Police: Joe Anderson

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, that is not a question: it is a statement. However, I am going to be unable to develop my theme, which is that I am afraid that I cannot comment on ongoing investigations, as the House well understands.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, we are not asking the noble Lord to comment on the investigation. Will he return to the question of justice, raised by the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, and reflect on the words of the Liverpool-born Prime Minister William Gladstone, who said that

“justice delayed is justice denied”?

Is it not outrageous that, after all this time, this has been hanging over someone and their family? The expedition of this case is the issue that the noble Lord has raised, not whether it is right or wrong.

Secondly, as far as the politics of Liverpool is concerned, it does not help politics or good governance for a case to fester like this for so long, undoing some of the achievements of the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, who, as Secretary of State for the Environment, came to the city of Liverpool in 1981 and said, rightly, that he did not know that conditions such as those existed in this country. He vowed to do something about it, working across the political divide. Anything that impedes those achievements would be a very negative thing for Liverpool and the country as a whole.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I hear what the noble Lord has to say on the subject, but I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation. The noble Lord is, in effect, inviting me to comment on the complexity of the investigation and various other operational aspects of it, in order to make a judgment as to whether it is delayed, denied or whatever. I cannot do that.

Asylum Claims

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Well, I will certainly commit to read it, but I wonder how on earth it can arrive at a conclusion that they will have no deterrent effect. The Bill has not been operationalised or indeed passed yet.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the Minister will know about the concern expressed last week from all quarters of your Lordships’ House about the position of Afghans who had supported our servicemen or translators while they did honourable duty in Afghanistan. The Ministry of Defence said it was going to review their cases. Can the Minister give us any idea how long it is going to take for those to be resolved?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I have to say to the noble Lord that his question is best directed to the MoD, but he will know that it is also an ongoing discussion we are still having in the context of the Bill.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

3rd reading
Tuesday 12th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howard, said that no one else has put forward another idea. In fact, many of us have talked about finding safe and legal routes. This Government seem incredibly reluctant to do this. I do not understand why. This Bill is an absolute stinker. It is the worst of the worst. I have seen terrible Bills come through this House, but this is by far the worst. It is a shame on all of us that we have had to sit through hours and days of debate.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, has made a plea on behalf of Members in another place. Will they have available to them the Government’s response to the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights which I asked for in Committee, on Report and again today? The Minister will recall that, last week, he said it was imminent. I hope he will be able to tell us that it is now available in the Printed Paper Office and that it will be made available to honourable Members down the Corridor.

I have a great deal of respect for the Minister and like him enormously. All of us agree with the noble Lord, Lord Howard, that there is an issue that has to be addressed. Some 114 million people are displaced in the world today. When will His Majesty’s Government bring together people from all sides of the House and the political divide to look at what can be done to tackle this problem at its root cause? Unless we do that, we can pass as many Bills as we like in this and in the other place but, frankly, in the end, it will make very little difference.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

When the House voted to delay ratification of the treaty, it did so on the basis that there was unfinished business and on the basis of a list of 10 requirements, most of which were for the Government of Rwanda, which should be fulfilled before Rwanda could be declared safe. Among these was the requirement in Article 10(3) of the treaty

“to agree an effective system for ensuring”

that refoulement does not take place. The risk of refoulement was, of course, central to the Supreme Court’s finding that it would be unsafe to deport refugees to Rwanda.

I have asked a couple of times in the Chamber during our 40 hours of debate how we are getting on with that requirement, which binds us, as well as the Government of Rwanda, to agree a system for ensuring that refoulement does not take place. Most recently, I asked on 4 March —Hansard col. 1379—whether Rwanda had agreed with us an effective system. The Minister replied that he did not know but would find out and get back to me. I am still waiting. Can he tell the House the answer now? If he cannot, will he undertake that the effective system will be up and running and reported to this House before the treaty is ratified and before any asylum seekers are deported to Rwanda?

I note that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart of Dirleton, who does reply to questions, assured me in a letter dated 4 March that the Rwanda legislation required to implement the treaty

“will be operational prior to relocations beginning”.

