this humiliating and confusing. He also became verbally and physically abusive towards Blanca, and she became more and more scared of him. One day when she was in the supermarket, her period started. She did not know what to do and was scared of her husband, seeing she had bought something he thought was unnecessary, she stole a box of sanitary pads, but on her way out of the shop, she was stopped by security who reported her to the police she was charged with and later convicted of theft.
So you can see that if part two of the bill were fully implemented, Blanca's conviction would put her at high risk of deportation. No consideration would be given to the abuse she experienced, and that pushed and pushed her to commit it. Nor would her vulnerability and trauma. In addition, she did not have lawful status for much of the time she was in the UK. Her private and family life may be deemed to hold no weight or, at best, little weight if it was held to have been established when she arrived with precarious status. So you can see that the clause 19 has all these knock on effects into further parts of the bill as well, and that this additional public interest consideration is necessary.
Therefore, I hope the Committee will discuss and support this amendment of clause nine. This amendment, if clause 19, is to remain in the Bill. I am happy for this to be a probing amendment. If the government will consider these risks and make its own similar changes to the bill later. Thank you. Chairman.
09:38
09:38
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to serve with you in the chat at clause 18, which we covered in the last session. Asked who counts as family, clause 19 asks what weight that family should carry against the public interest. The clause goes to the heart of public concern as it considers the people who build a life here, while they have no right to be here, only to rely on that recently constructed life as a reason to stay in the UK indefinitely. I'll speak to amendments 104, 105 and 106 in my name, and that's my hon.
Friend the member for Stockton West to amendment 61. In the name of the member for Brighton Pavilion, who's just spoken about that amendment and to clause 19, stamp art as a whole. The opposition again supports the broad direction of travel. The government is going in with this clause, however, much of it to our reading is unfortunately drafted in a way that means it'll be all too easy for the courts to set aside. Furthermore, the evidence base behind it has not yet been published. I'd like to take the committee through both aspects. So first, what clause 19 does clause 19 amends 117 B of the 2002 act.
The public interest considerations that apply in every article eight case subsection two replaces the requirement to be financially independent with a three part forward looking test, which is a person must be and be likely to remain financially independent, able to house themselves without state support and not reliant on public services, in particular health and social care in the long term, subsection three adds a new public interest in people who have not been convicted of an offence anywhere, who are who have cooperated with the immigration authorities and who are otherwise of good character. Subsection four changes quote, little weight , to quote, no weight for private and family life established while a person here is without leave and leave obtained by deception or in serious breach of their conditions.
Subsection five extends little weight for precarious status to family life as well as private life. And then subsection six and seven tighten the rule on parents with qualifying children. They must now be a very significant and long lasting adverse effect on a child who stays and is unreasonable to expect a child to leave if and only if one of three conditions is met. So on the evidence base, first Chair, the Home Office told the committee that 71% of those newly granted article eight leave had entered illegally or overstayed, and that grants made in 2025 cost the taxpayer an incredible £4.9 billion.
If those figures are correct, the case for this clause is overwhelming and undeniable. However, the committee has not seen the evidence behind them. If the government wants the House to legislate on the strength of the 71% figure and the 4.9 billion cost figure, it is our view that they should publish the sample, the definitions and the method before report stage on financial independence. Independence. Subsection two is right in principle. In our view, the library records the Home Office, the Home Office's aim as increased refusals or unsuccessful appeals where applicants impose avoidable burdens on public resources.
And I certainly think the public will agree. But the test is a prediction about the future, and the bill says nothing about how it's to be made. And the Law Society, in its evidence, tells us that no detail has been provided on how the elements of this test are to be determined. So over what period will future reliance be assessed? What evidence will be required and will guidance be published before commencement? There's a further difficulty that goes to whether this subsection will be able to survive the courts. According again to the Law Society, the government's own human rights memorandum at paragraph 27 acknowledges that the new criteria are likely to result in discriminatory, discriminatory outcomes for older or disabled people.
The Bar Council makes the same point . A test the government itself expects to operate unequally is a test that will be litigated in all likelihood under the Equality Act and perhaps article 14 and one. The courts may well soften as a result. So I ask the minister, what mitigation does the government propose to avoid this on good character and amendment 104? So subsection three sets out a new public interest in people who have not offended, who have cooperated with the authorities, and who are of good character. Again, we support the direction of travel, but, quote, good character is not defined in the bill, which seems to me an extraordinary gap, though recognising it is quite difficult to.
Define that on the face of the Bill or the explanatory notes. It's not in the notes either. I observe that this is just another example of the government potentially setting themselves up here in this bill for failure. The Bar Council says it hands the Home Office a genuine, genuine, excuse me, general evaluative test that is highly subjective in scope. And the Law Society and the LPA made similar points in their evidence and undefined test course is an invitation to future litigation. And there is a ready answer, though, which I wish to point the committee to the good character guidance used in naturalisation decisions, which is detailed and demanding with periods that taper according to the length of sentence.
Will the Minister confirm if the government will apply that guidance here? Amendment 104 would say so in the Bill , and what will count as a failure to cooperate with immigration processes, absconding, destruction of documents, ignoring a claim notice under clause 11, etc. will be helpful to understand from the minister what the government's understanding is on amendments 105 and 106, and the explanatory notes accept that courts can depart from these weightings under 117. A subsection two. The Law Society says the change appears to be an attempt to bar a full proportionality assessment , and sets up a conflict with the duty on the Home Secretary and the courts to act compatibly with convention rights, under article under section six of the Human Rights Act, the Strasbourg court accepts that removal can breach article eight, even where family life has formed.
While someone was unlawfully present and the change from little to no weight as legally pointless, I would welcome the minister's views on that particular evidence, and that's particularly the case whilst the human rights stands, and will likely generate litigation rather than different and better outcomes. So I ask the minister, given that the explanatory notes, except courts can depart from it, what does, quote, no weight add? To quote, little weight, the drafting is weaker than the headline in our submission. The new subsection says no weight should be given, not must, and it applies to a serious breach of conditions, a word.
The bill, again does not define . Amendment 105 would replace should with must, which we think is a tightening of this clause and must be what the government is intending. Amendment 106, which is a probing amendment, would leave out the word serious. So the breach of conditions counts. So I ask the Minister whether the government will accept them. They've accepted one amendment of ours during the passage of this bill. So perhaps, perhaps they may accept this one. And if it if the government does not wish to accept that probing amendment, would it, at least today, help the House understand its definition of, quote, serious.
The Minister spoke on the floor of the House last Wednesday to highlight the importance of effective methods of deterrence, and when I referred to last Wednesday, I mean the opposition day debate, deterring overstaying and breaches of conditions is vital for the Home Office to regain control over the immigration system. However, careless drafting within this bill will deliver unforgivable missed opportunity to deliver the deterrence that the Minister clearly and rightly desires. I urge the minister consider amendments to tighten the drafting of this bill. Turning to amendment 61, amendment 61 would add a new public interest consideration that due regard be given to circumstances arising from a person's experience of violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse, which the hon.
Lady spoke about at length when she was cursing her amendment. Nobody on this side doubts the seriousness of violence against women and girls, but section 117 B is about the public interest in immigration control. This amendment would add a factor that weighs in favour of the individual widening article eight claims at the very point this bill in this government seeks to narrow them, the immigration rules rightly already provide specific routes for victims of domestic abuse. We will therefore oppose this amendment. 61 Would the Minister confirm that those existing protections will be unaffected by clause 19?
Chair, The opposition supports clause 19 and what not not oppose it. Standing part. We will resist, as I've just said, amendment 61, but we should be clear that the provisions that make the boldest promises about drafting, as things should do with key key terms left undefined, are problematic. I would seek to press amendment 104 and 105 to division are not press amendment 106 to a division. If the Minister today could help define the word serious.
Thank you chair.
Friend the member for Stockton West to amendment 61. In the name of the member for Brighton Pavilion, who's just spoken about that amendment and to clause 19, stamp art as a whole. The opposition again supports the broad direction of travel. The government is going in with this clause, however, much of it to our reading is unfortunately drafted in a way that means it'll be all too easy for the courts to set aside. Furthermore, the evidence base behind it has not yet been published. I'd like to take the committee through both aspects. So first, what clause 19 does clause 19 amends 117 B of the 2002 act.
The public interest considerations that apply in every article eight case subsection two replaces the requirement to be financially independent with a three part forward looking test, which is a person must be and be likely to remain financially independent, able to house themselves without state support and not reliant on public services, in particular health and social care in the long term, subsection three adds a new public interest in people who have not been convicted of an offence anywhere, who are who have cooperated with the immigration authorities and who are otherwise of good character. Subsection four changes quote, little weight , to quote, no weight for private and family life established while a person here is without leave and leave obtained by deception or in serious breach of their conditions.
Subsection five extends little weight for precarious status to family life as well as private life. And then subsection six and seven tighten the rule on parents with qualifying children. They must now be a very significant and long lasting adverse effect on a child who stays and is unreasonable to expect a child to leave if and only if one of three conditions is met. So on the evidence base, first Chair, the Home Office told the committee that 71% of those newly granted article eight leave had entered illegally or overstayed, and that grants made in 2025 cost the taxpayer an incredible £4.9 billion.
If those figures are correct, the case for this clause is overwhelming and undeniable. However, the committee has not seen the evidence behind them. If the government wants the House to legislate on the strength of the 71% figure and the 4.9 billion cost figure, it is our view that they should publish the sample, the definitions and the method before report stage on financial independence. Independence. Subsection two is right in principle. In our view, the library records the Home Office, the Home Office's aim as increased refusals or unsuccessful appeals where applicants impose avoidable burdens on public resources.
And I certainly think the public will agree. But the test is a prediction about the future, and the bill says nothing about how it's to be made. And the Law Society, in its evidence, tells us that no detail has been provided on how the elements of this test are to be determined. So over what period will future reliance be assessed? What evidence will be required and will guidance be published before commencement? There's a further difficulty that goes to whether this subsection will be able to survive the courts. According again to the Law Society, the government's own human rights memorandum at paragraph 27 acknowledges that the new criteria are likely to result in discriminatory, discriminatory outcomes for older or disabled people.
The Bar Council makes the same point . A test the government itself expects to operate unequally is a test that will be litigated in all likelihood under the Equality Act and perhaps article 14 and one. The courts may well soften as a result. So I ask the minister, what mitigation does the government propose to avoid this on good character and amendment 104? So subsection three sets out a new public interest in people who have not offended, who have cooperated with the authorities, and who are of good character. Again, we support the direction of travel, but, quote, good character is not defined in the bill, which seems to me an extraordinary gap, though recognising it is quite difficult to.
Define that on the face of the Bill or the explanatory notes. It's not in the notes either. I observe that this is just another example of the government potentially setting themselves up here in this bill for failure. The Bar Council says it hands the Home Office a genuine, genuine, excuse me, general evaluative test that is highly subjective in scope. And the Law Society and the LPA made similar points in their evidence and undefined test course is an invitation to future litigation. And there is a ready answer, though, which I wish to point the committee to the good character guidance used in naturalisation decisions, which is detailed and demanding with periods that taper according to the length of sentence.
Will the Minister confirm if the government will apply that guidance here? Amendment 104 would say so in the Bill , and what will count as a failure to cooperate with immigration processes, absconding, destruction of documents, ignoring a claim notice under clause 11, etc. will be helpful to understand from the minister what the government's understanding is on amendments 105 and 106, and the explanatory notes accept that courts can depart from these weightings under 117. A subsection two. The Law Society says the change appears to be an attempt to bar a full proportionality assessment , and sets up a conflict with the duty on the Home Secretary and the courts to act compatibly with convention rights, under article under section six of the Human Rights Act, the Strasbourg court accepts that removal can breach article eight, even where family life has formed.
While someone was unlawfully present and the change from little to no weight as legally pointless, I would welcome the minister's views on that particular evidence, and that's particularly the case whilst the human rights stands, and will likely generate litigation rather than different and better outcomes. So I ask the minister, given that the explanatory notes, except courts can depart from it, what does, quote, no weight add? To quote, little weight, the drafting is weaker than the headline in our submission. The new subsection says no weight should be given, not must, and it applies to a serious breach of conditions, a word.
The bill, again does not define . Amendment 105 would replace should with must, which we think is a tightening of this clause and must be what the government is intending. Amendment 106, which is a probing amendment, would leave out the word serious. So the breach of conditions counts. So I ask the Minister whether the government will accept them. They've accepted one amendment of ours during the passage of this bill. So perhaps, perhaps they may accept this one. And if it if the government does not wish to accept that probing amendment, would it, at least today, help the House understand its definition of, quote, serious.
The Minister spoke on the floor of the House last Wednesday to highlight the importance of effective methods of deterrence, and when I referred to last Wednesday, I mean the opposition day debate, deterring overstaying and breaches of conditions is vital for the Home Office to regain control over the immigration system. However, careless drafting within this bill will deliver unforgivable missed opportunity to deliver the deterrence that the Minister clearly and rightly desires. I urge the minister consider amendments to tighten the drafting of this bill. Turning to amendment 61, amendment 61 would add a new public interest consideration that due regard be given to circumstances arising from a person's experience of violence against women and girls, including domestic abuse, which the hon.
Lady spoke about at length when she was cursing her amendment. Nobody on this side doubts the seriousness of violence against women and girls, but section 117 B is about the public interest in immigration control. This amendment would add a factor that weighs in favour of the individual widening article eight claims at the very point this bill in this government seeks to narrow them, the immigration rules rightly already provide specific routes for victims of domestic abuse. We will therefore oppose this amendment. 61 Would the Minister confirm that those existing protections will be unaffected by clause 19?
Chair, The opposition supports clause 19 and what not not oppose it. Standing part. We will resist, as I've just said, amendment 61, but we should be clear that the provisions that make the boldest promises about drafting, as things should do with key key terms left undefined, are problematic. I would seek to press amendment 104 and 105 to division are not press amendment 106 to a division. If the Minister today could help define the word serious.
Thank you chair.
09:48
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
Thank you. Chair, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship today. I wish to speak briefly, although the honourable member for Mid Bedfordshire has dealt with it very eloquently but briefly on the the clause 19 stand part and on the opposition amendments. I obviously support what the government is trying to achieve here. I think they could go a little further in the drafting. But of course, when we talk about public interest, that goes to the heart of the whole issue and problem we have in this country are trying to tackle immigration, in particular legal immigration and asylum claims is what is in the public interest.
And I think the system, the problem we've had has strayed so far from the public interest that although this is a legal definition, it's also a very meaningful way of translating it and understanding it as a, as a is a political, social, economic and public problem. It's in the public interest that we do all we can to tackle asylum and immigration claims in the volume that they currently are. There are very few. It's not a unanimous position, but there are very few who would disagree with that fundamental point. Very few in Parliament and very few in the public at large that we need to bring immigration and asylum and a legal boat crossings down in terms of the public interest consideration and the right to family life.
Of course, the right to family life is picking up where this committee was last week, and we know that the right of family life that stems from the Echr and the convention is one that is a qualified right. That means it doesn't stand towering above all other considerations. And it's my view, and I think it's a commonly held view. In fact, it's a view that was given by the minister herself, is that it's strayed too far, that jurisprudence has allowed a expansive interpretation over many years that has taken the family life core protection to cover a far wider set of circumstances, so that it is now being used as a routine tool by those who wish to remain in the UK.
When the threat or infringement to their family life as a fundamental human right is not really an issue. And this bill, this provision, is part of the framework that seeks to attack that. I think part of the reason we've got to where we are is because of a set of a convention at its core, but a set of laws, legislation made by Parliament in this country over the years, including the Human Rights Act, but other acts that have ceased to define, in some cases limit in others not what we mean by a right to family life and the public interest.
And they have been unsuccessful in doing that. The intention has been there, but the drafting has been insufficiently certain. And to some extent that is inherent in all in all, legislating in this place. But the legislation has been insufficiently certain to ensure that the courts interpret the legislation as narrowly as Parliament have intended, and the government has gone some way to try and be as restrictive as I think it thinks it has been here. But as my honourable friend the member for Mid Bedfordshire points out, there are some wording changes that can be made and his opposition amendment 105 and 106 seek to deliver that.
So the phrasing no weight should be given, no weight must be given in my view gets rid of a door that is a jar. A jar open slightly to the court to interpret it more expansively. It slams that door by inserting a word must. So there is no leeway for a clever legal argument to be run. That should actually give sufficient leeway for a court to effectively make a decision that runs against, I think, what the legislation is trying to deliver. I don't take the view that judges should be demonised for, or indeed lawyers for that matter on the whole is a profession, broadly speaking, should be demonised for making decisions that use loopholes in the law.
If this place fails to make the law certain and fails to close those loopholes loopholes, I'm afraid the fault comes back onto Parliament and ultimately the government of the day that brought a piece of legislation through Parliament, and here is the opportunity to tighten it up. In fact, that is the very purpose of Bill committee is to tighten up the wording through the fair scrutiny process. And again, perhaps one that isn't really an issue of trying to completely close the door. It may be something that the government have deliberately left open, and that is opposition amendment 106.
So we're talking about clause 19 for be, and I quote the wording in Hansard. It may appear out of context, but it's here in the legislation. They are in serious breach of a condition attached to the leave to enter or remain. The opposition amendment seeks to leave out the word serious. So there simply in breach of a condition. My suspicion is here that the government wants to leave a set of breaches of a condition that would allow someone to remain. The opposition's position is that if they have breached a condition , that is a fundamental failure to any claim that they should be able to remain, citing a right to family life.
To me, it is the certainty that is needed and it is also delivering on what the public expect of us in order to tackle a significant problem in this country, which is a large number of right to family life claims that go beyond the original intention behind the idea of a right to family life. The problem with leaving the word a serious breach of condition in the legislation, it is. It is open to the court to make a decision about whether a breach is serious enough or not, and without any specific guidance in the legislation, a checklist the court will consider seriousness as a relative word or concept relative to the applicant or appellants case, not to be returned to a another country.
And clearly there, if the case is run, that the family life is fundamentally important to them, they will make the case based on circumstance, and that is a breach to split up a family by sending them home. Indeed, the environment at home, they may paint a picture which to us is certainly very alien as a free and democratic society. Suddenly that serious breach question might lead a court to conclude that a relatively small breach , in the abstract of a condition attached to the leave to enter or remain suddenly becomes quite a serious breach, becomes quite a minimal one when compared against this story of hardship that an applicant makes.
And my concern is that a the word serious will become such a flexible term to be interpreted by the court. It will be always measured against the relative hardship of the particular claim the applicant claimant is making, and of course, they will make their state their case at its highest. In order to leverage the flexibility of the word serious and I. I struggle to see why the government wouldn't want to add in certainty unless they particularly want to create an avenue where people can still use the right to family life claims. And I think that would be extraordinary if they did want to, given all the rationale they have put forward to bringing forward not only this set of provisions in this bill, but this bill in the first place.
And I think the minister should be very clear on that as to whether she sees this as a disagreement around drafting or whether she is seeking, and I'm sure she'd have a reason to do so. I would disagree with it. But if she is seeking and why to continue to have this avenue of flexibility in the way the bill is drafted, I, I would just go on to reflect on a point that with the government on that there is provision, and rightly so, for particular circumstances in relation to children. Clearly, children are in a very special category because of their dependency and their vulnerability.
And I see clause 196 in particular deals with situations where there would be a number of them, but in particular a very significant and long, long lasting adverse effect on the child. Clearly, we do not want to see people deported or removed that would have a significant and long lasting effect, adverse effect on the child. So there are protections built in here. Others may say that this is a particularly draconian provision. I see some protections here that are widely accepted and uncontroversial, and I wanted to draw attention to them. Also, draw attention to clause 19, seven, A, B, and C.
Thank you.
And I think the system, the problem we've had has strayed so far from the public interest that although this is a legal definition, it's also a very meaningful way of translating it and understanding it as a, as a is a political, social, economic and public problem. It's in the public interest that we do all we can to tackle asylum and immigration claims in the volume that they currently are. There are very few. It's not a unanimous position, but there are very few who would disagree with that fundamental point. Very few in Parliament and very few in the public at large that we need to bring immigration and asylum and a legal boat crossings down in terms of the public interest consideration and the right to family life.
Of course, the right to family life is picking up where this committee was last week, and we know that the right of family life that stems from the Echr and the convention is one that is a qualified right. That means it doesn't stand towering above all other considerations. And it's my view, and I think it's a commonly held view. In fact, it's a view that was given by the minister herself, is that it's strayed too far, that jurisprudence has allowed a expansive interpretation over many years that has taken the family life core protection to cover a far wider set of circumstances, so that it is now being used as a routine tool by those who wish to remain in the UK.
When the threat or infringement to their family life as a fundamental human right is not really an issue. And this bill, this provision, is part of the framework that seeks to attack that. I think part of the reason we've got to where we are is because of a set of a convention at its core, but a set of laws, legislation made by Parliament in this country over the years, including the Human Rights Act, but other acts that have ceased to define, in some cases limit in others not what we mean by a right to family life and the public interest.
And they have been unsuccessful in doing that. The intention has been there, but the drafting has been insufficiently certain. And to some extent that is inherent in all in all, legislating in this place. But the legislation has been insufficiently certain to ensure that the courts interpret the legislation as narrowly as Parliament have intended, and the government has gone some way to try and be as restrictive as I think it thinks it has been here. But as my honourable friend the member for Mid Bedfordshire points out, there are some wording changes that can be made and his opposition amendment 105 and 106 seek to deliver that.
So the phrasing no weight should be given, no weight must be given in my view gets rid of a door that is a jar. A jar open slightly to the court to interpret it more expansively. It slams that door by inserting a word must. So there is no leeway for a clever legal argument to be run. That should actually give sufficient leeway for a court to effectively make a decision that runs against, I think, what the legislation is trying to deliver. I don't take the view that judges should be demonised for, or indeed lawyers for that matter on the whole is a profession, broadly speaking, should be demonised for making decisions that use loopholes in the law.
If this place fails to make the law certain and fails to close those loopholes loopholes, I'm afraid the fault comes back onto Parliament and ultimately the government of the day that brought a piece of legislation through Parliament, and here is the opportunity to tighten it up. In fact, that is the very purpose of Bill committee is to tighten up the wording through the fair scrutiny process. And again, perhaps one that isn't really an issue of trying to completely close the door. It may be something that the government have deliberately left open, and that is opposition amendment 106.
So we're talking about clause 19 for be, and I quote the wording in Hansard. It may appear out of context, but it's here in the legislation. They are in serious breach of a condition attached to the leave to enter or remain. The opposition amendment seeks to leave out the word serious. So there simply in breach of a condition. My suspicion is here that the government wants to leave a set of breaches of a condition that would allow someone to remain. The opposition's position is that if they have breached a condition , that is a fundamental failure to any claim that they should be able to remain, citing a right to family life.
To me, it is the certainty that is needed and it is also delivering on what the public expect of us in order to tackle a significant problem in this country, which is a large number of right to family life claims that go beyond the original intention behind the idea of a right to family life. The problem with leaving the word a serious breach of condition in the legislation, it is. It is open to the court to make a decision about whether a breach is serious enough or not, and without any specific guidance in the legislation, a checklist the court will consider seriousness as a relative word or concept relative to the applicant or appellants case, not to be returned to a another country.
And clearly there, if the case is run, that the family life is fundamentally important to them, they will make the case based on circumstance, and that is a breach to split up a family by sending them home. Indeed, the environment at home, they may paint a picture which to us is certainly very alien as a free and democratic society. Suddenly that serious breach question might lead a court to conclude that a relatively small breach , in the abstract of a condition attached to the leave to enter or remain suddenly becomes quite a serious breach, becomes quite a minimal one when compared against this story of hardship that an applicant makes.
And my concern is that a the word serious will become such a flexible term to be interpreted by the court. It will be always measured against the relative hardship of the particular claim the applicant claimant is making, and of course, they will make their state their case at its highest. In order to leverage the flexibility of the word serious and I. I struggle to see why the government wouldn't want to add in certainty unless they particularly want to create an avenue where people can still use the right to family life claims. And I think that would be extraordinary if they did want to, given all the rationale they have put forward to bringing forward not only this set of provisions in this bill, but this bill in the first place.
And I think the minister should be very clear on that as to whether she sees this as a disagreement around drafting or whether she is seeking, and I'm sure she'd have a reason to do so. I would disagree with it. But if she is seeking and why to continue to have this avenue of flexibility in the way the bill is drafted, I, I would just go on to reflect on a point that with the government on that there is provision, and rightly so, for particular circumstances in relation to children. Clearly, children are in a very special category because of their dependency and their vulnerability.
And I see clause 196 in particular deals with situations where there would be a number of them, but in particular a very significant and long, long lasting adverse effect on the child. Clearly, we do not want to see people deported or removed that would have a significant and long lasting effect, adverse effect on the child. So there are protections built in here. Others may say that this is a particularly draconian provision. I see some protections here that are widely accepted and uncontroversial, and I wanted to draw attention to them. Also, draw attention to clause 19, seven, A, B, and C.
Thank you.
09:59
09:59
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Doctor Morrison clause 19 goes to a basic question. When someone asks to stay in this country, what does the public interest expect of them? The government's answer is one. I suspect most of our constituents would recognise. Pay your way. Don't rely on the state to put a roof over your head. Don't commit crimes, cooperate with the authorities and be of good character. There was a reasonable expectations and we welcome much of this clause. But the strength of the clause comes down to a handful of words to take new subsection four, it says no way should be given to a private or family life built up whilst someone is here unlawfully on leave, obtained by deception or in serious breach of their conditions.
Think about who that covers. Someone who came here illegally. Someone who lied to get a visa. Someone who brought the conditions on which this country let them in. When the time comes to remove them, they ask a court to weigh a life built up in that time against their removal. We agree with the government that it should not, but should is the language of advice. Must is the language of law. The government have already moved from little weight to no weight, and I welcome that. Amendment 105 simply finishes the job. If the government means no way, it must be given.
Let the statute say no way. It must be given. In this area of law. A door left ajar is an invitation. Moreover, the no weight rule applies only where someone is in serious breach of their conditions. What is serious? Working beyond the hours your visa allows. Claiming benefits you're not entitled to overstaying by a month. The bill does not say so. A tribunal will decide case by case, and we'll be back to the very weighing exercise the government say they want to end. I'd be grateful if the minister could tell the committee what the Home Office understands, a serious breach to mean , and whether it will be defined in guidance.
Amendment 104 deals with good character use of section three. ER says it's in the public interest that people seeking to stay here are of good character. But the clause does not say what good character means. I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is already a well established test. The good character requirement for British citizenship set out in Home Office guidance. Amendment 104 says the court should apply that test. It would be strange if the bar to stay in this country were lower than the bar to become a citizen of it. It would be stranger still for every tribunal to invent its own version from scratch.
Clause 19 asks the right questions. Our amendments make sure the answers carry the force of the law. The government have chosen no way over little weight and that's welcome. Now let them finish the job. Replace should with must tell us what they mean by good character and by a serious breach. I commend our amendments to the committee.
Think about who that covers. Someone who came here illegally. Someone who lied to get a visa. Someone who brought the conditions on which this country let them in. When the time comes to remove them, they ask a court to weigh a life built up in that time against their removal. We agree with the government that it should not, but should is the language of advice. Must is the language of law. The government have already moved from little weight to no weight, and I welcome that. Amendment 105 simply finishes the job. If the government means no way, it must be given.
Let the statute say no way. It must be given. In this area of law. A door left ajar is an invitation. Moreover, the no weight rule applies only where someone is in serious breach of their conditions. What is serious? Working beyond the hours your visa allows. Claiming benefits you're not entitled to overstaying by a month. The bill does not say so. A tribunal will decide case by case, and we'll be back to the very weighing exercise the government say they want to end. I'd be grateful if the minister could tell the committee what the Home Office understands, a serious breach to mean , and whether it will be defined in guidance.
Amendment 104 deals with good character use of section three. ER says it's in the public interest that people seeking to stay here are of good character. But the clause does not say what good character means. I agree with my right hon. Friend that there is already a well established test. The good character requirement for British citizenship set out in Home Office guidance. Amendment 104 says the court should apply that test. It would be strange if the bar to stay in this country were lower than the bar to become a citizen of it. It would be stranger still for every tribunal to invent its own version from scratch.
Clause 19 asks the right questions. Our amendments make sure the answers carry the force of the law. The government have chosen no way over little weight and that's welcome. Now let them finish the job. Replace should with must tell us what they mean by good character and by a serious breach. I commend our amendments to the committee.
10:02
10:03
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you very much and good morning to you, Mr. Myerson. And it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, and I would like to thank all honourable members for their contributions to this debate on clause 19 and to the amendments in this grouping. Before moving on to the amendments, I would just like to give some background on what clause 19 will do the balance between an individual's family rights and the public interest in maintaining, maintaining an effective and controlled immigration system has shifted, and it needs to be reset without greater clarity from Parliament on how that balance should be struck.
The domestic interpretation of article eight has expanded beyond what our international obligations require, resulting in inconsistent decision making and high volumes of article eight grants to people who cannot meet the rules to come or to stay in the UK. More than half of those who stayed in the UK for family reasons last year did not meet our criteria to be able to stay here, instead relying on their article eight rights. This undermines public confidence in the immigration system and the rules based international order. This also comes at a significant cost to the UK taxpayer, as has already been mentioned, in which I will refer to, again the average net lifetime fiscal cost for each first time grant is £141,000, equating to approximately £4.9 billion for those granted on the basis of article 8 in 2025 alone.
I'm. I know colleagues were asking about the evidence base behind this. Just to give a bit more information on this, we undertook a deep dive cohort analysis to examine a representative sample of 3252 article eight related applications to support the policy development of these measures in the Bill. Further details are in the impact assessment. I'm afraid the unpublished internal sample referred to will not be made available due to the personal data sensitivities involved, but obviously we will keep under review any further analysis that we would be keen to share with the committee throughout the course of this bill, including, for example, other statistics that have been mentioned that this has been driven by high volumes of people who have arrived illegally or overstayed in the UK.
So 71% of first time grants, or by people who are unemployed and are making a minimal economic contribution , 76% of first time grants, it is clear that the system is not functioning fairly and effectively. This is why the British public feel exasperated that exemptions like this are being abused to enable people to circumvent the system. Clause 19 will help to restore a fairer balance between an individual's right to family life and the public interest in maintaining an effective and controlled immigration system. It will provide a clearer statutory framework that places greater emphasis on compliance and contribution, resulting in more consistent and robust outcomes.
These reforms will realign UK legislation with Strasbourg, ensuring our domestic approach to article eight is within and, crucially, not beyond our international obligations as it is now. The Minister. .
The domestic interpretation of article eight has expanded beyond what our international obligations require, resulting in inconsistent decision making and high volumes of article eight grants to people who cannot meet the rules to come or to stay in the UK. More than half of those who stayed in the UK for family reasons last year did not meet our criteria to be able to stay here, instead relying on their article eight rights. This undermines public confidence in the immigration system and the rules based international order. This also comes at a significant cost to the UK taxpayer, as has already been mentioned, in which I will refer to, again the average net lifetime fiscal cost for each first time grant is £141,000, equating to approximately £4.9 billion for those granted on the basis of article 8 in 2025 alone.
I'm. I know colleagues were asking about the evidence base behind this. Just to give a bit more information on this, we undertook a deep dive cohort analysis to examine a representative sample of 3252 article eight related applications to support the policy development of these measures in the Bill. Further details are in the impact assessment. I'm afraid the unpublished internal sample referred to will not be made available due to the personal data sensitivities involved, but obviously we will keep under review any further analysis that we would be keen to share with the committee throughout the course of this bill, including, for example, other statistics that have been mentioned that this has been driven by high volumes of people who have arrived illegally or overstayed in the UK.
So 71% of first time grants, or by people who are unemployed and are making a minimal economic contribution , 76% of first time grants, it is clear that the system is not functioning fairly and effectively. This is why the British public feel exasperated that exemptions like this are being abused to enable people to circumvent the system. Clause 19 will help to restore a fairer balance between an individual's right to family life and the public interest in maintaining an effective and controlled immigration system. It will provide a clearer statutory framework that places greater emphasis on compliance and contribution, resulting in more consistent and robust outcomes.
These reforms will realign UK legislation with Strasbourg, ensuring our domestic approach to article eight is within and, crucially, not beyond our international obligations as it is now. The Minister. .
10:06
10:06
10:06
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The honourable gentleman makes it an extremely important point. And that's why some of the drafting has been very clear and specific in this, which I'll come on to discuss in the nature of this. As I said, it's important that we do comply with our international obligations. So we have a proud history of that. We help to draft and devise and create these obligations. But we have had a history of overinterpreting them, and it's really important that we are not going above and beyond. There is not a free for all, and we are within those obligations which we are obliged to meet, but that we do not go beyond them.
And that's what the drafting in this bill seeks to do. This includes clarification that judges must consider the economic impact on the taxpayer of allowing people to remain in the UK. This includes whether they can support themselves and their family. It is only fair to all those who work hard in this country to be financially independent, to house themselves and who are not reliant on overly reliant on public services that they do not see others who otherwise have no right to be here. Imposing avoidable burdens on society and public services. I will give it away.
And that's what the drafting in this bill seeks to do. This includes clarification that judges must consider the economic impact on the taxpayer of allowing people to remain in the UK. This includes whether they can support themselves and their family. It is only fair to all those who work hard in this country to be financially independent, to house themselves and who are not reliant on overly reliant on public services that they do not see others who otherwise have no right to be here. Imposing avoidable burdens on society and public services. I will give it away.
10:07
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
10:07
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I thank the honourable gentleman for the questions he raises, and I'll come on to a lot more of this when I respond to the honourable lady's contributions as well. But, you know, we are absolutely clear that we are not going to penalise people for hardship. These reforms do preserve protections for vulnerable people and children, but it's vital that we make clear that immigration control and the wider public interest should be given proper weight. This is about restoring balance, not sorry.
This is about restoring balance and not removing safeguards, which is critical. Oh well.
This is about restoring balance and not removing safeguards, which is critical. Oh well.
10:08
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I appreciate listening to some of the contributions, particularly from the member from Brighton Pavilion. Most fair minded people would be concerned that the reforms here potentially would have a detrimental impact on children. Can the minister confirm whether these reforms remove protections for children?
10:08
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. The honourable gentleman raises a critical point, which is, of course, you know, dear to all of our hearts. And again, I will come on to say more on this in my speech. But these reforms absolutely do not remove protections for children. The best interests of children will continue to remain a primary consideration in immigration decision making, as they should be. The reforms are set out in clause 19. Ensure that children's interests are considered alongside other important factors, including compliance with immigration law and the wider public interest in maintaining an effective immigration system. Well, Minister, give way.
10:09
10:09
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I'm going to I haven't actually addressed these issues in my speech yet. So if I could break his patience a little bit longer and I'm sure he'll have more questions afterwards that we can come back to, but I would like to make some progress, if I may. The clause also introduces character and conduct as a factor within the public interest test. This will require judges to have regard to harmful conduct, including criminality below the deportation threshold and outside the mandatory suitability refusals. This is an important element of tackling abuse and takes us a step towards a fairer system that the public can have confidence in.
The clause further reduces avenues for abuse by requiring that no weight should be given instead of little weight, as now, to an article eight claim established when someone is here illegally or legally, but only by deceiving the Home Office, or if they have seriously breached the conditions of their permissions to be in the UK. This will enable us to more effectively enforce our immigration rules and prevent people from unfairly benefiting from time spent in the UK in violation of our rules, or creating perverse incentives for people who are here unlawfully to try and deliberately establish article eight claims.
Now, while it is right that essential protections for children are retained, it is not right that adults who abuse our immigration system are almost guaranteed to be allowed to stay if they can prove a parental relationship with the child. In the UK currently, there is no need to carry out a full balancing exercise if exercise. If there is a child. This is the main source of successful article eight claims, with two thirds resulting in residence rights being granted. The clause clarifies what factors should be considered when determining whether it is in the public interest to remove the parent of a qualifying child from the UK, and introduces a provision for assessing the impact of removing a parent where a child remains in the UK.
So I thank the honourable member for Brighton Pavilion for amendment 61 that sets out a new public interest consideration that would give specific regard to the circumstances of victims of violence against women and girls. When assessing whether an interference with an individual's article eight right is justified. Of course, we absolutely recognise and take very seriously the importance of tackling violence against women and girls and the devastating impact it has on victims. However, the government does not consider this amendment to be necessary because clause 19 already preserves a case specific assessment in which courts and tribunals can consider all relevant facts and evidence, including experiences of domestic abuse, violence, exploitation and the safeguarding concerns that the honourable Lady mentioned in her case studies.
The holistic article eight assessment that the draft clause retains ensures protections exist for vulnerable people and support remains available for those who genuinely need it. In addition to this, existing provisions in immigration rules including appendix victim of Domestic Abuse and the Migrant Victims of domestic Abuse concession, provide specific protections. These safeguards are there to ensure that victims experiences are properly, properly recognised and taken into account. Moving on to amendment 104, I would like to thank the honourable member for Mid Bedfordshire for tabling this amendment. I do understand the intention behind it, but I'm afraid the government does not consider the amendment to be helpful.
I agree that good character is an important consideration in article eight cases, including this factor within the public interest test. Sorry. Including this factor within the public interest test ensures that protections are focused on those who have acted responsibly. This is an important element of creating a fair system that the public are confident in, and one that is not open to abuse. The clause establishes this and requires the courts and tribunals to have regard to harmful conduct, including below the deportation threshold and outside mandatory suitability refusals. We will set out further detail on this in the published Guidance and Immigration Rules.
Existing guidance, including the guidance the honourable gentleman mentions here, will be a useful comparator and will play an important role in shaping it, and I'd like to be clear with him about that. We don't want to be tied exclusively to this guidance from 1981, but we do want to develop ours further. So our approach will therefore reflect that already taken in nationality legislation, where good character is not exhaustively defined on the face of the bill, but is addressed through the guidance Minister.
The clause further reduces avenues for abuse by requiring that no weight should be given instead of little weight, as now, to an article eight claim established when someone is here illegally or legally, but only by deceiving the Home Office, or if they have seriously breached the conditions of their permissions to be in the UK. This will enable us to more effectively enforce our immigration rules and prevent people from unfairly benefiting from time spent in the UK in violation of our rules, or creating perverse incentives for people who are here unlawfully to try and deliberately establish article eight claims.
Now, while it is right that essential protections for children are retained, it is not right that adults who abuse our immigration system are almost guaranteed to be allowed to stay if they can prove a parental relationship with the child. In the UK currently, there is no need to carry out a full balancing exercise if exercise. If there is a child. This is the main source of successful article eight claims, with two thirds resulting in residence rights being granted. The clause clarifies what factors should be considered when determining whether it is in the public interest to remove the parent of a qualifying child from the UK, and introduces a provision for assessing the impact of removing a parent where a child remains in the UK.
So I thank the honourable member for Brighton Pavilion for amendment 61 that sets out a new public interest consideration that would give specific regard to the circumstances of victims of violence against women and girls. When assessing whether an interference with an individual's article eight right is justified. Of course, we absolutely recognise and take very seriously the importance of tackling violence against women and girls and the devastating impact it has on victims. However, the government does not consider this amendment to be necessary because clause 19 already preserves a case specific assessment in which courts and tribunals can consider all relevant facts and evidence, including experiences of domestic abuse, violence, exploitation and the safeguarding concerns that the honourable Lady mentioned in her case studies.