I think this point is quite relevant to the one made by the noble Lord, Lord Howard, about delay.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 4th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Clarke of Nottingham (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to my old friend Lord Cormack, whom I knew for 60 years. I first met him when I was fighting the then ultrasafe Labour seat of Mansfield and he was fighting the ultrasafe Labour seat of Bassetlaw next door in the 1964 election. From that time, he was a very good personal friend of mine for well over 50 years in Parliament, when we both got there on a rather better basis for our political careers. He was an extremely good man. It has to be admitted that he was always regarded as speaking too much in the Commons and the Lords, as he was always forthright in his views, but that rather ignores the fact that overwhelmingly he spoke very sensibly and extremely well, and the principles that guided him throughout his political career were extremely sound. We will all miss him.

I will not repeat the arguments that I have made previously. I just acknowledge that my noble friend Lord Hailsham has made a speech every word of which I agree with. The Government are in an impossible position. Another good personal friend, my noble friend Lord Howard, made a brilliant attempt to defend that position and to try to demonstrate that the Bill is compatible with the things that he holds as dear as I do—the rule of law and the separation of powers—but I fear that he fails. His arguments might apply if we were talking here about a matter of political judgment on a given set of facts that the Government were making a policy decision about. However, the Bill is solely about asserting a fact as a fact regardless of any evidence, and regardless of the fact that five Supreme Court judges unanimously considered that evidence and came to the conclusion, which is not too surprising, that Rwanda is not a safe country.

I cannot recall a precedent in my time where a Government of any complexion have produced a Bill which asserts a matter of fact—facts to be fact. It then goes on to say that it should be regarded legally as a fact interminably, until and unless the Bill is changed, and that no court should even consider any question of the facts being otherwise. It is no good blaming the Human Rights Act; I do not believe that it was in any way probable that the British courts were going to come to any other conclusion. If the Labour Party allows this Bill to go through, I very much hope there will be a legal challenge. The Supreme Court will consider it objectively again, obviously, but it is likely that it will strike it down again as incompatible with the constitutional arrangements which we prize so much in this country. I too will be supporting any of the amendments in this group as introduced. It is a very important principle that we are seeking to restore.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I will be brief, but I would like to associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Clarke of Nottingham and Lord Howard of Lympne, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hailsham, concerning Patrick Cormack, who was a dear friend of many of us. He was kindness itself to me when I became a Member of another place in 1979 and there were many issues on which we worked with one another, not least those around Northern Ireland. He did great service in uniting people around a complex and very difficult question during the years that really mattered. We were in touch with one another in writing just two weeks before his death. He had gone back to Lincoln to care for his wife Mary; he was deeply troubled about how ill she was, but he hoped soon to be back in his place. We will all miss him not being in his place and contributing to your Lordships’ House.

I would like to put just two points to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe of Epsom, or to his noble and learned friend Lord Stewart, whoever will reply on behalf of the Government. I put a question during Committee concerning the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on which I serve. I asked the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, at that stage whether, before we considered this Bill on Report, we would have a proper reply from the Government to that Select Committee report. It is deeply troubling that there has been no reply and deeply troubling that Select Committees, not least one that is a Joint Committee of both Houses, can give a view about this Bill, specifically around the question of safety, and in a majority report say that it does not believe it right to say that Rwanda is a safe place to repatriate refugees to, yet not to have a response to those findings before your Lordships are asked to vote on amendments on Report. That is my first point.

My second point also concerns safety—the safety of our reputation as well. I was troubled to read in reports over the weekend that £1.8 million will be spent for each and every asylum seeker for the first 300 who are to be deported. That was described by the chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place as a staggering figure. The Home Office declined to give information about it because of what it said was commercial confidentiality. I cannot believe that such a lame reply would be given, and I do not expect the Ministers to use that excuse when they come to reply today. It is not right for Parliament to be asked to take awesome decisions that will affect the lives of ordinary people, and to do so without giving all the facts being given to Parliament first.