The holistic article eight assessment that the draft clause retains ensures protections exist for vulnerable people and support remains available for those who genuinely need it. In addition to this, existing provisions in immigration rules including appendix victim of Domestic Abuse and the Migrant Victims of domestic Abuse concession, provide specific protections. These safeguards are there to ensure that victims experiences are properly, properly recognised and taken into account. Moving on to amendment 104, I would like to thank the honourable member for Mid Bedfordshire for tabling this amendment. I do understand the intention behind it, but I'm afraid the government does not consider the amendment to be helpful.
I agree that good character is an important consideration in article eight cases, including this factor within the public interest test. Sorry. Including this factor within the public interest test ensures that protections are focused on those who have acted responsibly. This is an important element of creating a fair system that the public are confident in, and one that is not open to abuse. The clause establishes this and requires the courts and tribunals to have regard to harmful conduct, including below the deportation threshold and outside mandatory suitability refusals. We will set out further detail on this in the published Guidance and Immigration Rules.
Existing guidance, including the guidance the honourable gentleman mentions here, will be a useful comparator and will play an important role in shaping it, and I'd like to be clear with him about that. We don't want to be tied exclusively to this guidance from 1981, but we do want to develop ours further. So our approach will therefore reflect that already taken in nationality legislation, where good character is not exhaustively defined on the face of the bill, but is addressed through the guidance Minister.
10:13
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Give way for a moment. I'm very interested in the fact that the minister has just talked about going further in some guidance on good character. Will that guidance take into account, potentially, factors that would weigh against the character of a of someone making an appeal if they have been exploited, if they have been abused? Is that the kind of thing the minister is thinking about in terms of deviating from the 1981 guidance?
10:13
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
So the 1981 guidance will be setting out very clearly what the what we will ask the the courts and tribunals to have regard to regarding harmful conduct. We will also make sure, of course, that there is sufficient. Protection, as I've already mentioned, to issues around domestic violence that will be in our immigration rules. It is in our existing provisions. So we do we will ensure that the courts and tribunals will consider all relevant facts and evidence, and I'm placing that here on the record in this committee that we would expect experiences of domestic violence, abuse and exploitation and safeguarding concerns to be a key part of that.
Going back to the amendment from the honourable gentleman, our approach will therefore reflect that already taken in nationality legislation, where good character is not exhaustively defined on the face of the bill, but is addressed through the guidance and everything that colleagues have raised here in this committee will will be on the record on amendments 105 and 106. I agree with the honourable member that compliance with immigration conditions is important, and that serious non-compliance should have clear consequences. In the article eight assessment regarding article 105. Specifically, whilst the current wording in the draft provides the flexibility for decision makers to undertake an individualized assessment based on the facts of the case as required in an article eight assessment, it makes clear that no weight is the starting point for the weight that should be given to the person's family or private life, established at a time when they are in the UK without permission or are in breach of their permission or obtained permission by deception, so this amendment will have no material effect.
The addition of the word must, in this part of the public interest test, does not change the nature of courts and tribunals obligations. To have regard to the statutory public interest considerations. No weight is the starting point with regard. Yes, sure.
Going back to the amendment from the honourable gentleman, our approach will therefore reflect that already taken in nationality legislation, where good character is not exhaustively defined on the face of the bill, but is addressed through the guidance and everything that colleagues have raised here in this committee will will be on the record on amendments 105 and 106. I agree with the honourable member that compliance with immigration conditions is important, and that serious non-compliance should have clear consequences. In the article eight assessment regarding article 105. Specifically, whilst the current wording in the draft provides the flexibility for decision makers to undertake an individualized assessment based on the facts of the case as required in an article eight assessment, it makes clear that no weight is the starting point for the weight that should be given to the person's family or private life, established at a time when they are in the UK without permission or are in breach of their permission or obtained permission by deception, so this amendment will have no material effect.
The addition of the word must, in this part of the public interest test, does not change the nature of courts and tribunals obligations. To have regard to the statutory public interest considerations. No weight is the starting point with regard. Yes, sure.
10:16
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
Surely the Minister understands that no weight might be the starting point. It's the end point. That's the decision and that's the issue. A decision maker can have a starting point of no weight and then attach weight. And suddenly the decision is not where I think even she might intend. In many of the cases.
10:16
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I appreciate the point the gentleman is trying to make, but it's really important that cases are considered on a case by case basis. We can be as specific as we possibly can, but the reality is courts and tribunals have to maintain that flexibility to determine those cases based on the individual facts and circumstances before them. And it's important in our drafting that we enable that.
10:16
10:16
10:16
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
I just want to press that point, if I may. If the if the minister's position is that she she wants tribunals, a starting point for tribunals to be no weight. What is the harm with adding must to make it absolutely clear that this House expects tribunals to apply no weight. But then the Minister goes on to say that she wants tribunals to have flexibility. So which one is it?
10:17
10:17
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The gentleman is trying to make, but we we absolutely cannot bind the court's hands in this situation. The reality is they have to we can set a very, very clear steer that's on the record that's here on the face of the bill that's in the legislation. But it's important that we do allow the courts flexibility because it is their role to establish on a case by case basis the facts of the incident. I'll give way to the honourable.
10:17
David Smith
-
-
David Smith
10:18
10:18
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The honourable gentleman point. It said no weight is as he flags out, quite rightly, the starting point for the weight that should be given to a person's private or family life established at the time when they are in the UK without permission. So that's very clear in terms of the definition for the court. Applying the no weight rule to all breaches of leave could mean minor or technical breaches could leave cases open to challenges of disproportion. And with that, I want to move on to amendment 106, which is sort of similar in its vein. Again, you know, while we agree compliance must have consequences, it is appropriate that we should distinguish between serious breaches and less significant or technical compliance, because we do always have to have that proportionality.
Removing the word serious would considerably widen the provision, and could require the same approach to be taken to conduct of very different gravity. The government's reforms already substantially strengthen the public interest side of the article eight balancing exercise. The inclusion of serious helps to ensure that these reforms are focused on the cases of greatest concern.
Removing the word serious would considerably widen the provision, and could require the same approach to be taken to conduct of very different gravity. The government's reforms already substantially strengthen the public interest side of the article eight balancing exercise. The inclusion of serious helps to ensure that these reforms are focused on the cases of greatest concern.
10:18
10:19
10:19
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The honourable gentleman's attempts to to again, to define this, but we are very keen not to put specific clauses on definitions on the face of the bill. I think it's really important to, to, to, to, to say that we we are worried that the disproportionate outcomes could could be a result of our approach is to be robust, targeted and crucially, legally sustainable and not allow ourselves to be open to, to challenges. Yeah, I'm.
10:19
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
Going to give away. She talks about not wanting to put specific definitions on the face of the bill on that some stakeholder groups are concerned about. The bill doesn't rule out British children being subjected to the child test. Would she not consider putting that on the face of the bill to make sure that no British child ends up forced out of the country under the under the provisions of their.
10:20
10:20
10:20
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I'm not going to rule that out here on the floor of the House. I can come back and clarify the. My expectation is that if somebody is deported and they wish to take their child with them, they're perfectly entitled to do that. It's not for the government to say that the child has to stay in this country and will not move with the family, so I'm not going to rule that out here in this committee. In conclusion, Doctor Myerson, this clause will tightly define the public interest test to ensure individual rights are properly balanced against the public interest in effective immigration control and eradicate the abuse that has crept into our system, and therefore, I beg to move that clause 19 stand part of the bill.
10:21
10:21
10:21
10:21
10:21
10:21
10:22
10:22
10:22
10:22
10:22
10:23
10:23
10:23
10:23
10:23
10:23
10:24
10:24
10:24
10:24
10:25
10:25
10:25
10:25
10:25
10:25
10:25
10:25
10:25
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Stevenson to move amendment. Thank you, Doctor Morrison. I beg to move amendment. 107 in my name and then my hon. Friend the member for Stockton West, which I'll speak to. 108 to 1 111 and clause 20 stand apart . On Thursday. The government was kind enough to accept our amendment 96, of course. 17 I hope the Minister will look at these amendments with the same open mind, because this is a clause the public care most about. Of all the clauses in part two, this is the one that the public will care most deeply about. People expect that foreign nationals who commit serious crimes in this country will be.
10:26
10:26
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And they do not understand why family life often family life formed while the offender was here so frequently stands in the way. It's quite frankly, unacceptable. Our reasoned amendment at second reading made the point that this bill does not ensure that all foreign criminals will be deported. Clause 20 is where that concern is tested. My case is that clause 20 contains real.
10:26
10:26
10:26
10:26
10:27
10:27
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Including those deported, because it's conducive to the public good. Secondly, it replaces the current structure of a single rule. Deportation is required unless its effect on the. person or their family would be disproportionate. Thirdly, it replaces the sentence length. thresholds 12 months and four years with a sliding scale. The more serious the offence, the offending and its impact on.
10:27
10:27
10:27
10:27
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And unduly harsh effect on a partner or child or other very compelling circumstances. And the interference cannot be justified by the public interest. So first, I want to turn to what the clause gets right, because, of course, I want to be fair to the government during committee stage, extending these rules to all deportation cases, a genuine tightening. And for that reason, the opposition supports it. And there is a reasonable legal argument that the new structure restores a balance test.
The court took away. Doctor Chris Rowe of Swansea.
The court took away. Doctor Chris Rowe of Swansea.
10:28
10:28
10:28
10:28
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The unduly harsh. exception came to operate as an unqualified right, which we heard about in earlier sessions. If the effect on the family was harsh enough, the strength of the public interest did not matter. He argued that. 23 will be effective in restoring a balance against the public interest. If that is right, it is a real. improvement for so-called medium offenders. But once again, I can't help but notice what kind of. improvement it is on doctor Rose own analysis clause 20 brings domestic law back to what the Strasbourg case law required. It does not go beyond it, and for the most serious.
10:29
10:29
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The clause appears to move in the wrong direction. Under the current law, someone sentenced to four years or more cannot rely on the long residence or unduly harsh. exceptions on their own. They must show very compelling. circumstances over and above them. Clause 20 removes the sentence thresholds altogether.
10:29
10:29
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Who gave evidence and which I should say. supports the change for very different reasons, describes the effect precisely. The Bill quote flattens out the application of the. exceptions so that all three apply regardless of the length of the person's sentence. The House of Commons library says it's not clear how the new rules are stricter for people sentenced to more than four years. So does the minister accept that under clause 20, the most serious offenders gain access to exceptions one and two? And if so, why is that the case? What reasons could the government have for loosening the rules for the worst offending foreign criminals?
10:30
10:30
10:30
10:30
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Would restore the current rule for anyone sentenced to four years or more exceptions, 1 or 2 would not apply, and only very compelling. circumstances over and above them would do. The third exception tells the same story. Today. The most serious offenders need circumstances. Quote over and above the exceptions. New section. 117 C six asks only for a claim quote, at least as strong as then why has the government chosen another weaker. formulation in its drafting for the most serious offenders, amendment. 109 would restore the over and above test. Will the Minister confirm whether the government will do the right thing and accept that?
I do not want to overstate this. Doctor Rowe. reports that the courts already read the current very compelling. circumstances test as requiring an especially strong claim assessed through a full.
I do not want to overstate this. Doctor Rowe. reports that the courts already read the current very compelling. circumstances test as requiring an especially strong claim assessed through a full.
10:30
10:30
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And that they apply a holistic test to all foreign criminals, whatever their sentence is. So the practical loosening may be small, but the cut that it. But it cuts both ways. If the courts already apply a holistic proportionality test to everyone, then clause 20, which ends in the. proportionality test for everyone, changes very little for serious offenders. On the floor of the House last week, the Minister claimed that with this bill, the government was tackling the unfairness in a broken system in which those who break the rules are. beneficiaries of our welcome. If that is the case, look forward to hearing the minister answers to my questions and supporting our amendments to reinstate tighter rules for serious offenders.
The public deserves an immigration system that takes foreign criminals off our streets and removes them from our country. If the government genuinely believes they are tightening the rules for the most serious offenders, I think they need to think again. Which brings me to the sliding scale. Bright lines have a value. Offenders, lawyers and. tribunals know where they stand. New section. 117 C two replaces them with an assessment of seriousness. circumstances and impact on society as a whole. Another phrase the bill fails to define. So could the Minister. explain why those thresholds have been abandoned and how this bill will seek to define, quote, impact on.
society as a whole? Amendment 108 provides one. Anyone convicted of a specified violent, sexual or terrorist offence under section. 306 of the Sentencing Code, or a sexual offence against a child under schedule three to the Sexual Offences Act. 2003 could not rely on the long. residence or family exceptions. Whatever the.
The public deserves an immigration system that takes foreign criminals off our streets and removes them from our country. If the government genuinely believes they are tightening the rules for the most serious offenders, I think they need to think again. Which brings me to the sliding scale. Bright lines have a value. Offenders, lawyers and. tribunals know where they stand. New section. 117 C two replaces them with an assessment of seriousness. circumstances and impact on society as a whole. Another phrase the bill fails to define. So could the Minister. explain why those thresholds have been abandoned and how this bill will seek to define, quote, impact on.
society as a whole? Amendment 108 provides one. Anyone convicted of a specified violent, sexual or terrorist offence under section. 306 of the Sentencing Code, or a sexual offence against a child under schedule three to the Sexual Offences Act. 2003 could not rely on the long. residence or family exceptions. Whatever the.
10:32
10:32
10:33
10:33
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
With their article eight rights, but the word. significant appears. nowhere in the new section. 117 C. So the question for the minister is which government, the explanatory notes or the text of the bill? We know that it's the text of the bill. So would the government consider the drafting new section.
10:33
10:33
10:33
10:33
10:34
10:34
10:34
10:34
10:34
10:34
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Which we support. How many non-criminal deportation cases will it capture? The Law Society warns that while the Strasbourg court upheld the unduly harsh test in Nguyen, I hope I pronounced that correctly, and the UK and its. compatibility is, quote, less clear for people who've committed no crime. So what is the government's legal advice on this point? Why does new section.
10:34
10:34
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:35
10:35
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Would keep the rules in section. 101 hundred and. 117 D four on how a period of imprisonment is counted, chair should. We should be honest about the scale, Professor Singer told us, drawing on the House of Commons library that only 3% of foreign criminal foreign criminals appeals are allowed on human rights grounds. How many. deportations does clause 20 add in the Minister's and the government's assessment? Professor Ekins, who supports the direction of the Bill, told us that it expressly. preserves the capacity of foreign criminals to resist. deportation on family grounds, that it will make removal only.
marginally easier and that major obstacles will remain. Mr. Dampier told us that human rights law is a fundamental barrier to removal, and that. nationality must most often removed is the one that can be returned without any human rights barrier. And the problem is not only appeals, it's also. enforcement chair, the minister told us around. 11,000 foreign national offenders have been removed since the election.
We welcome every single one of them. But the Migration Observatory has reported that the number of deportable offenders living in the. community .
marginally easier and that major obstacles will remain. Mr. Dampier told us that human rights law is a fundamental barrier to removal, and that. nationality must most often removed is the one that can be returned without any human rights barrier. And the problem is not only appeals, it's also. enforcement chair, the minister told us around. 11,000 foreign national offenders have been removed since the election.
We welcome every single one of them. But the Migration Observatory has reported that the number of deportable offenders living in the. community .
10:36
10:36
10:36
10:36
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
By more than a third since the end of 2022. Will the minister. confirm how many foreign national offenders are liable to deportation? Are living in our communities today, and what is the government's plan to remove them from our streets? Doctor Casey warned that article three claims will probably. increase because the bill does not touch article three claims whatsoever, and Mr. Webb agreed that the bill is silent on article three.
We've covered this point in previous sessions. An offender who cannot win under article eight will try article three.
We've covered this point in previous sessions. An offender who cannot win under article eight will try article three.
10:37
10:37
10:37
10:37
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Will be decided by. adjudicators who need not be legally qualified. The Law Society calls these. inherently illegal judgments. What training? I've asked this before, but what training will adjudicators have, and how many more appeals in the upper tribunal, and how much delay to removals does the government expect? A structural point? Chair, when I asked Mr. Mehmet what we should put in this bill, he said we could start by declaring our intention to come out of the Echr.
We've covered this.
We've covered this.
10:37
10:37
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
But it's a point worth pressing again. These. This bill is tinkering around the edges, and I worry that in a few years time, we will be in a position where the government doesn't want to be because the courts have. interpreted these words that we are debating today, and we get to a position where we are back to square one new clause. 66 in the name of my hon. Friend the member for Rutland and Stamford and in mine would make a.
conviction for forced marriage, a ground for automatic .
conviction for forced marriage, a ground for automatic .
10:38
10:38
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Whatever the sentence, forced marriage is a despicable crime, coercion and abuse, which I suspect all members here will agree with, often. against young women. The automatic. deportation of foreign criminals convicted of forced marriage sits firmly in the public interest. New clause 67 would treat any conviction under the National Security Act 2023.
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:39
10:39
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
Minister, the honourable member, give way. I thank the honourable member for giving way, and I completely see the thrust of his argument, and it is comes from very well and good intentions. We don't want those who seek to harm our nation or our. citizens at all to have leave to remain in our nation. The concern I have with the amendment that is being put forward by the opposition from those good intentions is because it comes with such a. prescriptive list. There will be an evolution over time of different crimes and offences that we will want to make sure that people are included on that list.
Isn't the fear going forward that if we have such a prescriptive list, is actually we won't be able to protect ourselves in the long term if this bill is kept as it is .
Isn't the fear going forward that if we have such a prescriptive list, is actually we won't be able to protect ourselves in the long term if this bill is kept as it is .
10:40
10:40
10:40
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
You know, life changes, and we need to be flexible. And . However, I think it is. important for this House to express its view that these crimes are abhorrent. And it is a narrow list. But of course, this place can legislate further in the future as life changes. So I thank him for his general support. I understand his point, but I think it's.
10:40
10:41
10:41
Melanie Onn
-
-
Melanie Onn
Are totally unacceptable. Yes, I give I thank him for giving way on this point. And I think that there is broad agreement with the principle of where he's trying to get to. But is he seriously suggesting that for every additional crime that we decide requires to be added to his inexhaustible list, that we come back to the .
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:41
10:41
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
May be designed to work around the constraints imposed by the ECH. However, it will ultimately run up against the very same problems. The courts will default to the positions they have. consistently taken, enabling. individuals with no right to remain in this country to delay or prevent their removal, or indeed, when this bill fails to equip the government to address the extensive range of grounds for resisting removal that flow from the Echr, will the Minister finally accept that we.
We long argue that the real problem lies outside the drafting of the.
We long argue that the real problem lies outside the drafting of the.
10:42
10:42
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
However robust it might be, and however robust the government intends it to be today. As I've already noted, the minister described discussions about leaving the UK last week as. unnecessary and counterproductive. The minister genuinely believes that deterrents must sit at the heart of our response to these.
10:42
10:42
Blake Stephenson
-
-
Blake Stephenson
And I struggle to see how removing the ability of from foreign criminals to rely on the. convention to delay or prevent their removal could reasonably be considered as either unnecessary, counterproductive. Chair, we will not oppose clause 20 standing part, extending these rules to all deportation cases and restoring a balance against the public interest are steps in the right.
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:43
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
10:44
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Those who are. facing immigration related domestic abuse or who might have been convicted of crimes like that? On that general theme, I also wanted to comment on the new clauses being proposed by the opposition. I can see the point they're trying to make. They are trying to clarify the word serious and make some offences. automatically be considered as serious. But again, I think by making it.
10:45
10:45
10:45
10:45
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Public interest test. So I don't agree with the new clauses from the conservatives or indeed the amendments. My second question to the. Minister is it is it not wrong in. principle to have put this clause, this subclause in that refers to the words in the. 1971 act? Is it not wrong in principle for this, these kinds of decisions, these elevated thresholds to be applied purely on the basis of the Home. Secretary's own. subjective decision that deportation is conducive to the public good, that could, in theory, be applied for for any reason. The Home. Secretary had in their own mind in future.
And is this .
And is this .
10:46
10:46
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Relatively dangerous in terms of civil liberties? I'm asking the minister this question for later. So if it could be possible for us to wait and see how she answers, that would be marvellous. I think my third question is, does such an approach not allow the Home Secretary. unilaterally to stack the deck against an appellant in an appeal on a fairly.
10:46
10:46
10:46
10:46
10:46
10:46
10:47
10:47
10:47
10:47
10:47
10:47
10:47
10:47
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
But it's simply on the certainty of what this. legislation is doing when it comes to people having to make . decisions when it becomes law. And the second is a disagreement on what the government is trying to achieve. So if we look at the insertion of. 117 C, and I'm going to try and deal with this as precisely as I can. one where a person and I'm quoting here, where a person is liable to.
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:48
10:48
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
The public interest. requires their deportation. Unless. So a court is being directed here to define public. interest as one thing, because the. legislation says the public interest. requires their deportation. Setting aside the. Unless. But we go on to subsection two, and the bill tries to. define in relation to this clause what the public.
interest is, and it sets out more.
interest is, and it sets out more.
10:49
10:49
10:50
10:50
10:50
10:50
10:50
10:50
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
To start directing the court as to what public. interest might mean in terms of giving weighting to the factors to A, to C, when the court's being told to simply deport under the public interest. So I fail to see how it has any relevance whatsoever and is potentially very. distracting from what I think the government is trying to achieve here. I'll now deal with the unless element, because that is.
10:50
10:50
10:51
10:51
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
Although I disagree with what some of the elements the court should consider. But it's sensible to give the courts and decision makers some direction. Again, sticking just to. drafting here. 117C4A to C. So A talks about exceptional. circumstances where a person has been lawfully resident in the United Kingdom for most of their life. Given that provisions in relation to children, not just in this bill, but.
generally and in the way we do law in this.
generally and in the way we do law in this.
10:51
10:51
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
10:52
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
Unless the government means adult life. And I think it should mean entire life. And I think it should be specific about what it means. Second is for B, exceptional circumstances apply. Again, it's another. consideration where the person is. socially and culturally. integrated into the United Kingdom. How on earth is a decision maker or a court supposed to make a. determination on whether someone is or is not socially and culturally.
integrated into the UK? I mean, you could have an entire PhD thesis on.
integrated into the UK? I mean, you could have an entire PhD thesis on.
10:53
10:53
10:53
10:53
10:53
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
And of course, the court is not there, or the decision makers are not there to do some highly resourced, detailed. investigative study into someone's circumstances. They'll be relying basically on assertions. Actually, it's open to someone to say, well, I've lived here for a number of years. I speak English and I can go about speak English to a degree, and I can go about normal daily life without. endlessly causing friction or finding hardship. And I am therefore socially and culturally integrated into the UK sufficiently. Or is the court supposed to examine the way they dress, the way they eat, who they mix with, and how often the cultural background of the people they mix with their religious traditions.
I mean, not only is it opening a can of worms, I think it's quite. offensive to have the.
I mean, not only is it opening a can of worms, I think it's quite. offensive to have the.
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:54
10:55
10:55
10:55
10:55
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
Because four C then talks about very sufficient obstacles to a person's integration integration into the country in which they're proposed to be deported. So having run that analysis and coming come up with a view about an individual's. cultural social integration into the UK, they've got to run a similar test as to their. ability to.
10:55
10:55
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
The country where they're supposed to be deported. And that is a theoretical one, because it might be somewhere they haven't been for some time. It is one where it's even harder to make some sort of value judgement, because it's a country that the decision maker could have absolutely zero experience of living in. Again, be relying on assertions. But the test isn't even the same as it is at four B, because the test at four B is the person is. socially and culturally integrated. There's test at four, C is integration. So there is not that. qualification of.
cultural and social. So in this. country they could be merely socially and culturally.
cultural and social. So in this. country they could be merely socially and culturally.
10:56
10:56
10:56
10:56
10:56
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
10:57
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
When comparing the. situation that they're being proposed to be put in elsewhere. So I think there's serious drafting issues here, and it's not merely one that we can see how it all comes out in the wash in, you know, the Home Office officials are very capable of all this sort of stuff. I mean, obviously, we've seen the problem with a number of appeals. Some of this stuff will. genuinely need the court to. tackle the. interpretation issues through the normal way. We do common law in this country through test cases. And these provisions are going to require an.
unusual set of test. cases through to the Court of Appeal, through to the Supreme Court to get.
unusual set of test. cases through to the Court of Appeal, through to the Supreme Court to get.
10:57
10:57
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
And assistance for the courts to apply thereafter. But as we've seen in test cases, it's rarely one case that. sets a new. environment for the lower courts and decision. makers to adhere to. But a series of them. Not only is it going to require an extraordinary amount of time to understand terms which the government just need to deal with at this stage through the legislation process. But it will take.
10:58
10:58
10:58
10:58
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
10:58
10:58
10:58
10:59
10:59
10:59
10:59
10:59
10:59
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
10:59
10:59
11:00
11:00
11:00
11:00
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
117 C five. This is a set of exceptional. circumstances where the court ultimately, and I paraphrase, may allow someone to stay here or come here under family right to family life case. And the second set of exceptional. circumstances apply where the person has a genuine subsisting. relationship with a qualifying partner or a genuine and. subsisting parental relationship with a qualifying child, and the.
effect of the person's. deportation on the partner or. child would be.
effect of the person's. deportation on the partner or. child would be.
11:00
11:00
11:00
11:01
11:01
11:01
11:01
11:01
11:01
11:02
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
So if one's being generous to the. government and. assuming that unduly harsh as words that exist in the English language, well, harsh is quite a strong thing, and unduly, etc., we talk about a situation where there is there is real hardship, real harshness. I think the. circumstances can be presented in such a way that that that bar for unduly harsh gets reduced further and further and further down. And while I have great faith in our legal. system generally in this country, I think it's been one of the great exports of this country over the centuries, the English legal system, part of the way the legal system works is judges will legitimately.
This is part of the system . strain some of this. terminology to seek to make an excuse for a case that they think is. inherently a good one. And I think if a judge is looking for a case to be.
This is part of the system . strain some of this. terminology to seek to make an excuse for a case that they think is. inherently a good one. And I think if a judge is looking for a case to be.
11:02
11:03
11:03
11:03
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
Harsh in a way that lowers the bar to allow that case, and I would implore the government to either. qualify unduly harsh or choose a different term. There are a number of other examples, but I won't go into them because I think the point has been made. But I do want to quickly comment on new clause. 107 that I think deals very. sensibly with a.
situation where the three. exceptions here that the government has set out. 117 C.
situation where the three. exceptions here that the government has set out. 117 C.
11:03
11:04
11:04
11:04
11:04
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
Circumstances should not apply. When a person has been sentenced to a period of imprisonment of at least four years. So four years is a again, a fairly. standard term of imprisonment within the way we legislate in this country to distinguish very broadly between more serious offences and less serious offences. So exceptional. circumstances in this Bill, there's an argument for saying that it's an argument that I would put forward.
11:04
11:04
Joe Robertson
-
-
Joe Robertson
If the offence is of a less serious nature, but there must come a threshold where the offence is so serious that even those exceptions cannot apply, and four years in prison is a pretty. serious crime. And I think that's obviously an objectively and. consistently a good place to set it. But if the government doesn't agree with.
11:05
11:05
11:05
11:05
11:05
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
According to these clauses. Matt Vickers, thank you. Let's be absolutely clear about what this group is about. It's about whether a foreign national who comes to this country commits a serious crime, found to be worthy of a long sentence, gets to stay. The British public have a simple answer to that question, and so do we. They should go. The principle at stake is straightforward. If you're a guest in this country and you rape, you, rob, you deal drugs, or you abuse a child, you have forfeited the right to remain here. Not after years of appeals, not after a tribunal has weighed your family life against the lives of those you've wrecked.
You should go on second reading. The government told the House that clause 20 would make it easier to remove foreign criminals, and that. deportation should go ahead outside a limited number of truly.
You should go on second reading. The government told the House that clause 20 would make it easier to remove foreign criminals, and that. deportation should go ahead outside a limited number of truly.
11:06
11:06
11:06
11:06
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Behind every one of these cases is a victim, a woman who lies awake wondering whether a man who attacked her is still living a few streets away, or a family who were told justice had been done, only to learn that the offender is now fighting to steer. My honourable friend has explained how the law works today.
11:06
11:06
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
If you've been sentenced to four years or more for rape, for armed robbery, for dealing drugs on our streets, you cannot hide behind your family or how long you've lived here. Those exceptions are simply not enough. You have to show very compelling. circumstances over and above them. That's a high bar, and it's meant to be. The worse the crime, the narrower the door. Clause 20 takes that line away. The four year threshold is gone. Someone serving ten, 15, or 20 years can now walk straight into the argument that deporting them would be unduly harsh on their family.
Today, that route is closed to them. Under this bill it's opened. Think about what that means. The victim found the courage to give evidence. The jury .
Today, that route is closed to them. Under this bill it's opened. Think about what that means. The victim found the courage to give evidence. The jury .
11:07
11:07
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The judge handed down a long sentence. And then at the end of all that, the offender gets to stand up and say that deporting them will be too hard on them. The minister will tell us not to worry, because new subsection two says the more serious the offence, the greater the public interest. But this goes to one of the oldest questions in law making do you legislate with a rule or with a standard? A rule says for years, and that settles it.
11:08
11:08
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Says where everything up and decide case by case rules give certainty. standards give discretion. And in this area, discretion has been a gift to lawyers and a source of deep frustration to the public. That is precisely why Parliament chose a rule in 2014. The whole purpose was to narrow the discretion of the courts, because the balance they were striking was one the public simply did not recognise. Clause 20 hands the scales back, and we all know where weighing.
exercises end up in front of a.
exercises end up in front of a.
11:09
11:09
11:09
11:09
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Foreign offenders a year won human rights appeals against their removal. That's more than one every single day. And that is with the four year rule still in place. The Home Office did not even publish how many of them had sentences of four or more years. If the government is so confident that this clause is tougher, let them publish the numbers. Amendment 1 or 7 puts the four year rule back.
11:09
11:09
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Keeps the existing rules on how a sentence is. counted so that it works. Then there is amendment 109. It's only a few words, but they tell you everything. Today, a serious offender must show very compelling. circumstances over and above the exceptions. Clause 20 changes that to. circumstances at least as strong as them. Over and above means more, at least as strong as means the same. That's not tightening the test. That's loosening it. When Parliament changes the wording of a test, the courts are entitled to. presume it meant to change the meaning. So tribunal reading, at least as strong as , will quite.
11:10
11:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
That this House. intended a lower bar, would be legislating for exactly the outcome that the government say they want to avoid. Parliament chose those words in. 2014 and the courts have applied them ever since. So why change them if the Home Office meant to lower the bar or nobody noticed? Neither answer should give this committee much comfort. Amendment 109 puts the original words back in amendment 108 goes further than the current law, and we make no apology for that . Sentence length is a rough guide to how dangerous someone is, but it's not the whole story.
Guilty plea. discounts and the facts of individual cases mean some very dangerous people get less than four years. So amendment 108 says that for the worst.
Guilty plea. discounts and the facts of individual cases mean some very dangerous people get less than four years. So amendment 108 says that for the worst.
11:11
11:11
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The type of crime settles it. If you're convicted of a specified violent, sexual or terrorist offence or a sexual offence against a child, the long residence and family roots are off the table. Whatever your sentence, let's put that plainly a foreign. national who has sexually abused a child should not be able to stand in a. tribunal and argue that deporting them would be unduly harsh on their own family.
11:11
11:11
11:12
Melanie Onn
-
-
Melanie Onn
That child? Well, on that point, yes, I'm listening carefully to the points that he makes, but that is not what this bill is going to provide and certainly does not allow for. That's not what he's suggesting. We've had some silly games with semantics previously. This is a broad catch all on very serious crimes, which would include the ones .
11:12
11:12
11:12
11:12
Ben Goldsborough
-
-
Ben Goldsborough
We're at. Well, the honourable gentleman will then I thank the honourable gentleman. Giving way isn't an unintended consequence of the amendment that he's proposing and advocating for is that it will create a ranking system as well. And there are many of my. constituents that, yes, they will be concerned about those extremely high level crimes that he rightly notes in the opposition rightly notes. But there can also be. circumstances with a series of low level crimes that are committed by an individual.
If you create this ranking.
If you create this ranking.
11:13
11:13
Melanie Onn
-
-
Melanie Onn
Can be sent down, depending on the harshness of the sentence. We are saying over four years, no ifs, no buts. We are saying that in the case of someone who commits a sexual act against a child, the terrorist act, or there will be no ifs, no buts, no exceptions will not apply. There will still be space within the other provisions of this bill to take action. An attempt to deport a Sri Lankan paedophile convicted of assaulting three teenage teenage boys was delayed over claims that it would breach his human rights. People look at cases like that and wonder whose side the system is on.
The government themselves cited the case of grooming gang leader Shabbir Ahmed on the second reading. If they accept the principle there, they should accept it here. Last year on the border security bill, a new clause to stop the Human Rights Act being used to frustrate deportations. The government voted it down 14 votes to two. Today, we're asking for far less simply, they do not make the current law weaker. The government say they want deportation to be the rule. Our amendments make it the rule. An immigration system that rests on public consent. Every time a serious offender stares because the law gave them one more argument that consent wears thinner, lose it, and the system loses legitimacy.
Every member of this committee has constituents who've lost faith that the system is on their side. They're not asking for a finely balanced weighing exercise. They're asking for their safety, the safety of their children to come first. These amendments do exactly that, and I commend them to the committee.
The government themselves cited the case of grooming gang leader Shabbir Ahmed on the second reading. If they accept the principle there, they should accept it here. Last year on the border security bill, a new clause to stop the Human Rights Act being used to frustrate deportations. The government voted it down 14 votes to two. Today, we're asking for far less simply, they do not make the current law weaker. The government say they want deportation to be the rule. Our amendments make it the rule. An immigration system that rests on public consent. Every time a serious offender stares because the law gave them one more argument that consent wears thinner, lose it, and the system loses legitimacy.
Every member of this committee has constituents who've lost faith that the system is on their side. They're not asking for a finely balanced weighing exercise. They're asking for their safety, the safety of their children to come first. These amendments do exactly that, and I commend them to the committee.
11:15
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Minister, thank you very much, Doctor Myerson, and I'd like to thank honourable members. I think we've had a really very full discussion on these amendments, and I've got quite a lot to respond to, so I hope colleagues will bear with me while I try and pick up on all the points that have been raised and make as much progress as I possibly can on this. And I think this group in particular clause 20, is one that I think all of us in this room will share a real commitment to. It's a huge priority. It's one that really serves to undermine the issue of kind of deportation of foreign national offenders and the exemptions through which which they have sought to remain in this country are one which is the honourable gentleman opposite has has.
11:15
11:15
11:15
11:15
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Fear and anxiety in this country, and outrage, actually. So this is such an important clause and an important part of this bill and what we're trying to do, and I think I want to just sort of put on the record as well, the commitment of this government to this issue, not to make a political point, but we've deported over. 60,000 foreign national offenders since we came to power at the election in.
11:16
11:16
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
The highest in a decade and 41% higher than the previous two year period. And I say that not to make political points because this is a committee, but to underline our determination, our commitment to this. Should there be any doubt from some of the concerns from the honourable members opposite about our absolute. determination on this issue? It's extremely important to us moving to the purpose of the clause. Clause 20 reforms the application of article eight in deportation cases. restoring a proper balance between individual rights and the public interest. The current framework contains different sentence based tests, which act as exemptions to.
11:16
11:16
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Where a person can meet the private and family life. expectations or the higher tests, which applies to the for the most serious offenders, they will currently not be deported. This means that in some cases, deportation can be avoided by meeting the family or private life. exemptions without the court conducting a full. consideration of all. factors weighing in favour of the public interest in deportation. Our clause 20 addresses this by requiring the courts to conduct a full.
11:17
11:17
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Before it can find that deportation would be disproportionate. The public interest will therefore be considered in every deportation case before an article eight breach can be found, rather than only in some categories of case, which is the case at the moment. Judges will only be able to block. deportation in certain exceptional circumstances. The clause retains important existing.
11:17
11:17
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Including unduly harsh, which is, and I appreciate some of the concerns that have been raised that I'll come on to by members opposite. But this is well understood by the courts and supported by extensive case law under the new framework. Showing that deportation would have an unduly harsh effect is.
11:17
11:17
11:18
11:18
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
And that is a fundamental change. Now, the court must go on to consider whether the interference with private or family life can be. justified when weighed against the public interest in deportation. The new framework establishes a clear statutory framework for assessing whether deportation will be.
11:18
11:18
11:18
11:18
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
The economic impact of allowing them to remain in the UK, and the wider public interest in public safety and the prevention of disorder and crime. The effect of these reforms is to establish a clearer and more consistent. framework in which deportation may only be avoided in truly. exceptional cases, and I clarify that emphasis in the committee here. For the record. hereafter a person will still receive an individual assessment of their.
11:18
11:18
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
But the court will be required. And again, I emphasize the word required to give proper weight to Parliament's view that deportation is strongly in the public interest. And I just before I move on to talk through some of the moments, I just want to refer to some of the points that have been raised. I was asked whether this is weakening provision for more serious offenders. No, we are not. They must still meet the same test as other offenders and then face a proportionality test. This clause provides that the more serious the offence, the greater the public interest in deportation.
And again, I'll say a bit more on this when I come to the specific amendments from the honourable members opposite, why I was asked why sentence thresholds are removed. We don't need sentence thresholds. If we're going to treat all deportation cases the same. The courts can still , and indeed must take. account of sentences and of seriousness of offending. In considering.
And again, I'll say a bit more on this when I come to the specific amendments from the honourable members opposite, why I was asked why sentence thresholds are removed. We don't need sentence thresholds. If we're going to treat all deportation cases the same. The courts can still , and indeed must take. account of sentences and of seriousness of offending. In considering.
11:19
11:19
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
This is required on the face of the law by subsection two of the new section. 117 C the honourable gentleman asked why not cover family. deportation under section. 35BI think it is of the Immigration Act 1971. The key point on this is the exclusion of section three. Five B is deliberate. Clause 20 is concerned with how article eight is to be interpreted in cases involving the deportation of a foreign national, whose own conduct has made them liable to .
11:20
11:20
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
A family member liable to. deportation under this section of the Immigration Act. 1971 is not being deported because of their own. criminality or conduct, even if that power were used is appropriate that any article eight claim made by that family should continue to be assessed under the. framework set out in section 117 B, rather than deportation framework. The honourable gentleman for Stockton West raised a number of points as well. Just on his point about the House of Commons library briefing, I wanted to just clarify that.
11:20
11:20
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Those with over four years would need to establish that they meet very compelling. circumstances over and above them. Now they must establish they meet an exemption and that their deportation cannot be justified. We would expect such cases to fail. The proportionality assessment, even if they meet the.
11:21
11:21
11:21
11:21
11:21
11:21
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Unless it is not justified. It's it's enhanced by section 17 C two by making clear the more serious the offender, the stronger public. interest on the exemption point. The honourable member for Isle of Wight East raised his right exemption. One does mean whole life, not just adult life. This is the same as is current under existing law and his points on social and cultural cultural integration. The onus is on the applicant to establish this again. It's already covered in existing. legislation and caseworkers are. experienced in how to do this. So courts and caseworkers have said are familiar with this understanding.
I also just wanted to. Make some more points on the harsh test. Again, it's in existing legislation. The Supreme Court has already interpreted this. extremely and narrowly. And on the issue of court latitude, that the honourable gentleman from the Isle of Wight East raised the new section 117 C makes clear that deportation is in the public interest and that the more serious the offending. As I've already said, the stronger the public interest will be. It's important that courts have a clear steer, and the process of this bill will establish this on Parliament's view of public interest.
To resist.