I simply say that I have been reading the magnificent book East West Street by Philippe Sands KC. When we consider the way in which this country responded at that time to people such as Philippe Sands’ family, who had fled from Lviv, in what is now Ukraine, and when we consider the generosity of spirit and the response from people in both Houses of Parliament and all political traditions, that seems to contrast sadly—dismally—with how we are responding at this time through the Bill. I hope the Ministers will be able to reply to my points.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

My Lords, the point of the Bill is to move the matter into the diplomatic and political sphere. The Bill and the treaty make the point that the matters are better considered there than they are in the court. That is my answer to the point which my noble friend makes.

Regarding Amendment 2, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, I cannot accept that the provisions of this Bill undermine the rule of law. Amendment 2, implying that this legislation is not compliant with the rule of law, is simply not right. The Bill is predicated on Rwanda’s and the United Kingdom’s compliance with international law in the form of the treaty, which itself reflects the international legal obligations of the United Kingdom and Rwanda, as my noble friend Lord Murray of Blidworth pointed out following his recent visit.

As has been stated in the debates on this Bill, the Government take their international obligations, including under the European Convention on Human Rights, seriously. There is nothing in this Bill that requires any act or omission that conflicts with the United Kingdom’s international obligations. Along with other countries with similar constitutional arrangements to the United Kingdom, and again echoing points made by my noble friend Lord Murray, we have a dualist approach, where international law is treated as separate from domestic law and incorporated into domestic law by Parliament through legislation. This Bill invites Parliament to agree with its assessment that the Supreme Court’s concerns have been properly addressed and to enact the measures in the Bill accordingly. The Bill reflects the fact—going back to my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne’s opening points—that Parliament is sovereign and can change domestic law as it sees fit, including, if it be Parliament’s judgment, requiring a state of affairs or facts to be recognised.

The principle of recognising that certain countries are safe for immigration purposes, as your Lordships heard from my noble friend Lord Lilley, is a long-standing one that is shared by many other countries as part of their respective systems. The European Union states are not the only countries that may be safe for these purposes. Therefore, to act as the Government are proposing in terms of the Bill would not an unusual thing for Parliament to do. There is other immigration legislation in which Parliament recognises that states are generally safe. It is not akin to Parliament stating something to be the case contrary to the actual position. The Bill reflects the strength of the Government of Rwanda’s protections and commitments, given in the treaty, to people transferred to Rwanda in accordance with it. The treaty, alongside the evidence of changes in Rwanda since the summer of 2022, enables Parliament properly to conclude that Rwanda is safe.

In addressing other points raised on this matter, and echoing what I said in response to my noble friend Lord Clarke, my noble friend Lord Tugendhat moved the sphere of literary references governing discussion of the Bill in your Lordships’ House from Alice in Wonderland to George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four. The point is not that the Government are proposing that Parliament should legislate contrary to the Supreme Court’s findings, but that Parliament should pass a Bill reflecting those decisions and acting on them. We are acting on the court’s decision, not overturning it.

I respectfully echo my noble friend Lord Howard of Lympne’s point, which again echoed his important speech at an earlier stage, that the theme of this matter is accountability—the accountability of Parliament and the Government to face the consequences of their actions and decisions before the electorate.

The importance of Parliament’s judgment is the central feature of the Bill and many of its other provisions are designed to ensure that Parliament’s conclusion on the safety of Rwanda is accepted by the domestic court. The treaty sets out the international legal commitments that the United Kingdom and the Rwandan Governments have made, consistent with their shared standards associated with asylum and refugee protection. It also commits both Governments to deliver against key legal assurances, in response to the conclusions of the UK Supreme Court. We are clear that we assess Rwanda to be a safe country and we are confident in the Government of Rwanda’s commitment to operationalising the partnership successfully in order to offer safety and security to those in need.

In answer to a point made by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, while Sir Winston Churchill was instrumental in drawing up the body or making possible the creation of the European convention, he did not say anything to alter the constitutional principle of the supremacy of Parliament, to which I have made reference.

I return to matters raised in the submission of the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. He posed two questions, the first on the receipt of an answer to points made by committees of your Lordships’ House. I have checked that and it is anticipated that answers to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Constitution Committee will be issued by Wednesday.