I also just wanted to. Make some more points on the harsh test. Again, it's in existing legislation. The Supreme Court has already interpreted this. extremely and narrowly. And on the issue of court latitude, that the honourable gentleman from the Isle of Wight East raised the new section 117 C makes clear that deportation is in the public interest and that the more serious the offending. As I've already said, the stronger the public interest will be. It's important that courts have a clear steer, and the process of this bill will establish this on Parliament's view of public interest.
To resist.
11:22
11:22
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Someone must meet both the. exceptions and that deportation cannot be justified in the light of public interest. Deportation can therefore only be resisted in clearly defined and limited circumstances. I'm going to just move now specifically to the amendments themselves, which I hope will give a bit more clarity. Amendments one seven, 109 and. 111 seek to impose a higher threshold for. deportation for foreign criminals who receive a custodial sentence of four years or more, or who otherwise commit certain more serious offences. The proposed amendments require that such persons must demonstrate something more than meeting the private or family life.
11:23
11:23
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Test there should be no suggestion that we are seeking to lower the threshold for foreign criminals, who are given sentences of more than four years. That is misplaced. Clause 20 amends the deportation framework by introducing a full proportionality. exercise before an article eight breach can be found. This will ensure that the courts are required to consider and take account of the overall public interest in deportation. All foreign nationals subject to deportation will now have to meet a two stage test to succeed in that article eight claim the first stage of the test requires the person to.
satisfy one of three.
satisfy one of three.
11:23
11:24
11:24
11:24
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
That it cannot be justified. The second stage of the test requires a full proportionality exercise, weighing all of the factors in favour of deportation. Specifically, clause 20 states that the greater the severity of offending, as I've said, the greater the public interest in deportation. That is clear. This will make it less likely that the interference with article eight rights will outweigh the public interest in deportation. We expect the courts to give significant weight to the public interest in deporting persons with long custodial. sentences and those who have committed serious offences. I would also like to clarify for the record that exceptional.
circumstances are not exceptions to deportation. Now, when someone demonstrates an interference with their family or private life, they will no longer. automatically avoid deportation.
circumstances are not exceptions to deportation. Now, when someone demonstrates an interference with their family or private life, they will no longer. automatically avoid deportation.
11:25
14:02
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
With a very compelling circumstances test as it applies under the current framework. Rather very compelling fail without the court proceeding to a proportionality assessment. This is not a watering down. The circumstances under the new framework operates as a gateway to full consideration of whether the public interest in deportation is outweighed in the individual case. Amendment 110 would bring those being deported as the family member of a foreign national offender into scope of clause 20. Although the Immigration Act 1971 makes provision for the deportation of family members as a matter of policy, that is not a course that governments have pursued in practice.
Instead, where a family member's permission to stay in the UK depends on the status of the person being deported, the usual approach is to consider their removal under administrative removal powers, where a family member raises an article eight claim. This will be considered under section 117 B of the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The exclusion of 35 B subsection of section three sorry, the exclusion clause three, subsection five B of the 1971 act from clause 20 is deliberate. Clause 20 is concerned with how article eight is to be interpreted in cases involving the deportation of foreign nationals, whose own conduct has made them liable to deportation.
A family member liable to deportation under section 35 of the Immigration Act 71 is not being deported because of their own criminality or conduct. Even if that power were used, it is appropriate that any article eight claim made by that family member should continue to be assessed under the framework set out in section 117 B, rather than the deportation framework. Together, these amendments are unnecessary. Clause 20 already ensures that no foreign criminal will avoid deportation simply by establishing an impact on their private or family life. Instead, every case will require a full assessment of whether any interference with article eight rights is outweighed by the public interest in deportation, with particular weight given to the seriousness of offending.
The clause therefore strengthens the deportation framework whilst preserving individual assessment in genuinely exceptional cases. And I'd just like to come, if I may, at this point, before I move on to some of the questions the honourable lady raised, I didn't get a chance to respond to this morning. She mentioned sort of. Discrimination and concerns about vulnerability in terms of the debate that we had on financial independence and public service pressures. I want to be really clear that the intention is not to penalise people for hardship. The reforms preserve protections for vulnerable people and children, while making clear that immigration control and the wider public interest should be given proper weight.
This is about restoring balance, not removing safeguards. And I also want to respond to the points you made about children and their best interests. Again, we are really clear that these reforms do not remove protections for children. The best interests of children will continue to remain a primary consideration in immigration decision making. The reforms, as set out in clause 19, ensure that children's interests are considered among other important factors, including compliance with immigration law and the wider public interest in maintaining an effective immigration system. These reforms ensure that all relevant factors are properly weighed and that immigration decisions are fair, proportionate and consistent.
Where a decision to remove a child's parent is taken, it is ultimately for the parents to decide whether to relocate together as a family or to live separately. In every case, the government will continue to fully consider the best interests of any child involved. She also discussed the word precarious , and whether clause 19 would mean that little weight is given to family life, where a person has anything short of settled status. Just want to be clear these reforms do not penalize people for following our immigration rules. They place greater emphasis on the public interest in fair and controlled immigration systems, with greater weight given to compliance within the rules and in the public .
With the public interest test. Article eight rights developed while someone is in the UK without settled status, are given less weight in recognition that the ability to maintain family or private life in a country where an individual does not have permanent status is naturally precarious. It was also asked what constitutes a serious breach. Excuse me? We expect everyone to comply with the conditions of their permission to stay, but I want to be clear again, not every breach is equal, and it would not be right to treat a minor or technical breach in the same way as deliberate or repeated non-compliance, or as equating to illegally entering or staying in the UK.
Whether a breach is serious will depend on its circumstances, the nature of the breach, why it occurred, its frequency and duration, and whether the individual disclosed it and engaged with the Home Office is all taken into consideration. Should someone who knowingly and repeatedly fails to comply with reporting requirements be treated the same as someone who misses a single appointment for a genuine reason and informs the Home Office? I think we know the answer to that. This distinction allows us to take a firm but proportionate approach, including when multiple breaches taken together amount to serious non-compliance and on the impermissible limit, and where the circumstances of offending are taken into account.
No, the new clause, section 117 C, expressly allows for the nature and circumstances of offending to be taken into account, so I'm grateful for the committee for allowing me to just clarify some of those points in the earlier discussion. Moving on now to amendment New clause 45. The government is clear that foreign nationals who commit serious crimes should be deported. The automatic deportation provisions already provide a firm statutory framework for foreign criminals who meet the relevant thresholds requiring their deportation must be made wherever the law permits. Outside of the automatic deportation regime, there are legal powers to consider the deportation of any non-British citizen whose deportation is conducive to the public good.
This new clause 45 is not a proportionate or workable way to strengthen that framework. It would make any conviction, however minor, sufficient to trigger automatic deportation. For example, if a foreign national had resided lawfully in the country for over 40 years and they received a conviction for a minor offence for which they received an absolute discharge, the Home Secretary would be under a duty to deport them unless an exemption applied. Such deportations would likely be unworkable in practice because they would be allowed on article eight grounds on appeal. More fundamentally, it would bring a person within the definition of foreign criminal merely because they had been charged with an immigration offence before a court had determined guilt.
That would be fundamentally, fundamentally contrary to our legal system, whereby an individual is innocent until proven guilty. It would represent a substantial expansion of the auto deport regime. The clause would also remove statutory exemptions and delete the word knowingly throughout section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. Those changes could have consequences well beyond the stated aim of the amendment, including for criminal liability, fairness and the UK's international obligations. Decisions to deport must be robust, lawful and capable of withstanding challenge, a measure that is drafted too broadly risks delay additional litigation and outcomes that cannot lawfully be implemented.
For these reasons, I'd ask the honourable member to withdraw the new clause. Turning to new clause 66. Forced marriage is an appalling crime, and I think everybody in the in the chamber today would agree with that. The government is clear that those who commit this offence must face the full force of the criminal law and where they are, foreign nationals, deportation. I want to be absolutely explicit here in in this committee, however, we do not consider that this new clause is the right way to achieve that aim. Under the UK Borders Act 2007, the Secretary of State is already required to make a deportation order where a qualifying foreign criminal receives a sentence of at least 12 months, subject to the statutory exceptions where that threshold is not met.
The existing power to deport where that is conducive to the public good, which I think this crime would give clear evidence of, remains available. The amendment would make a conviction for one specified offence subject to trigger automatic deportation, regardless of the sentence imposed. It could therefore apply even when the sentencing court considers that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate. That would cut across the existing structure, which uses the sentence and other statutory criteria as indicators of seriousness. Now, while I share the intention behind this clause and I understand the purpose of it, it is not feasible to specify all the crimes on the face of the bill that we would like to see carry this result.
We use sentences to indicate seriousness, and we be in danger of either missing out or diminishing other horrendous offences if we do not put them on the face of the bill, too. And I am sure that would not be the honourable gentleman's intention. The clause is also confined to the England and Wales offence. It does not address equivalent offending across the whole of the UK. Automatic deportation would in any event, remain subject to the exceptions in section 33, including our international obligations. So for for those reasons, while sharing the objective and sharing the abhorrence of forced marriage, I would ask the committee to reject the new clause.
Turning to new clause 67, and before looking at the detail of the content of the statement, I would like to draw attention to the fact that , despite what is asserted in the explanatory statement, this amendment would not achieve the members aims as it amends the test for disapplying the prohibition against returning someone to danger in respect of a refugee, rather than the threshold for deportation. New clause 67 sets out that the convictions for offences under the National Security Act 2023 should be presumed to be particularly serious crimes under section 72 of the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
Article 33 of the Refugee Convention already allows refugees to be returned to their country, where they have committed a particularly serious crime and, as a result, constitute a danger to the community. There is no definition of a particularly serious crime in the convention, and no direct universal uniformity in the interpretation adopted by other States parties. It is open to the UK to interpret the term in good faith, which requires consideration of the ordinary meaning of the words, and I think it is clear that national security offences are clearly a particularly serious crime. Article 332 of the convention also allows refugees to be refiled, where they are a danger to the security of the UK.
This may include individuals who engage in unacceptable behaviours in the UK or abroad, or who undertake or espouse extremist views, as well as those who foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence to particular to further particular beliefs, or provoke others to commit terrorist acts. There is no requirement within the convention that this requires a criminal conviction. It is therefore considered that the amendment would actually have very little impact in practice, if anything, except the threshold too high. It is already Home Office policy in cases involving national security threats, or where there is a conviction for a particularly serious crime and the individual is considered to pose a threat to the community, to refuse refugee status and to seek to remove the individual from the UK.
It is imperative that any asylum seekers and refugees who have been convicted of particularly serious crimes, or who do constitute a danger to the society of the UK, do not benefit from protection status. Not only have they failed to respect the laws of the United Kingdom by committing heinous acts, but they have also undermined public confidence in the ability of the state to protect the public. So, for the reasons outlined, Mrs. Barker, I. I respectfully request that members withdraw their amendments.
I beg to move that clause 20 stand part of the bill.
Instead, where a family member's permission to stay in the UK depends on the status of the person being deported, the usual approach is to consider their removal under administrative removal powers, where a family member raises an article eight claim. This will be considered under section 117 B of the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. The exclusion of 35 B subsection of section three sorry, the exclusion clause three, subsection five B of the 1971 act from clause 20 is deliberate. Clause 20 is concerned with how article eight is to be interpreted in cases involving the deportation of foreign nationals, whose own conduct has made them liable to deportation.
A family member liable to deportation under section 35 of the Immigration Act 71 is not being deported because of their own criminality or conduct. Even if that power were used, it is appropriate that any article eight claim made by that family member should continue to be assessed under the framework set out in section 117 B, rather than the deportation framework. Together, these amendments are unnecessary. Clause 20 already ensures that no foreign criminal will avoid deportation simply by establishing an impact on their private or family life. Instead, every case will require a full assessment of whether any interference with article eight rights is outweighed by the public interest in deportation, with particular weight given to the seriousness of offending.
The clause therefore strengthens the deportation framework whilst preserving individual assessment in genuinely exceptional cases. And I'd just like to come, if I may, at this point, before I move on to some of the questions the honourable lady raised, I didn't get a chance to respond to this morning. She mentioned sort of. Discrimination and concerns about vulnerability in terms of the debate that we had on financial independence and public service pressures. I want to be really clear that the intention is not to penalise people for hardship. The reforms preserve protections for vulnerable people and children, while making clear that immigration control and the wider public interest should be given proper weight.
This is about restoring balance, not removing safeguards. And I also want to respond to the points you made about children and their best interests. Again, we are really clear that these reforms do not remove protections for children. The best interests of children will continue to remain a primary consideration in immigration decision making. The reforms, as set out in clause 19, ensure that children's interests are considered among other important factors, including compliance with immigration law and the wider public interest in maintaining an effective immigration system. These reforms ensure that all relevant factors are properly weighed and that immigration decisions are fair, proportionate and consistent.
Where a decision to remove a child's parent is taken, it is ultimately for the parents to decide whether to relocate together as a family or to live separately. In every case, the government will continue to fully consider the best interests of any child involved. She also discussed the word precarious , and whether clause 19 would mean that little weight is given to family life, where a person has anything short of settled status. Just want to be clear these reforms do not penalize people for following our immigration rules. They place greater emphasis on the public interest in fair and controlled immigration systems, with greater weight given to compliance within the rules and in the public .
With the public interest test. Article eight rights developed while someone is in the UK without settled status, are given less weight in recognition that the ability to maintain family or private life in a country where an individual does not have permanent status is naturally precarious. It was also asked what constitutes a serious breach. Excuse me? We expect everyone to comply with the conditions of their permission to stay, but I want to be clear again, not every breach is equal, and it would not be right to treat a minor or technical breach in the same way as deliberate or repeated non-compliance, or as equating to illegally entering or staying in the UK.
Whether a breach is serious will depend on its circumstances, the nature of the breach, why it occurred, its frequency and duration, and whether the individual disclosed it and engaged with the Home Office is all taken into consideration. Should someone who knowingly and repeatedly fails to comply with reporting requirements be treated the same as someone who misses a single appointment for a genuine reason and informs the Home Office? I think we know the answer to that. This distinction allows us to take a firm but proportionate approach, including when multiple breaches taken together amount to serious non-compliance and on the impermissible limit, and where the circumstances of offending are taken into account.
No, the new clause, section 117 C, expressly allows for the nature and circumstances of offending to be taken into account, so I'm grateful for the committee for allowing me to just clarify some of those points in the earlier discussion. Moving on now to amendment New clause 45. The government is clear that foreign nationals who commit serious crimes should be deported. The automatic deportation provisions already provide a firm statutory framework for foreign criminals who meet the relevant thresholds requiring their deportation must be made wherever the law permits. Outside of the automatic deportation regime, there are legal powers to consider the deportation of any non-British citizen whose deportation is conducive to the public good.
This new clause 45 is not a proportionate or workable way to strengthen that framework. It would make any conviction, however minor, sufficient to trigger automatic deportation. For example, if a foreign national had resided lawfully in the country for over 40 years and they received a conviction for a minor offence for which they received an absolute discharge, the Home Secretary would be under a duty to deport them unless an exemption applied. Such deportations would likely be unworkable in practice because they would be allowed on article eight grounds on appeal. More fundamentally, it would bring a person within the definition of foreign criminal merely because they had been charged with an immigration offence before a court had determined guilt.
That would be fundamentally, fundamentally contrary to our legal system, whereby an individual is innocent until proven guilty. It would represent a substantial expansion of the auto deport regime. The clause would also remove statutory exemptions and delete the word knowingly throughout section 24 of the Immigration Act 1971. Those changes could have consequences well beyond the stated aim of the amendment, including for criminal liability, fairness and the UK's international obligations. Decisions to deport must be robust, lawful and capable of withstanding challenge, a measure that is drafted too broadly risks delay additional litigation and outcomes that cannot lawfully be implemented.
For these reasons, I'd ask the honourable member to withdraw the new clause. Turning to new clause 66. Forced marriage is an appalling crime, and I think everybody in the in the chamber today would agree with that. The government is clear that those who commit this offence must face the full force of the criminal law and where they are, foreign nationals, deportation. I want to be absolutely explicit here in in this committee, however, we do not consider that this new clause is the right way to achieve that aim. Under the UK Borders Act 2007, the Secretary of State is already required to make a deportation order where a qualifying foreign criminal receives a sentence of at least 12 months, subject to the statutory exceptions where that threshold is not met.
The existing power to deport where that is conducive to the public good, which I think this crime would give clear evidence of, remains available. The amendment would make a conviction for one specified offence subject to trigger automatic deportation, regardless of the sentence imposed. It could therefore apply even when the sentencing court considers that a non-custodial sentence was appropriate. That would cut across the existing structure, which uses the sentence and other statutory criteria as indicators of seriousness. Now, while I share the intention behind this clause and I understand the purpose of it, it is not feasible to specify all the crimes on the face of the bill that we would like to see carry this result.
We use sentences to indicate seriousness, and we be in danger of either missing out or diminishing other horrendous offences if we do not put them on the face of the bill, too. And I am sure that would not be the honourable gentleman's intention. The clause is also confined to the England and Wales offence. It does not address equivalent offending across the whole of the UK. Automatic deportation would in any event, remain subject to the exceptions in section 33, including our international obligations. So for for those reasons, while sharing the objective and sharing the abhorrence of forced marriage, I would ask the committee to reject the new clause.
Turning to new clause 67, and before looking at the detail of the content of the statement, I would like to draw attention to the fact that , despite what is asserted in the explanatory statement, this amendment would not achieve the members aims as it amends the test for disapplying the prohibition against returning someone to danger in respect of a refugee, rather than the threshold for deportation. New clause 67 sets out that the convictions for offences under the National Security Act 2023 should be presumed to be particularly serious crimes under section 72 of the nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
Article 33 of the Refugee Convention already allows refugees to be returned to their country, where they have committed a particularly serious crime and, as a result, constitute a danger to the community. There is no definition of a particularly serious crime in the convention, and no direct universal uniformity in the interpretation adopted by other States parties. It is open to the UK to interpret the term in good faith, which requires consideration of the ordinary meaning of the words, and I think it is clear that national security offences are clearly a particularly serious crime. Article 332 of the convention also allows refugees to be refiled, where they are a danger to the security of the UK.
This may include individuals who engage in unacceptable behaviours in the UK or abroad, or who undertake or espouse extremist views, as well as those who foment, justify or glorify terrorist violence to particular to further particular beliefs, or provoke others to commit terrorist acts. There is no requirement within the convention that this requires a criminal conviction. It is therefore considered that the amendment would actually have very little impact in practice, if anything, except the threshold too high. It is already Home Office policy in cases involving national security threats, or where there is a conviction for a particularly serious crime and the individual is considered to pose a threat to the community, to refuse refugee status and to seek to remove the individual from the UK.
It is imperative that any asylum seekers and refugees who have been convicted of particularly serious crimes, or who do constitute a danger to the society of the UK, do not benefit from protection status. Not only have they failed to respect the laws of the United Kingdom by committing heinous acts, but they have also undermined public confidence in the ability of the state to protect the public. So, for the reasons outlined, Mrs. Barker, I. I respectfully request that members withdraw their amendments.
I beg to move that clause 20 stand part of the bill.
14:13
14:13
14:14
14:14
14:14
14:14
14:14
14:14
14:14
14:15
14:15
14:15
14:15
14:15
14:15
14:16
Leigh Ingham
-
-
Leigh Ingham
The eyes were three and the nos were 11. So the nos have it the nos have it unlock. We now come to the question that clause 20 stand part of the bill which has already been debated. The question is that clause 20 stand part of the bill. As many of that opinion say, I. I of the contrary. No, I think the ayes have it. The ayes have it. We now come to Group 18 and amendment 75 to clause 21, with which it will be convenient to consider amendments 5152, one three, seven, 53, 54, 74138. Clause 21 stand part government new clauses 35 and 36 and government new schedule one.
I call Sian Berry to move amendment 75. Many thanks, Mr..
I call Sian Berry to move amendment 75. Many thanks, Mr..