The noble Lord also raised costs. The point is not that doing nothing does not have costs. We will doubtless return, later at this stage of the Bill, to the enormous expense inflicted on British taxpayers—running to billions of pounds a year—by maintaining the status quo. It is that status quo that we seek to interrupt.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My point on the question of costs was not so much the £0.5 billion, but that the chair of the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place said that this was a staggering amount of money and that it was being veiled by so-called commercial confidentiality. When the Minister publishes his response to the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Constitution Committee “by Wednesday”, will he undertake to provide further details unpacking the so-called “confidentiality” of this £0.5 billion?

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton (Con)]

If the noble Lord will permit, I will defer answering that question until later.

So it is in order to prevent the current expenditure—the cost of housing asylum seekers is set to reach £11 billion per year by 2026—that the Government propose to act. As I have said, we assess Rwanda to be a safe country and we are confident in the Government of Rwanda’s commitment in that regard. I therefore invite the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, not to press his Amendment 2, and I also invite the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, to withdraw her amendment. If the amendments are pressed, I will have no hesitation in inviting the House to reject them.

Asylum: UK-Rwanda Agreement

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, the whole House is greatly in the debt of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, for giving us the opportunity to debate the Rwanda agreement, to consider the nature of our international obligations and to make the judgment to which the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, just referred on whether Rwanda is a safe place to which we can send asylum seekers.

Along with the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Lawrence—who are in their places—I serve as one of six Members of your Lordships’ House on the 12-Member-strong Joint Committee on Human Rights, under the admirable chairmanship of the Member of Parliament for Edinburgh South West, Joanna Cherry. I note that another of our Members, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, is also in your Lordships’ Chamber.

We were in session last Wednesday taking evidence from the Refugee Council, Justice, the Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association, Chatham House, Migration Watch, and Professors Sarah Singer and Tom Hickman KC. On Wednesday this week we will hear from, among others, Lord Sumption and the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst KC, who spoke earlier in this debate.

It is the job of Parliament to hear different views and to assess the arguments carefully. Too often, as my noble friend Lord Hannay indicated, we put the cart before the horse: we do not do it, which is not good governance. Too often, we pass legislation in haste and repent at leisure. The treaty before us, the Bill that will come and that which we already considered in 2023—the Illegal Migration Act—are examples of that.

In the 5,000-word report that the JCHR produced on that Act, we said that

“this Bill breaches a number of the UK’s international human rights obligations and risks breaching others”.

We went on to say that

“this gives us significant cause for concern”

and that:

“The Government is rightly concerned about the loss of life in the Channel. So are we”.


This echoes the point that the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, made trenchantly in his speech. The loss of life and the scale of the migration crisis are such that politicians of all persuasions must respond to the widespread concern and anger at the failure to tackle the crisis, both here and in other jurisdictions. It does the process no good when we are seen to stampede things through both Houses.

When the Joint Committee asked the then Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, to appear before us and justify the measures that were in the previous Bill, she declined. I do not believe that is how Parliament should be treated. It does nothing for public confidence in our processes.

The Government rightly insist that the criminal, mafia-like gangs who make their fortunes by preying on the desperation and misery of the vulnerable must be hunted down and jailed. I agree. I also commend the Government and agree with them that they have achieved a great deal in their bilateral agreement with Albania and the progress made towards a pan-European initiative at the European Political Community Summit of 47 European leaders in Granada last October. But is it really the case that the EPC will not meet again until June? Perhaps the Minister will tell us. This requires urgent international strategy and decisions. Our Joint Committee on Human Rights report is insistent that the global crisis of displacement—UNHCR puts the number at 110 million people—means that:

“Given the sheer scale of this global crisis, it cannot be solved by one country alone”.


Let us recall that eight out of 10 refugees—many millions—end up in neighbouring countries, not in the United Kingdom, so there are plenty of other countries which need to join an international alliance and promote an international strategy.

Two years ago, on 6 January 2022, on behalf of my noble friends on the Cross Benches, I moved a Motion which noted

“that 82.4 million people are displaced worldwide, 42 per cent of whom are children, and 32 per cent of whom are refugees, and (2) the case for an urgent international response to address the root causes of mass displacement”.