14:17
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Barker, and good to have you with us this afternoon. I am here to propose amendment 75, which was made to the original clause 21, and the government published amendments on the 13th of October, which removed clause 21 and added new clauses NC 35 and NC 36. A new schedule and some additional amendments linked to the court. New protection status. However, the issues raised in my amendments 75 and 74, which is also in this group as well as I think the amendments 51, 52, 53 and 54 from the honourable member for Harrogate and Knaresborough continue to be relevant to this debate.
These amendments, for me, are focused on the broad nature of the powers in relation to conferring rights and obligations or requirements on someone with or claiming protection status. This was set out in clause 21, part three C, and is retained in the government's new clause 36 at three C as well, and so my concerns are set out previously. Remain absolutely relevant and I think it I obviously won't be taking them to a vote I think, chair, but I think the government does need to consider these issues very seriously and respond on these points. In addition to the extra, I would add some extra comment on new clause 35 because this now removes the sunset clause 216, which limited the time period for regulations.
Pardon me to be made under this section to one year after the bill comes into force. A new regulations can therefore be made indefinitely under this section, and I would like the government to justify why they've made this change with the new amendment. So moving on to my amendment 75, which is to the original bill, which was asking that regulations made must have best regard to the best interests of a child. Now, no child rights impact assessment has been produced on any aspect of this core protection model. Despite the shortening of refugee leave to 30 months already applying to children in families seeking asylum for over six months, this amendment would make sure the government looks properly before making regulations and looks properly at the impact of core protection, including these short periods of leaves and the long routes to settlement in this new, I think, downgraded protection status.
I'm particularly worried about this in relation to the ability to settle, to make family life and all those kinds of rights that children have. I think when the government does this, it needs to pay particular attention to the Home Office's legal duties under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, applied to Children and Young People protection, and the 20 year route will, I think, undermine children's well established need for stability, particularly refugee children, as they recover and rebuild their lives, following probably life changing trauma and distress. In addition, repeated immigration status reviews and uncertainty around long term residence I think will absolutely drive avoidable school and college moves as families are forced to relocate at short notice or potentially lose housing as a result of insecure employment status and other impacts of of this shorter period of leave and the uncertainty that results.
And obviously for children, each move disrupts attendance. It disrupts their ability to get pastoral support, potentially special educational needs. It can set back attainment, it can harm social integration, particularly at the stage when continuity is most protective for children and young people. I think that temporary leave cycles and renewal windows are inevitably going to risk coinciding with exams, GCSEs, Highers, A-levels, vocational assessments anxiety about imminent status decisions could undermine revision. Therefore exam performance and in some cases, young people facing disruptions will miss exams completely. I think this has to be looked at very, very hard.
I also want to urge the government to think about children who are getting ready for higher education, potentially just about to become adults and looking to study in this country. Unstable status also makes it harder for young people to secure home fees and student financing. I think that short grants of leave could push refugees into the overseas fee category for a long time. It could leave them ineligible for maintenance support and for children growing up in this country. I think their rights would be impacted because they'd have university access and progression closed off to them.
They might be forced to defer going to university. This might stall their integration into the community. It could harm their earnings potential. I do not think that any of these impacts are in the public interest, and I want government to at least commit today to conducting a child rights impact assessment, looking at all these things on part three of the bill before third reading, and certainly before any regulations in this part are made moving. Also my amendment 74. This would ensure that there was no regression of rights and entitlements, and this is needed because the broad regulation making powers contained in clause 21 have very few limitations on scope.
Currently, the Delegated Powers Memorandum says the powers won't be used to reduce the entitlements of refugees, and this amendment would seek to reflect that by requiring that they don't reduce rights and entitlements below what was in place on the day the bill was introduced. This is just merely reflecting what the government has said its intentions are. At part 48 of the Delegated Powers Memorandum, the government states it will not be used to reduce the entitlements currently held by refugees or persons with humanitarian protection. This amendment is therefore seeking to reflect this commitment on the face of the Bill that people have already been granted protection status before the Bill is introduced, retain the rights, entitlements and protections that currently exist.
This would therefore include family reunion with no additional eligibility criteria and a five way pathway to settlement if interpreted correctly according to what the government is said. And I think this clarity is very much needed for refugees who are currently in the UK and need to have certainty on their situation so that they can focus on developing their life in the UK, integrating and earning and all those things that will help their family life and their children. Finally, I have a question on new clause 35 and one particular part of it. I want to welcome the detail that's given in the schedule and schedule one, and I appreciate having it at this stage so we can scrutinise the bill.
However, new clause 35 in part seven gives the Secretary of State the power to revoke a person's protection status, and that is literally all it says. So while there is a whole section of the immigration rules that covers the situations where a person's refugee status and humanitarian protection can be revoked, on the face of this bill, the government is creating very broad ability to revoke this status, which is currently unconstrained. So why is the government not listing suitable uses of this power on the face of the bill? I think this is particularly relevant because in the last few weeks, other parties not represented on this committee have announced their desire to revoke the right to asylum and to revoke refugee status.
For some who were in the UK who've already found protection here, the government rightly stood up for the right to asylum against these proposals, and it would be very, very good to have this on the face of the Bill. So we've got better protections in the face of the risk of this power being taken over by another party or another Home Secretary and future who would abuse it. I would very much like the government to clarify on that. And finally, it would be very useful to hear how the minister believes the change in the new clause in clause 35 will simplify decision making processes, since we have heard in oral evidence that the convention grounds can't be done away with, and so merging these with what had previously been known as the humanitarian protection grounds is potentially complex and confusing for people.
So will the government clarify today how people will be told on what grounds they have been granted protection, in order to make sure that this bill is is very clear. Thank you.
These amendments, for me, are focused on the broad nature of the powers in relation to conferring rights and obligations or requirements on someone with or claiming protection status. This was set out in clause 21, part three C, and is retained in the government's new clause 36 at three C as well, and so my concerns are set out previously. Remain absolutely relevant and I think it I obviously won't be taking them to a vote I think, chair, but I think the government does need to consider these issues very seriously and respond on these points. In addition to the extra, I would add some extra comment on new clause 35 because this now removes the sunset clause 216, which limited the time period for regulations.
Pardon me to be made under this section to one year after the bill comes into force. A new regulations can therefore be made indefinitely under this section, and I would like the government to justify why they've made this change with the new amendment. So moving on to my amendment 75, which is to the original bill, which was asking that regulations made must have best regard to the best interests of a child. Now, no child rights impact assessment has been produced on any aspect of this core protection model. Despite the shortening of refugee leave to 30 months already applying to children in families seeking asylum for over six months, this amendment would make sure the government looks properly before making regulations and looks properly at the impact of core protection, including these short periods of leaves and the long routes to settlement in this new, I think, downgraded protection status.
I'm particularly worried about this in relation to the ability to settle, to make family life and all those kinds of rights that children have. I think when the government does this, it needs to pay particular attention to the Home Office's legal duties under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, applied to Children and Young People protection, and the 20 year route will, I think, undermine children's well established need for stability, particularly refugee children, as they recover and rebuild their lives, following probably life changing trauma and distress. In addition, repeated immigration status reviews and uncertainty around long term residence I think will absolutely drive avoidable school and college moves as families are forced to relocate at short notice or potentially lose housing as a result of insecure employment status and other impacts of of this shorter period of leave and the uncertainty that results.
And obviously for children, each move disrupts attendance. It disrupts their ability to get pastoral support, potentially special educational needs. It can set back attainment, it can harm social integration, particularly at the stage when continuity is most protective for children and young people. I think that temporary leave cycles and renewal windows are inevitably going to risk coinciding with exams, GCSEs, Highers, A-levels, vocational assessments anxiety about imminent status decisions could undermine revision. Therefore exam performance and in some cases, young people facing disruptions will miss exams completely. I think this has to be looked at very, very hard.
I also want to urge the government to think about children who are getting ready for higher education, potentially just about to become adults and looking to study in this country. Unstable status also makes it harder for young people to secure home fees and student financing. I think that short grants of leave could push refugees into the overseas fee category for a long time. It could leave them ineligible for maintenance support and for children growing up in this country. I think their rights would be impacted because they'd have university access and progression closed off to them.
They might be forced to defer going to university. This might stall their integration into the community. It could harm their earnings potential. I do not think that any of these impacts are in the public interest, and I want government to at least commit today to conducting a child rights impact assessment, looking at all these things on part three of the bill before third reading, and certainly before any regulations in this part are made moving. Also my amendment 74. This would ensure that there was no regression of rights and entitlements, and this is needed because the broad regulation making powers contained in clause 21 have very few limitations on scope.
Currently, the Delegated Powers Memorandum says the powers won't be used to reduce the entitlements of refugees, and this amendment would seek to reflect that by requiring that they don't reduce rights and entitlements below what was in place on the day the bill was introduced. This is just merely reflecting what the government has said its intentions are. At part 48 of the Delegated Powers Memorandum, the government states it will not be used to reduce the entitlements currently held by refugees or persons with humanitarian protection. This amendment is therefore seeking to reflect this commitment on the face of the Bill that people have already been granted protection status before the Bill is introduced, retain the rights, entitlements and protections that currently exist.
This would therefore include family reunion with no additional eligibility criteria and a five way pathway to settlement if interpreted correctly according to what the government is said. And I think this clarity is very much needed for refugees who are currently in the UK and need to have certainty on their situation so that they can focus on developing their life in the UK, integrating and earning and all those things that will help their family life and their children. Finally, I have a question on new clause 35 and one particular part of it. I want to welcome the detail that's given in the schedule and schedule one, and I appreciate having it at this stage so we can scrutinise the bill.
However, new clause 35 in part seven gives the Secretary of State the power to revoke a person's protection status, and that is literally all it says. So while there is a whole section of the immigration rules that covers the situations where a person's refugee status and humanitarian protection can be revoked, on the face of this bill, the government is creating very broad ability to revoke this status, which is currently unconstrained. So why is the government not listing suitable uses of this power on the face of the bill? I think this is particularly relevant because in the last few weeks, other parties not represented on this committee have announced their desire to revoke the right to asylum and to revoke refugee status.
For some who were in the UK who've already found protection here, the government rightly stood up for the right to asylum against these proposals, and it would be very, very good to have this on the face of the Bill. So we've got better protections in the face of the risk of this power being taken over by another party or another Home Secretary and future who would abuse it. I would very much like the government to clarify on that. And finally, it would be very useful to hear how the minister believes the change in the new clause in clause 35 will simplify decision making processes, since we have heard in oral evidence that the convention grounds can't be done away with, and so merging these with what had previously been known as the humanitarian protection grounds is potentially complex and confusing for people.
So will the government clarify today how people will be told on what grounds they have been granted protection, in order to make sure that this bill is is very clear. Thank you.
14:27
14:27
14:27
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
I want to speak to my amendments 51, 52, 53 and 54 on the amendment paper. I've got a number of questions that hopefully the minister will be able to answer and give some more clarity and certainty on. On amendment 51, part three gives the Home Secretary a very broad power to make regulations introducing court protection. The Delegated Powers Memorandum says it's to bring the statute book in line with the new definition of protected status. But clause 213 C lets regulations confer rights and impose obligations on those claiming or holding protection. And 213 E lets them treat convention humanitarian grants differently.
And in my view, that goes well beyond updating definitions. I wonder if she might be able to explain that if these powers are to deliver entitlements in restoring order and control statements, which is obviously 31 protection, 20 year resettlement, no family reunion, the new work and study route, then Parliament should see them during the passage of this bill. Changing refugees entitlements matter for how they rebuild their lives and how they integrate, and the wider points around the economy and social cohesion. And that needs proper scrutiny, not a negative procedure. S I so ask the Minister in reference to amendments 51 and 52, if the regulations will change on entitlements and obligations.
But can she set out to the committee what those changes will be exactly? And if not, how will they be set out before the Bill leaves the Commons? And how will those changes meet the desired outcomes, and will there be further impact assessments to try and understand the implications of them? Turning to amendment 53 about the five year, five year leave and settlement that I've tabled since March 2026, refugees have been granted 2.5 years instead of five, and the Home Secretary insists a minimum 20 year route to settlement, up from five. Amendment 53, would restore an initial grant of at least five years and eligibility for settlement after five years, reviews every 30 months, and a settlement route that feels out of reach makes it harder to focus on learning English, training and work.
People invest in their future when they know that they have one here. The Refugee Council estimates up to 1.1 million reviews in the first decade, at a cost of up to £725 million, which would add additional pressure to the Home Office that cannot yet decide claims. Well, first time the government says that this is inspired by Denmark, but it is in some ways far more restrictive, with most of Europe actually granting around grants around five years, then settlement. Denmark allows settlement after eight years for restricted conditions. So on amendment 53, the questions I would have to the minister are what will happen if people on protection work and study end up with work stopping and starting?
Could people fall out of status if they lose their job? What consideration will be given to labour exploitation when status is tied to employment? Will vulnerable people who cannot access work or study be left on a 20 year route with no family reunion? And is there a wider point about a national integration strategy promised? In what protecting what matters? Will it provide the support that refugees need to reach these routes? And I would also be interested in any further clarity around what fees may be the eligibility criteria for permanent work and salary thresholds, and would a family move on to a route together ?
Coming to amendment 54 on family Reunion, refugee family reunion has been paused for over a year since September 2025. The Home Secretary suggested that when it returns, it will be only for those on the work or study route with fees and financial accommodation requirements. Refugee Council estimates that over 20,000 people have been prevented from applying. 9 in 10 family reunion visas go to women and children joining husbands or fathers. An amendment 54 keeps family reunion as an entitlement of protection for the existing definition of family, which would mean partner or children with no fee or income test, and it maintains the current position.
It does not expand it. When we look at work incentives, we know that many refugees want to work for. Barriers are practical and people are separated from family in danger, cannot focus on rebuilding their lives here. And I would go to the point of fairness to that. Refugees, by definition, lack a work history and ties to meet British income thresholds of £29,000. We know that median earnings for refugees here under ten years were £20,000 for men and 18,000 for women. Equal rules for unequal circumstances would not produce fair outcomes, and we know that there is no evidence that the detail of UK family rules drives destination choice.
So closing the safe route pushes women and children towards smugglers. I would also like to speak in support of the honourable member for Brighton Pavilion and her amendments. She made the case very eloquently and I shan't relitigate it. I would just turn as well to the government's replacement of clause 21, with new clause 35 and other other clauses and amendments. What really worries us is the lack of information on length of leave reviews, settlement statements and family reunion, which is why I still would very much press the minister on why my amendments 53 and 54 matter.
And when it comes to commencement as well, there's a cause for concern around the changes to. And just wrapping up with some final questions to the minister. You know, we've been a number of stakeholder organisations, such as British Red Cross Refugee Council. We've all made these points in their evidence, some in person, some written. And it would be really, really useful to get further information from the Minister on what will the actual 30 month renewal involve, and how much will it cost for Home Office? Exactly, and have the Home Office assessed the impact of 30 month leave for those who've claimed or not after the 2nd of March?
And will it do so regularly? And I'd like further assurances on exactly what the Home Office will be doing to make sure vulnerable refugees, including those who cannot work or study because of medical conditions or caring responsibilities, can still get extra rights and the certainty of protected work and study routes. Thank you.
And in my view, that goes well beyond updating definitions. I wonder if she might be able to explain that if these powers are to deliver entitlements in restoring order and control statements, which is obviously 31 protection, 20 year resettlement, no family reunion, the new work and study route, then Parliament should see them during the passage of this bill. Changing refugees entitlements matter for how they rebuild their lives and how they integrate, and the wider points around the economy and social cohesion. And that needs proper scrutiny, not a negative procedure. S I so ask the Minister in reference to amendments 51 and 52, if the regulations will change on entitlements and obligations.
But can she set out to the committee what those changes will be exactly? And if not, how will they be set out before the Bill leaves the Commons? And how will those changes meet the desired outcomes, and will there be further impact assessments to try and understand the implications of them? Turning to amendment 53 about the five year, five year leave and settlement that I've tabled since March 2026, refugees have been granted 2.5 years instead of five, and the Home Secretary insists a minimum 20 year route to settlement, up from five. Amendment 53, would restore an initial grant of at least five years and eligibility for settlement after five years, reviews every 30 months, and a settlement route that feels out of reach makes it harder to focus on learning English, training and work.
People invest in their future when they know that they have one here. The Refugee Council estimates up to 1.1 million reviews in the first decade, at a cost of up to £725 million, which would add additional pressure to the Home Office that cannot yet decide claims. Well, first time the government says that this is inspired by Denmark, but it is in some ways far more restrictive, with most of Europe actually granting around grants around five years, then settlement. Denmark allows settlement after eight years for restricted conditions. So on amendment 53, the questions I would have to the minister are what will happen if people on protection work and study end up with work stopping and starting?
Could people fall out of status if they lose their job? What consideration will be given to labour exploitation when status is tied to employment? Will vulnerable people who cannot access work or study be left on a 20 year route with no family reunion? And is there a wider point about a national integration strategy promised? In what protecting what matters? Will it provide the support that refugees need to reach these routes? And I would also be interested in any further clarity around what fees may be the eligibility criteria for permanent work and salary thresholds, and would a family move on to a route together ?
Coming to amendment 54 on family Reunion, refugee family reunion has been paused for over a year since September 2025. The Home Secretary suggested that when it returns, it will be only for those on the work or study route with fees and financial accommodation requirements. Refugee Council estimates that over 20,000 people have been prevented from applying. 9 in 10 family reunion visas go to women and children joining husbands or fathers. An amendment 54 keeps family reunion as an entitlement of protection for the existing definition of family, which would mean partner or children with no fee or income test, and it maintains the current position.
It does not expand it. When we look at work incentives, we know that many refugees want to work for. Barriers are practical and people are separated from family in danger, cannot focus on rebuilding their lives here. And I would go to the point of fairness to that. Refugees, by definition, lack a work history and ties to meet British income thresholds of £29,000. We know that median earnings for refugees here under ten years were £20,000 for men and 18,000 for women. Equal rules for unequal circumstances would not produce fair outcomes, and we know that there is no evidence that the detail of UK family rules drives destination choice.
So closing the safe route pushes women and children towards smugglers. I would also like to speak in support of the honourable member for Brighton Pavilion and her amendments. She made the case very eloquently and I shan't relitigate it. I would just turn as well to the government's replacement of clause 21, with new clause 35 and other other clauses and amendments. What really worries us is the lack of information on length of leave reviews, settlement statements and family reunion, which is why I still would very much press the minister on why my amendments 53 and 54 matter.
And when it comes to commencement as well, there's a cause for concern around the changes to. And just wrapping up with some final questions to the minister. You know, we've been a number of stakeholder organisations, such as British Red Cross Refugee Council. We've all made these points in their evidence, some in person, some written. And it would be really, really useful to get further information from the Minister on what will the actual 30 month renewal involve, and how much will it cost for Home Office? Exactly, and have the Home Office assessed the impact of 30 month leave for those who've claimed or not after the 2nd of March?
And will it do so regularly? And I'd like further assurances on exactly what the Home Office will be doing to make sure vulnerable refugees, including those who cannot work or study because of medical conditions or caring responsibilities, can still get extra rights and the certainty of protected work and study routes. Thank you.
14:33
14:33
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
It's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs. Barker. Let me set out the test. We will apply to this part of the bill. Protection should be there for people who genuinely need it when they need it. When that need ends, there should go home. That is what the public expect and it's what the government say they want. The question is whether this part of the bill delivers it first. Credit where it's due. The government now proposes to replace clause 21 with new clauses 35 and 36 and new schedule one. Instead of leaving the whole framework to regulations, ministers propose to put the definition into the Bill itself.
That is better. Amendment 132 has not been selected, so the question of retaining clause 21 comes through the stand part debate, but there is still scrutiny problem. New clause 36 keeps a power to change primary legislation with no time limit. The government amendment 134 makes those changes subject to affirmative approval, but other regulations would use the negative procedure. Why should powers to confer rights or impose obligations operate on that basis? What further change does the minister already have in mind? I support amendment 137, tabled by my honourable friend, before any further leave is granted, it would require consideration of whether removal would still breach our obligations on the convention or humanitarian protection grounds.