That 82 million was two years ago, the number is now 110 million, and it will go on rising. Unless we tackle the fundamental reasons for displacement, the tsunami of desperate people will continue to be washed up on Europe’s shores and seabeds.

Nine months since I chaired an inquiry into the situation in Sudan, we have seen 7 million people in Sudan alone displaced. Half a million people have fled Darfur in recent weeks and are now in Chad. Add to that the numbers from Tigray and from Eritrea—a tiny country from which half a million people are displaced, having escaped the cruel conditions that prevail there. The JCHR was told last week:

“Unless there is a collective global effort to create stability through conflict resolution and the promotion of rights in those countries, the number of refugees from those specific countries is unlikely to decrease”.


It was Winston Churchill who promoted so much that we now take for granted, including the European Convention on Human Rights. He rightly believed that such international architecture—based on the rule of law, democracy, human rights, security and economic recovery—represented our best hope for the future. That brings us directly to the Motion brought by the noble and learned Lord, and what Parliament is being asked to agree.

As we have been reminded, it was the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court in November, based on the identification of a number of concerns about Rwanda—including poor compliance with its international obligations, poor understanding of the refugee convention and a poor human rights record—that led to the International Agreements Committee producing the report that we have been considering. That report says that

“the Rwandan government does not possess the practical ability to fulfil its assurances to the UK government, at least in the short term. That is not something that can be fixed by entering a binding treaty alone”.

To confirm that, last week the JCHR heard evidence of the inadequate in-country access to legal remedies in Rwanda, a lack of independence for the judiciary and legal representatives, and a bad track record in complying with other international agreements.

Finally, I turn to the central issue of safety. Once again, we have the Home Secretary unable to give a Section 19(1)(b) statement on the face of the Bill to affirm that the Bill coming before us next week is compliant with the convention, which I presume can mean only that the Government do not regard Rwanda to be a safe destination. Witnesses to the JCHR last week put it to us that if the Government were confident about the safety of refoulement, they would not be afraid of independent judicial oversight.

The question today is simply whether we can honestly say that Rwanda is a safe country, and it was put to the JCHR that this also engages the separation of powers between the judiciary and Parliament, a point made earlier by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith. Professor Singer said:

“To contradict the Supreme Court in this way is, perhaps, not showing the respect to the court that should be owed as a constitutional principle. Furthermore, the legislation prohibits the UK courts from reopening and considering the question of whether Rwanda is safe”.


The JCHR was left in no doubt that if this new Bill is rushed through, the courts will once again be asked to decide whether Rwanda is safe and whether circumstances have changed. Guess what—if the verdict is that Rwanda is still not safe, the law will have to be changed yet again. Meanwhile, the Government of Rwanda have themselves said they would not want, as the noble Lord, Lord Razzall, reminded us, to implement a scheme said to be contrary to international law.

In considering the issue of safety, the House will want to take into account the new analysis that the UNHCR published last week, in which it once again insisted that Rwanda is not a safe country, a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. That analysis includes the following:

“As of January 2024, UNHCR has not observed changes in the practice of asylum adjudication that would overcome the concerns set out in its 2022 analysis and in the detailed evidence presented to the Supreme Court”.


At a minimum, the Government need to tell us what has changed on the ground in Rwanda since the Supreme Court decision. What evidence do they have, for instance, in regard to political oppression or LGBT people? What examination have the Government made of the reasons why Burundi has closed its borders with Rwanda, and of Rwanda’s links with the M23 militias in the eastern DRC—what analysis has been made of that? What is the Government’s response to the 2023 Human Rights Watch report stating that

“Commentators, journalists, opposition activists, and others speaking out on current affairs and criticizing public policies in Rwanda continued to face abusive prosecutions, enforced disappearances, and have at times died under unexplained circumstances”.


Like others, I visited Rwanda, in my case in the aftermath of the genocide, and saw terrible mass graves. Huge strides have been made to recover from the deaths of between half a million and 800,000 people, as my noble friend Lord Kerr reminded us earlier, but it is deceptive to describe Rwanda as a safe country for refoulement.