That means checking continuing need at every renewal, not just in selected cases. New clause 35 gives the Home Secretary a power to revoke protection status, but a power to revoke is not a duty to review. Will the Minister carry the principle of amendment 137 into the replacement framework? And when protection is no longer needed, how will departure follow? That is why we can't support amendment 53. In the name of the honourable member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, it would require an initial grant of at least five years ineligibility to apply for settlement after five years. But the passing of five years tells us nothing about whether protection is still needed.
That need should determine the approach, nor can we support amendment 54. It would allow partners, children and dependent adult children to apply to join someone with protection status without fees, a health surcharge, an income test or maintenance and accommodation requirements. Who pays when the sponsor cannot support or house the family? What assessment has been made of the numbers and the pressure on housing, schools and GP surgeries on amendment 75. How will children's interests be considered under the Replacement framework? Amendment 51 challenges the power to confer rights and impose obligations, while amendment 52 challenges different provision for convention and humanitarian claims, what difference does the Minister intend?
And on amendment 74, will the commitment not to reduce existing entitlements still apply? I also support my hon. Friend's amendment 138 before the first regulations are put to Parliament, it would require publication of draft regulations and a statement of the proposed immigration rules covering the length of leave, reviews of protection and the qualifying period for settlement. Those are the details that tell us how this will actually work. Although the amendment is drafted against clause 21, the need for those answers does not disappear when the government replace it. Will the minister publish the equivalent material for the new framework before asking Parliament to approve its implementation?
What happens to existing grants, pending claims and live appeals? Will anyone have to reapply because the label has changed, and what staff and resources will be needed to review protection properly without creating another backlog? We support protection for as long as it's needed. Amendments one, three, seven and 138 asked ministers to explain how they'll check that need and ensure parliament the rules. Putting definitions in the bill is welcome, but we still need to know how the system will work.
That is better. Amendment 132 has not been selected, so the question of retaining clause 21 comes through the stand part debate, but there is still scrutiny problem. New clause 36 keeps a power to change primary legislation with no time limit. The government amendment 134 makes those changes subject to affirmative approval, but other regulations would use the negative procedure. Why should powers to confer rights or impose obligations operate on that basis? What further change does the minister already have in mind? I support amendment 137, tabled by my honourable friend, before any further leave is granted, it would require consideration of whether removal would still breach our obligations on the convention or humanitarian protection grounds.
That means checking continuing need at every renewal, not just in selected cases. New clause 35 gives the Home Secretary a power to revoke protection status, but a power to revoke is not a duty to review. Will the Minister carry the principle of amendment 137 into the replacement framework? And when protection is no longer needed, how will departure follow? That is why we can't support amendment 53. In the name of the honourable member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, it would require an initial grant of at least five years ineligibility to apply for settlement after five years. But the passing of five years tells us nothing about whether protection is still needed.
That need should determine the approach, nor can we support amendment 54. It would allow partners, children and dependent adult children to apply to join someone with protection status without fees, a health surcharge, an income test or maintenance and accommodation requirements. Who pays when the sponsor cannot support or house the family? What assessment has been made of the numbers and the pressure on housing, schools and GP surgeries on amendment 75. How will children's interests be considered under the Replacement framework? Amendment 51 challenges the power to confer rights and impose obligations, while amendment 52 challenges different provision for convention and humanitarian claims, what difference does the Minister intend?
And on amendment 74, will the commitment not to reduce existing entitlements still apply? I also support my hon. Friend's amendment 138 before the first regulations are put to Parliament, it would require publication of draft regulations and a statement of the proposed immigration rules covering the length of leave, reviews of protection and the qualifying period for settlement. Those are the details that tell us how this will actually work. Although the amendment is drafted against clause 21, the need for those answers does not disappear when the government replace it. Will the minister publish the equivalent material for the new framework before asking Parliament to approve its implementation?
What happens to existing grants, pending claims and live appeals? Will anyone have to reapply because the label has changed, and what staff and resources will be needed to review protection properly without creating another backlog? We support protection for as long as it's needed. Amendments one, three, seven and 138 asked ministers to explain how they'll check that need and ensure parliament the rules. Putting definitions in the bill is welcome, but we still need to know how the system will work.
14:37
14:37
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you very much, Mrs. Barker, and say it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Thank you very much. I really appreciate all the honourable member's contributions to this debate this afternoon. And I think, before responding directly, directly to the clauses and amendments that we've discussed so far, I hope the committee will allow me to set out just a moment about why this approach is being taken as part of the wider core protection reform set out by the Home Secretary last year in the Restoring Order and Control Statement, the UK's asylum policy statement, published in November 2025, also set out a new approach to protection in the UK.
This marks a significant change in direction away from an assumption of offering permanent protection towards protection that is granted for the duration of need, which we call core protection. Put simply, replacing the two categories of protection refugee and humanitarian protection status with one single form of protection status will simplify the asylum decision making process, prevent unnecessary and tenuous appeals. And I think it's important just to reflect on how we got to where we are. These these two protection statuses are essentially a historical relic from the separation between those in danger on return to their countries of origin and those in need of protection for political or identity reasons.
But as time has evolved, the two statuses have become functionally identical. Except in some small areas such as travel documents. This creates administrative burden for the Home Office for no good reason. We are therefore proposing to merge these two statuses. This clause reconciles these two statuses so that the system is administratively simpler for refugees and for decision makers. In order to do that, we are also taking a limited power to deal with the existence of terms like refugee refugee protection, humanitarian protection, which exists throughout our extensive immigration and asylum statute book, and will now need replacing with a single term core protection.
Under the current system, those who qualify for refugee or humanitarian protection status are granted similar entitlements, 30 months permission to stay and the same route to settlement. Where there are differences. For example, in relation to travel documents, we are making changes to ensure that all those who are granted core protection are eligible. And I just would like to note, honourable members, that one of the points that's been raised about whether we're more expansive than other European countries, that is absolutely right. I mean, as a Home Secretary set out during her restoring order and control, our offer to refugees is more expansive than other European countries.
Once granted refugee status, the current system grants leave to remain for five years. At the end of that period, refugees can immediately apply for settlement, giving them an indefinite right to live in the UK. This application is fee free and essentially automatic, being almost entirely absent of requirements when compared to some of our European neighbours. This approach to protection is generous in Denmark, a country that has tightened its asylum system in recent years. Residence permits are issued to refugees for just two years and are designed to be temporary. Settlement can only be obtained after typically eight years of residence and is subject to multiple conditions, including full time employment, meeting an earnings threshold, language proficiency and active citizenship.
So clause 21 sets out what constitutes a protection claim and who will qualify for protection status. A person has protection status if they've been granted permission to stay in the UK, because removing them would breach our obligations under the Refugee Convention, or they would be at real risk of serious harm. The UK's proud to offer sanctuary to those in need for as long as it is needed, in line with our international obligations. We believe that all those who face persecution for a specified reason, as contained in the 1951 convention, as well as those who fear torture or indiscriminate violence due to war, should receive protection and that this country should play its part.
This measure is part of simplifying the current system, which has two forms of protection status that grant similar entitlements, as I have said, namely refugee status and humanitarian protection. Under the new system, individuals who qualify for protection will be granted core protection status. As such, this change will streamline asylum decision making and reduce unnecessary appeals. And before I turn to the amendments themselves, I want to draw members attention to government. New clauses 3536 A new schedule one. I'll discuss these in detail in a moment. However, it is the government's intention, quite unusually, that these new clauses will replace clause 21.
We have essentially updated them. I know this is unusual, but I'd just like to explain this to honourable members, if I may. Having put a limited power in at the introduction, we wanted to narrow it now with more detail on the face of the bill, as we've worked through the technicalities of how this part interacts with what I know , honourable members will agree is a very large volume of other legislation on the statute book. Moving on to the amendments, I thank the honourable members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and Brighton Pavilion for proposing their amendments. I might just refer to some of the questions that they raised before I go into the specifics of their amendments.
I think the honourable member for Brighton Pavilion suggested that there was the potential here to reduce entitlement. That is absolutely not the case. If anything, there was going to be a minor levelling up of humanitarian entitlement when it comes to travel documents, so there will be no, no reducing entitlement. We don't think that it should matter on the grounds for protection. What is the origin of the claim? We believe there should be consistency across the two, so therefore the entitlement is the same. We want to be clear on all the amendments that we've made. There is absolutely to be no levelling down.
That is clear. And as we've heard, the Home Secretary to the Delegated Powers Memorandum on the Delegated Powers Memorandum was clear. She committed that the powers would not be used to reduce entitlement. So that is there on the face of her , of the memorandum itself. The honourable member for Brighton Pavilion mentioned about the best interests of children, which builds on debate we've had earlier today, which, of course, we absolutely put as the priority throughout this process. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 places a duty on the Home Office to ensure that its immigration, asylum, nationality and general customs functions are discharged with regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in the UK, the Home Office takes its section 55 duty seriously.
Every child matters, as is set out in our statutory guidance. We are committed to ensuring we have regard to this duty in the development and implementation of new policy, including core protection, as well as when decision makers apply these policies to children within the UK. The honourable lady asked about her sunset clause and why we removed that in the existing power. The key consequential amendments to primary legislation are now on the face of the Bill through new schedule one. However, significant additional changes will still be needed for secondary legislation, so that is why that was removed.
The honourable lady also talked about revoking status and whether we're giving the Home Secretary a freestanding, unconstrained power to revoke protection status. Now, new clause 35 includes provision for the Home Secretary to revoke protection status, alongside provisions to grant or refuse protection status. In the first instance, the revocation of protection status links directly with the right of appeal under section 82 subclause one C of the Nia act 2002, the circumstances in which protection status may be revoked will continue to be set out in our immigration rules as usual, and will remain based on our international obligations.
Protection status will be revoked where it is established that it was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, or the person has acquired the protection of another country or has availed themselves of the protection of their country of origin, or there has been a significant and non-temporary change in either personal or country situation. That means they no longer qualify for protection. on that point. Sian Berry.
This marks a significant change in direction away from an assumption of offering permanent protection towards protection that is granted for the duration of need, which we call core protection. Put simply, replacing the two categories of protection refugee and humanitarian protection status with one single form of protection status will simplify the asylum decision making process, prevent unnecessary and tenuous appeals. And I think it's important just to reflect on how we got to where we are. These these two protection statuses are essentially a historical relic from the separation between those in danger on return to their countries of origin and those in need of protection for political or identity reasons.
But as time has evolved, the two statuses have become functionally identical. Except in some small areas such as travel documents. This creates administrative burden for the Home Office for no good reason. We are therefore proposing to merge these two statuses. This clause reconciles these two statuses so that the system is administratively simpler for refugees and for decision makers. In order to do that, we are also taking a limited power to deal with the existence of terms like refugee refugee protection, humanitarian protection, which exists throughout our extensive immigration and asylum statute book, and will now need replacing with a single term core protection.
Under the current system, those who qualify for refugee or humanitarian protection status are granted similar entitlements, 30 months permission to stay and the same route to settlement. Where there are differences. For example, in relation to travel documents, we are making changes to ensure that all those who are granted core protection are eligible. And I just would like to note, honourable members, that one of the points that's been raised about whether we're more expansive than other European countries, that is absolutely right. I mean, as a Home Secretary set out during her restoring order and control, our offer to refugees is more expansive than other European countries.
Once granted refugee status, the current system grants leave to remain for five years. At the end of that period, refugees can immediately apply for settlement, giving them an indefinite right to live in the UK. This application is fee free and essentially automatic, being almost entirely absent of requirements when compared to some of our European neighbours. This approach to protection is generous in Denmark, a country that has tightened its asylum system in recent years. Residence permits are issued to refugees for just two years and are designed to be temporary. Settlement can only be obtained after typically eight years of residence and is subject to multiple conditions, including full time employment, meeting an earnings threshold, language proficiency and active citizenship.
So clause 21 sets out what constitutes a protection claim and who will qualify for protection status. A person has protection status if they've been granted permission to stay in the UK, because removing them would breach our obligations under the Refugee Convention, or they would be at real risk of serious harm. The UK's proud to offer sanctuary to those in need for as long as it is needed, in line with our international obligations. We believe that all those who face persecution for a specified reason, as contained in the 1951 convention, as well as those who fear torture or indiscriminate violence due to war, should receive protection and that this country should play its part.
This measure is part of simplifying the current system, which has two forms of protection status that grant similar entitlements, as I have said, namely refugee status and humanitarian protection. Under the new system, individuals who qualify for protection will be granted core protection status. As such, this change will streamline asylum decision making and reduce unnecessary appeals. And before I turn to the amendments themselves, I want to draw members attention to government. New clauses 3536 A new schedule one. I'll discuss these in detail in a moment. However, it is the government's intention, quite unusually, that these new clauses will replace clause 21.
We have essentially updated them. I know this is unusual, but I'd just like to explain this to honourable members, if I may. Having put a limited power in at the introduction, we wanted to narrow it now with more detail on the face of the bill, as we've worked through the technicalities of how this part interacts with what I know , honourable members will agree is a very large volume of other legislation on the statute book. Moving on to the amendments, I thank the honourable members for Harrogate and Knaresborough and Brighton Pavilion for proposing their amendments. I might just refer to some of the questions that they raised before I go into the specifics of their amendments.
I think the honourable member for Brighton Pavilion suggested that there was the potential here to reduce entitlement. That is absolutely not the case. If anything, there was going to be a minor levelling up of humanitarian entitlement when it comes to travel documents, so there will be no, no reducing entitlement. We don't think that it should matter on the grounds for protection. What is the origin of the claim? We believe there should be consistency across the two, so therefore the entitlement is the same. We want to be clear on all the amendments that we've made. There is absolutely to be no levelling down.
That is clear. And as we've heard, the Home Secretary to the Delegated Powers Memorandum on the Delegated Powers Memorandum was clear. She committed that the powers would not be used to reduce entitlement. So that is there on the face of her , of the memorandum itself. The honourable member for Brighton Pavilion mentioned about the best interests of children, which builds on debate we've had earlier today, which, of course, we absolutely put as the priority throughout this process. Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 places a duty on the Home Office to ensure that its immigration, asylum, nationality and general customs functions are discharged with regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of all children in the UK, the Home Office takes its section 55 duty seriously.
Every child matters, as is set out in our statutory guidance. We are committed to ensuring we have regard to this duty in the development and implementation of new policy, including core protection, as well as when decision makers apply these policies to children within the UK. The honourable lady asked about her sunset clause and why we removed that in the existing power. The key consequential amendments to primary legislation are now on the face of the Bill through new schedule one. However, significant additional changes will still be needed for secondary legislation, so that is why that was removed.
The honourable lady also talked about revoking status and whether we're giving the Home Secretary a freestanding, unconstrained power to revoke protection status. Now, new clause 35 includes provision for the Home Secretary to revoke protection status, alongside provisions to grant or refuse protection status. In the first instance, the revocation of protection status links directly with the right of appeal under section 82 subclause one C of the Nia act 2002, the circumstances in which protection status may be revoked will continue to be set out in our immigration rules as usual, and will remain based on our international obligations.
Protection status will be revoked where it is established that it was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation, or the person has acquired the protection of another country or has availed themselves of the protection of their country of origin, or there has been a significant and non-temporary change in either personal or country situation. That means they no longer qualify for protection. on that point. Sian Berry.
14:45
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Thank you very much for giving way. I would like to hear further clarity on why those grounds, which the Minister has read out very clearly there, the reasons for which revocation could be made are not simply added to the bill at this point, or maybe at the next stage, to make that incredibly clear.
14:46
14:46
14:46
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Appreciate the question from the honourable lady. I think the the purpose is that we would not normally. Immigration rules are not put on the face of primary legislation as normally. So it would be unusual to do that on the face of the bill. I can clarify shortly with the lady, but that's my understanding why it's not on the face of the bill, because it's done through the usual route of immigration rules. The honourable lady also asked what applicants will be told and how this will support those going through the process in terms of simplifying their decision making.
The decision making process will be simplified in all decisions that would not currently be a grant of refugee status, because they will no longer refuse refugee status and then go on to separately consider serious harm. Instead, a single decision on risk on return will be made. Officials are already working with the non-government organisations in the sector to identify the precise wording most appropriate in a new grant letter. The Honourable Gentleman for Harrogate, Harrogate and Knaresborough asked whether the what will the 30 month renewal involve? And I just wanted to refer to that briefly. We are committed to ensuring our policies are sustainable and do not place unnecessary burdens on the taxpayer.
This policy is no different in terms of resources and processing. Only those who do remain on for protection will have their protection needs. Regularly reviewed reviews will be targeted based on objective country information and any other new information that comes to light, allowing us to make the most efficient use of resources. We will continue to monitor staffing levels and will deploy our workforce flexibly, subject to business needs. As we've done in the past, the approach to reviewing status will be efficient and targeted, and we will reassess where country conditions or personal circumstances are willing. Yeah.
The decision making process will be simplified in all decisions that would not currently be a grant of refugee status, because they will no longer refuse refugee status and then go on to separately consider serious harm. Instead, a single decision on risk on return will be made. Officials are already working with the non-government organisations in the sector to identify the precise wording most appropriate in a new grant letter. The Honourable Gentleman for Harrogate, Harrogate and Knaresborough asked whether the what will the 30 month renewal involve? And I just wanted to refer to that briefly. We are committed to ensuring our policies are sustainable and do not place unnecessary burdens on the taxpayer.
This policy is no different in terms of resources and processing. Only those who do remain on for protection will have their protection needs. Regularly reviewed reviews will be targeted based on objective country information and any other new information that comes to light, allowing us to make the most efficient use of resources. We will continue to monitor staffing levels and will deploy our workforce flexibly, subject to business needs. As we've done in the past, the approach to reviewing status will be efficient and targeted, and we will reassess where country conditions or personal circumstances are willing. Yeah.
14:47
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
I understand the point that the minister is making about targeting resource efficiently, but can she say how can she elaborate on exactly what that looks like in practice? Because there are lots of nice words about efficiency. But until we actually know what that entails, it's quite hard to believe.
14:48
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I appreciate the honourable gentleman raising that. And I think, you know, he'll understand that actually, this decision making is part of the core business for the Home Office. So I can come back to him during the course of this committee with more specific detail on what that process will look like. But I think it's important to, just to, to, to reassure him. We'll continue to monitor our staffing levels, deploy our workforce flexibly, subject to business needs.
The approach to reviewing status. Yes, of course.
The approach to reviewing status. Yes, of course.
14:48
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
On that point, this, I think is really important to know whether or not the 30 month process will be more like a simple renewal, like I might renew my TV licence or something like that. Or will it be a re interrogation of the person seeking protection all over again? Will the onus be on the government to say, for example, that a country has suddenly become safe, that there has been a new government, that major changes have occurred, and therefore we will look more closely at a number of cases, but that countries where the situation has remained the same, we will not be looking in depth.
How simple will the process be is something that is really bothering people. The whether or not they're going to have all their circumstances re interrogated again and have to prove themselves over and over again, is something people have learned to expect from the Home Office. And I think it is up to the minister to reassure us on this point.
How simple will the process be is something that is really bothering people. The whether or not they're going to have all their circumstances re interrogated again and have to prove themselves over and over again, is something people have learned to expect from the Home Office. And I think it is up to the minister to reassure us on this point.
14:49
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I appreciate the honourable lady raising that, and I was intending to come to this. She'll be pleased that I've still got quite a lot to get through in my speech. But just to reassure, individuals will need to meet the relevant suitability requirements for ongoing permission to say if someone is convicted of a criminal offence that meets the relevant threshold, they'll be excluded from protection, will not be eligible for court protection if there's been a significant and durable change in their country situation, or a change in their personal circumstances, their ongoing need for protection will be reviewed.