It is passing strange that we have five alleged genocidaires living in the UK that we have not sent back to Rwanda, for fear that they would be at real risk of not receiving a fair trial if returned. The primary issue in those extradition proceedings was whether they were at real risk of a flagrant denial of justice if returned to Rwanda; they expressed fears that they would be tortured and executed. When the cases came back to the courts in 2015 and 2017, Lord Justice Irwin and Mr Justice Foskett said:

“Our concerns focus on the political pressures on the judicial system, the independence of the judges, the difficulties and fears of witnesses and particularly the capacity of defendants to allegations of genocide to obtain and present evidence and be adequately represented in their defence”.


We should think very carefully before stampeding through treaties, agreements or, indeed, next week, new legislation. I do not believe that public concerns about migration will be assuaged by offloading our responsibility, as my noble friend Lord Kerr said. It would clearly allay many public concerns if we were more efficient in dealing with applications more swiftly and sorting out the genuine from the false, but instead of this we are told we must make a Faustian pact and trade our commitment to international law and the safety of asylum seekers in return for measures that even their supporters say will not work.

For all those reasons, I will vote for both Motions that the noble and learned Lord has placed before the House, and I hope that the rest of the House will too.

Pakistan: Afghans Eligible for Resettlement in UK

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 18th December 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs in the other place committed to bringing back 2,800 ARAP-eligible people by the end of this year, and we are well on track to achieve that. The Secretary of State for Defence also wrote a letter recently, which has been published, in which he talks about reviewing and improving casework processes and bringing in extra resources. Between January and November this year, we issued decisions on more than 75,000 applications, clearing virtually the entire backlog. There is plenty of work going on and there are very few open cases left. These people are being repatriated as fast as we can.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, has the Minister read today’s Daily Telegraph, in which the Pakistan Prime Minister cites the British-Rwandan scheme as an example of why they feel it is justified to have already deported some 450,000 people back to Afghanistan? Can he tell the House what JACS assessment has been made of the plight of minorities such as the Hazara, and what is happening about the 200 Armed Forces personnel who were trained and funded by the UK, and about whom General Sir Richard Barrons said, in that same article, that the failure to relocate them is

“a disgrace, because it reflects that either we’re duplicitous as a nation or incompetent”?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have not read that article. My right honourable friend James Heappey noted in the other place that it would have been more difficult to bring these people back to the UK had it not been for the support of the Government of Pakistan. We continue to co-operate closely in our efforts to bring out many thousands more, and no one with UK sponsorship has been deported. I am obviously not qualified to comment on other deportations, and I do not recognise the general’s remarks, but I will look into them.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Report stage
Wednesday 5th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Stroud (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kirkhope and Lord Kerr, and the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, for adding their names to my Amendment 164. I also lend my support to the right reverend Prelate’s Amendment 162, which he has just outlined, and to Amendment 163 in the name of my noble friend Lord Alton.

I brought a variation of this amendment to the House in Committee. As I said in that debate, it is very simple. Amendment 164 is designed purely to place a duty on the Government to do what they say they intend to do anyway—introduce safe and legal routes. As I said in that debate, the moral credibility of the entire Bill depends on the creation of more safe and legal routes. The basis on which we are disestablishing illegal and unsafe routes is that we are creating legal and safe routes. The lack of a substantial commitment in primary legislation to this end is a serious omission which this amendment gives us an opportunity to address.

In the previous debate, the Minister said that the Government intend to outline new safe and legal routes in the January report and to implement them “as soon as practicable” and

“in any event by the end of 2024”.—[Official Report, 14/6/23; col. 1982.]

I am grateful to him for making this commitment. My primary motive in bringing this amendment back is to ensure that this commitment from the Government is enacted and that the commitment made from the Dispatch Box to enact safe and legal routes is in the Bill and carries as much weight as the commitment to disestablish unsafe and illegal routes.

I have heard commitments to policy positions from the Dispatch Box which have not been fulfilled and, while I have the greatest respect for the Minister, legislative certainty is what this House needs. I am particularly concerned by the promises made about the establishment of safe and legal routes at an indeterminate point after the next general election.