For anyone who has returned to the country of persecution or serious harm, or obtained a national passport, their circumstances will be reviewed. So I hope that gives a degree of clarity, but I can I'm happy to come back and clarify in more detail during the course of this committee. I can see that will mean a lot to both honourable members. Thank you. I think moving on now to amendments 53 and 54. The honourable gentleman has tabled, referring trying to revert to the previous position of granting five years leave to remain to refugees and then placing them on a five year route to settlement and allowing automatic entitlement to family reunion.
In recent years, the numbers of people seeking protection has significantly increased, placing unprecedented pressure on housing, public services and communities across the UK. From 2004 to 2020, there were between 22,000 and 46,000 people claiming asylum in the UK each year. However, since the second half of 2021, there has been a huge increase which reached a peak of 110,000 in the year ending September 2025. While the numbers of people claiming asylum fell to 85,891 in the year ending June 2026, it still remains high compared with levels seen in the decade to 2021, and I know many of our constituents have huge concerns about fairness, about how the system operates, and whether it's actually supporting those who truly do need protection.
That is why in November last year, this government published a new asylum policy statement setting out significant reforms to the UK's asylum system. Poor protection is one of the key elements of asylum reforms. Under this new policy, protection will be granted for the duration of need. Renewable where a person remains at risk on return, greater entitlements, including a shorter period to settlement and a route to sponsor family members, will be accessed by demonstrating contribution to and integration into UK society. Settlement will no longer be automatic. Instead, there will be a 20 year route to permanent residency, crucially, with the ability to reduce that period by switching into the protection work and study route, ensuring long term commitment, contribution and integration.
As a first step towards this, this government changed the immigration rules on the 5th of March 2026. Any adult or accompanied child who claims asylum from the 2nd of March 2026 onwards, and who qualifies for a grant of refugee status or humanitarian protection, will be granted leave for 30 months at a 30 month review. Refugees of the continuing need of sanctuary will have their protection renewed, while those who no longer have a protection need will be expected to return home. The Safe Return review will consider whether there has been a fundamental and durable change in their country of origin.
We recognise that when a country situation changes, not everyone will be safe. Of course, as occurs now, individual circumstances will be taken into account. In each case will be assessed on its own merits. The overthrow of one political party in favour of another might only be transitory. The changes must be such that the reasons for becoming a refugee have ceased to exist, and there are no other reasons for an individual to fear to return there.
For anyone who has returned to the country of persecution or serious harm, or obtained a national passport, their circumstances will be reviewed. So I hope that gives a degree of clarity, but I can I'm happy to come back and clarify in more detail during the course of this committee. I can see that will mean a lot to both honourable members. Thank you. I think moving on now to amendments 53 and 54. The honourable gentleman has tabled, referring trying to revert to the previous position of granting five years leave to remain to refugees and then placing them on a five year route to settlement and allowing automatic entitlement to family reunion.
In recent years, the numbers of people seeking protection has significantly increased, placing unprecedented pressure on housing, public services and communities across the UK. From 2004 to 2020, there were between 22,000 and 46,000 people claiming asylum in the UK each year. However, since the second half of 2021, there has been a huge increase which reached a peak of 110,000 in the year ending September 2025. While the numbers of people claiming asylum fell to 85,891 in the year ending June 2026, it still remains high compared with levels seen in the decade to 2021, and I know many of our constituents have huge concerns about fairness, about how the system operates, and whether it's actually supporting those who truly do need protection.
That is why in November last year, this government published a new asylum policy statement setting out significant reforms to the UK's asylum system. Poor protection is one of the key elements of asylum reforms. Under this new policy, protection will be granted for the duration of need. Renewable where a person remains at risk on return, greater entitlements, including a shorter period to settlement and a route to sponsor family members, will be accessed by demonstrating contribution to and integration into UK society. Settlement will no longer be automatic. Instead, there will be a 20 year route to permanent residency, crucially, with the ability to reduce that period by switching into the protection work and study route, ensuring long term commitment, contribution and integration.
As a first step towards this, this government changed the immigration rules on the 5th of March 2026. Any adult or accompanied child who claims asylum from the 2nd of March 2026 onwards, and who qualifies for a grant of refugee status or humanitarian protection, will be granted leave for 30 months at a 30 month review. Refugees of the continuing need of sanctuary will have their protection renewed, while those who no longer have a protection need will be expected to return home. The Safe Return review will consider whether there has been a fundamental and durable change in their country of origin.
We recognise that when a country situation changes, not everyone will be safe. Of course, as occurs now, individual circumstances will be taken into account. In each case will be assessed on its own merits. The overthrow of one political party in favour of another might only be transitory. The changes must be such that the reasons for becoming a refugee have ceased to exist, and there are no other reasons for an individual to fear to return there.
14:53
14:53
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
And for clarity, will the government's will it be the onus will be on the government to approve the change, or will it be more like reapplying from scratch each time? Again, you know, my casework shows we are more used to the Home Office asking for chapter and verse from the applicant each time, and if it's down to the government, if if the minister is prepared to promise that it will be for the government to approve changes, that would mean a lot to many people listening to this.
14:53
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, the honourable lady pre-empted my following paragraph, which is to clarify to her, once the individual acquires protection status, the burden of proof is on the Home Office to demonstrate that protection is no longer required. So it will be us that will be demonstrating that it will not be for the claimant to have to make another asylum claim again, unless there are new grounds which have not been raised before. Any decision to revoke protection status will continue to have a right of appeal. As always, we will continue to uphold the fundamental principle that we will not return anyone to a country where they are at risk.
Refugees of the continuing protection need will have to wait 20 years for settlement unless they switch to protection work and study as part of the core protection model. A new bespoke work and study route will allow access to family reunion and settlement rights, with new fees and conditions in accordance with the rules of that route. This will enable refugees to earn down their length of time before they can settle in the UK and demonstrate that they are contributing to the UK and support their family before they may bring their partner and children over. Further details will be set out in future immigration rule changes.
This route will not include a safe return review. This fundamental change. Yes, of course.
Refugees of the continuing protection need will have to wait 20 years for settlement unless they switch to protection work and study as part of the core protection model. A new bespoke work and study route will allow access to family reunion and settlement rights, with new fees and conditions in accordance with the rules of that route. This will enable refugees to earn down their length of time before they can settle in the UK and demonstrate that they are contributing to the UK and support their family before they may bring their partner and children over. Further details will be set out in future immigration rule changes.
This route will not include a safe return review. This fundamental change. Yes, of course.
14:54
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
I welcome her saying that that will be set out in immigration sort of regulation going forward. But for people now, on the face of the bill, there isn't that clarity. I asked a number of questions around eligibility, whether the family would move on to that route together and and a number of questions around what that actually tangibly looks like. Can she not give any reassurance as to what that might be at this stage?
14:55
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think the honourable gentleman will recognise that the provision that we are debating this, I appreciate it, is a provision that is giving power to the Secretary of State to to make these changes in immigration rules. That is the natural. You know, we do make changes to the system through the immigration rules, through the usual process. So he will have the opportunity to debate them when they come before the House for affirmative resolution. But I'm afraid, you know, for the moment this is about debating the power, and we'll continue to have this debate, I'm sure, in the weeks and months ahead.
And I look forward to engaging with the honourable gentleman on that. For the people who claim asylum and are granted protection in the UK are new regime that provides support for refugees will be entirely in accordance with our international obligations, but it does not exceed them. These are significant reforms. They are designed to ensure our asylum system is fit for the modern world and also, crucially, that the public consent for having an asylum system at all remains genuine. Refugees will receive the protection they need and therefore we oppose these amendments. Amendments 51 and 52, tabled by the honourable member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, set out to limit the power to make regulations about protection status and claims .
Due to the drafting of clause 21, subsection three, the amendments would not prevent the Home Secretary from making such regulations about protection status and claims, because the power in clause 21, subsection one, is a broad one. However, without this explicit provision, such regulations would be more vulnerable to challenge on grounds that they were ultra vires. The government is introducing government amendments new clause 35 and 36 to replace clause 21. These new clauses aim to set out on the face of the Bill the provision that would otherwise have been made under the power in clause 21.
They also give a power to the Secretary of State to make further consequential and related amendments, including to primary legislation. The amendments are therefore unnecessary. The government amendments ensure that that the key consequential amendments to primary legislation are made on the face of the Bill, but there are, as honourable members, I am sure will agree, many, many references to asylum and humanitarian protection legislation which require simplification. Following the introduction of the single concept of protection, the narrow power here is considered to be the most efficient way to bring the rest of the statute book. In line with this change, regulations amending primary legislation must be made by affirmative procedure, which allows an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny as it will allow any legal challenges to be debated and authorized by Parliament.
Amendments 74 and 75, tabled by the honourable member for Brighton Pavilion, also seek to limit the power by preventing regulations from restricting the rights and entitlements available to those with protection status, and by requiring the Home Secretary in making regulations to take into account the best interests of children. Excuse me. The government is introducing its own amendments to define the single concept of protection on the face of the bill, which will replace clause 21. The purpose of the single concept of protection is to create a single definition of protection claim and a single form of protection status.
This will replace and amalgamate the two separate forms of protection status refugee and humanitarian protection. Anyone who is at risk of persecution or serious harm due to third party actors on return to their home country will be granted protection status and all the associated entitlements. We recognise that all those who face persecution for a specific reason, as contained in the 1951 convention, as well as those who are at risk of torture or indiscriminate violence due to war, should receive protection and the same entitlements. To the extent that we retain a power to make amendments. There are many references to asylum and humanitarian protection legislation which require simplification following this change.
This power is the simplest and most efficient way to bring the rest of the statute book. In line with this change, regulations amending primary legislation must be made by affirmative procedure, which allows the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. As I've mentioned, the government has already committed in the Delegated Powers Memorandum that the power will not be used to reduce the entitlements currently held by refugees, and the Home Secretary is already under a duty to have regard to the need to safeguard the welfare of children in the UK, in accordance with section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.
The government therefore considers there to be ample safeguards on the exercise of this power, and these amendments are therefore unnecessary. Amendments one, three, seven and one three, eight are taken together, set out to add additional requirements to clarify the the powers in clause 21. In order to respond, it will be helpful to set out that the purpose of the regulations in clause 21 and the government amendments I'm introducing. At this stage, the government is introducing government amendments to replace clause 21. These new clauses aim to set out on the face of the Bill the provision that would otherwise have been made under the power in clause 21.
They also give a power to the Secretary of State to make further consequential and related amendments, including to primary legislation. The government amendments ensure that the key consequential elements of primary legislation are made on the face of the Bill. But as we have discussed, there are many references which require simplification. Following the introduction of the single concept of protection, this power is considered the most efficient way to bring the rest of the statute book. In line with this change, regulations amending primary legislation must be made by an affirmative affirmative procedure. Amendment 137, tabled by His Majesty's Opposition, aims to require the Secretary of State to include in regulations that a person's continuing need for protection is considered every time their protection status comes up for renewal, rather than only in targeted cases.
This amendment is unnecessary. At the 30 month point, the person's continuing need for protection will be reviewed anyway. The Safe Return review is already a long standing policy that currently operates when assessing refugees and those in receipt of humanitarian protection. When applying for settlement protection, it already requires caseworkers to consider whether whether there have been any changes in personal circumstances or country conditions that could lead to a grant or refugee grant of refugee status or humanitarian protection being revoked or not renewed.
And I look forward to engaging with the honourable gentleman on that. For the people who claim asylum and are granted protection in the UK are new regime that provides support for refugees will be entirely in accordance with our international obligations, but it does not exceed them. These are significant reforms. They are designed to ensure our asylum system is fit for the modern world and also, crucially, that the public consent for having an asylum system at all remains genuine. Refugees will receive the protection they need and therefore we oppose these amendments. Amendments 51 and 52, tabled by the honourable member for Harrogate and Knaresborough, set out to limit the power to make regulations about protection status and claims .
Due to the drafting of clause 21, subsection three, the amendments would not prevent the Home Secretary from making such regulations about protection status and claims, because the power in clause 21, subsection one, is a broad one. However, without this explicit provision, such regulations would be more vulnerable to challenge on grounds that they were ultra vires. The government is introducing government amendments new clause 35 and 36 to replace clause 21. These new clauses aim to set out on the face of the Bill the provision that would otherwise have been made under the power in clause 21.
They also give a power to the Secretary of State to make further consequential and related amendments, including to primary legislation. The amendments are therefore unnecessary. The government amendments ensure that that the key consequential amendments to primary legislation are made on the face of the Bill, but there are, as honourable members, I am sure will agree, many, many references to asylum and humanitarian protection legislation which require simplification. Following the introduction of the single concept of protection, the narrow power here is considered to be the most efficient way to bring the rest of the statute book. In line with this change, regulations amending primary legislation must be made by affirmative procedure, which allows an appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny as it will allow any legal challenges to be debated and authorized by Parliament.
Amendments 74 and 75, tabled by the honourable member for Brighton Pavilion, also seek to limit the power by preventing regulations from restricting the rights and entitlements available to those with protection status, and by requiring the Home Secretary in making regulations to take into account the best interests of children. Excuse me. The government is introducing its own amendments to define the single concept of protection on the face of the bill, which will replace clause 21. The purpose of the single concept of protection is to create a single definition of protection claim and a single form of protection status.
This will replace and amalgamate the two separate forms of protection status refugee and humanitarian protection. Anyone who is at risk of persecution or serious harm due to third party actors on return to their home country will be granted protection status and all the associated entitlements. We recognise that all those who face persecution for a specific reason, as contained in the 1951 convention, as well as those who are at risk of torture or indiscriminate violence due to war, should receive protection and the same entitlements. To the extent that we retain a power to make amendments. There are many references to asylum and humanitarian protection legislation which require simplification following this change.
This power is the simplest and most efficient way to bring the rest of the statute book. In line with this change, regulations amending primary legislation must be made by affirmative procedure, which allows the appropriate level of parliamentary scrutiny. As I've mentioned, the government has already committed in the Delegated Powers Memorandum that the power will not be used to reduce the entitlements currently held by refugees, and the Home Secretary is already under a duty to have regard to the need to safeguard the welfare of children in the UK, in accordance with section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009.
The government therefore considers there to be ample safeguards on the exercise of this power, and these amendments are therefore unnecessary. Amendments one, three, seven and one three, eight are taken together, set out to add additional requirements to clarify the the powers in clause 21. In order to respond, it will be helpful to set out that the purpose of the regulations in clause 21 and the government amendments I'm introducing. At this stage, the government is introducing government amendments to replace clause 21. These new clauses aim to set out on the face of the Bill the provision that would otherwise have been made under the power in clause 21.
They also give a power to the Secretary of State to make further consequential and related amendments, including to primary legislation. The government amendments ensure that the key consequential elements of primary legislation are made on the face of the Bill. But as we have discussed, there are many references which require simplification. Following the introduction of the single concept of protection, this power is considered the most efficient way to bring the rest of the statute book. In line with this change, regulations amending primary legislation must be made by an affirmative affirmative procedure. Amendment 137, tabled by His Majesty's Opposition, aims to require the Secretary of State to include in regulations that a person's continuing need for protection is considered every time their protection status comes up for renewal, rather than only in targeted cases.
This amendment is unnecessary. At the 30 month point, the person's continuing need for protection will be reviewed anyway. The Safe Return review is already a long standing policy that currently operates when assessing refugees and those in receipt of humanitarian protection. When applying for settlement protection, it already requires caseworkers to consider whether whether there have been any changes in personal circumstances or country conditions that could lead to a grant or refugee grant of refugee status or humanitarian protection being revoked or not renewed.
15:01
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
Issues that could lead to a grant or refugee grant of refugee status or humanitarian protection being revoked or not renewed. This amendment is not required as when any country situation changes, we would proactively identify this and the. situation automatically would form part of the individual's review. This government recognises that this review needs to go further and be robust to ensure that protection is not only provided for the duration of need as per our obligations. As previously mentioned, under the wider asylum reforms, as part of the Restoring Order and Control Statement. The Home Secretary announced that those who qualify for.
protection will receive protection only for the duration of risk from. the 2nd of March 2026 onwards. Those who successfully applied for protection will receive 30 months permission to stay renewable when a protection need is ongoing. Those on core protection may look to settle after 20 years in the UK. It is this government's intention that refugees should not remain on core. protection in the long term. For those who evidence their contributing and integrating into the UK, they will be encouraged to switch on to the new protection work and study route to unlock further.
protection will receive protection only for the duration of risk from. the 2nd of March 2026 onwards. Those who successfully applied for protection will receive 30 months permission to stay renewable when a protection need is ongoing. Those on core protection may look to settle after 20 years in the UK. It is this government's intention that refugees should not remain on core. protection in the long term. For those who evidence their contributing and integrating into the UK, they will be encouraged to switch on to the new protection work and study route to unlock further.
15:01
15:01
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
Such as a shorter route to settlement and access to family reunion. For those who do not switch into this route and who remain on core protection as part of the renewal. application for a further 30 months, there will be a safe return review. Individuals will need to meet the relevant suitability requirements for ongoing permission to stay. If someone is convicted of a criminal offence that meets the relevant thresholds, they will be excluded from protection and will not be eligible for protection. As I mentioned earlier, if there has been a significant and durable change in their country situation or a change in their personal.
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
Together with the proposed immigration rules on the length of leave. reviews and the route to settlement under core. protection before asking Parliament to approve the regulations. It is right that detailed information setting out how the Safe return review will operate is set out in rules and guidance. Any changes to the immigration rules will be scrutinised in the usual way. This is no different to how existing immigration rules are debated. As such, it is unnecessary to require the Secretary of State to publish proposed changes in this manner, and for these reasons, I ask the honourable members to withdraw their amendments.
Finally, turning to government amendments, new clause 35. This sets out, on the face of the bill the definition of a protection claim and who qualifies for protection status. This clause replaces the previous overarching power with more detail about the single concept of protection measure that is part of the wider core protection. reforms amendments. New clause 36 and new schedule one create consequential amendments. There are numerous references across the statute book to asylum refugee humanitarian protection. These amendments, where necessary, will amend various pieces of. legislation and replace these terms with the words protection, claim or protection status.
A person has protection status if they've been granted permission to stay in the UK, because removing them would breach our obligations under the Refugee.
Finally, turning to government amendments, new clause 35. This sets out, on the face of the bill the definition of a protection claim and who qualifies for protection status. This clause replaces the previous overarching power with more detail about the single concept of protection measure that is part of the wider core protection. reforms amendments. New clause 36 and new schedule one create consequential amendments. There are numerous references across the statute book to asylum refugee humanitarian protection. These amendments, where necessary, will amend various pieces of. legislation and replace these terms with the words protection, claim or protection status.
A person has protection status if they've been granted permission to stay in the UK, because removing them would breach our obligations under the Refugee.
15:04
15:04
15:04
15:04
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
As well as those who fear torture or indiscriminate violence due to war, should receive protection. I want to reassure the House that the test for what constitutes. persecution or serious harm is not changing. Those who are at risk and currently granted protection status will still be granted protection status under this measure. We will never return someone to a country where they will be at risk. What this measure will do is contribute towards our reforms to simplify the current system, which has two forms of protection status that grant similar.
15:05
15:05
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
Namely refugee status and humanitarian protection. Under the new system, individuals who qualify for protection will be granted core protection status. As such, this change will streamline asylum decision making and reduce. unnecessary appeals. The UK's asylum Policy statement , Restoring Order and Control, published in.
15:05
15:05
Tom Gordon
-
-
Tom Gordon
Sets out a new approach to protection in the UK, which marks a significant change in direction away from an assumption of offering permanent. protection and towards protection that is granted for the duration of need need, which we will call core protection. The statement outlined the current challenges, the government's objectives and a comprehensive package of measures to restore order, control, fairness and public confidence in the system for people who claim asylum and who are granted protection in the UK.
We will provide support for refugees that is entirely in accordance with our international.
We will provide support for refugees that is entirely in accordance with our international.
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:07
15:07
15:07
15:07
15:07
15:07