This brings me to the timeframe which has been introduced to this revised version of the amendment. We have chosen the timeline of two months after the publication of the Government’s report on safe and legal routes for two reasons. First, this will be eight months— I repeat, eight months—after the enactment of the legislation, which is more than enough time to develop and implement a serious proposal. Secondly, it will ensure that the commitment, as set out in legislation, should not cut across a general election or purdah next year. If the Minister would like to propose putting an alternative timeline into the legislation, I would welcome that conversation, but we do need to put the duty into the legislation now.

I was grateful for a conversation with the Immigration Minister in the other place, when he assured me that the Government would consider the importance of clearly demonstrating that they are committed to fulfilling their word on safe and legal routes. To restate: this is something the Government actively want to do, and for that reason I will want to test the will of the House this afternoon.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, and to endorse everything she has just said; if she does decide to test the opinion of the House, I certainly will support her in the Lobbies. I support the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham in his Amendment 162, and Amendment 165, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Purvis of Tweed, and Amendment 166, in the name the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws.

My own Amendment 163 takes me back to an issue I raised in Committee. It concerns the provision within the designated safe and legal route, which I warmly welcome and I applaud what the Prime Minister said about the principle of doing this. The amendment contains within it an element and a number, to be determined by the Secretary of State, for people with protected characteristics under Section 4 of the Equality Act 2010. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Stewart, who is in his place, will recall that I raised this issue on an earlier amendment on Report.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Stroud, but also to the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, for signing this amendment. I will listen carefully to the Minister’s response. A few moments ago I heard him say that there will be a consultation process; perhaps he could flesh that out and say even that the principle in this amendment is something that could be consulted on—that would go some way to meeting my concerns.

I have raised this issue a number of times previously. I tabled an amendment to the Immigration Bill, debated in your Lordships’ House on 21 March 2016, which specifically focused on those groups of people, such as the Yazidis and Christians, persecuted and even facing genocide because of their religion or belief. I raised it again during the Nationality and Borders Bill, debated on 8 February 2022. I focused on the Yazidis, an ethno- religious group targeted by Daesh for annihilation as a clear-cut case of genocide.

Earlier this afternoon, the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and I held a meeting with officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office about the continued failure of the United Kingdom to respond to the genocide of the Yazidis, even though a German court has now determined that such crimes have been committed against the Yazidis. I visited northern Iraq in 2019 and took evidence from the groups I have just described. Germany, along with Canada and Australia, famously opened its doors to the victims of this genocide, offering them sanctuary and a safe haven. By contrast, we have used the absence of safe and legal routes to prevent these vulnerable and targeted communities being able to find a way of accessing refugee or asylum status in the UK.

If our present mechanisms are working as intended, why have Yazidi victims of the Daesh genocide in Iraq not been granted resettlement in the UK? Of course, we may not be able to help all victims but why can we not help a few? This is unacceptable, which is why I have tabled this amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

The issue with remote admissions is that you completely lose control of the system, because it is run on a multibased system around the world. We need, quite simply, to be clear about the number we could admit into this country, under all these worthwhile systems—they may be run in the way the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, wishes, or the way the noble Lord, Lord Alton, wishes—and keep faith with the country’s ability to absorb it without undue social and economic strain.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I draw the noble Lord’s attention to proposed subsection (2) in Amendment 163, which specifically deals with numbers and a cap, and the regulations that would be available to the Secretary of State to control the very issues that the noble Lord raised. It would allow us to deal with emergency cases of the kind that the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, and others described.

[Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Con)]

Absolutely—that is why, in my opening remarks, I said that the noble Lord’s Amendment 163 was movingly produced and discussed. My question on the cap was aimed at Amendment 164, which I stand ready to be corrected on, and the generality of Amendment 162, where no numbers are mentioned at all.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, and the noble Lord, Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth, in supporting the amendment tabled by the most reverend Primate.

The figures from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees alone are justification for this amendment: over 110 million people displaced in the world today. We cannot tackle that alone, and we cannot ignore it either. Therefore, we have a duty to come together with other nations and to take this issue as seriously as we have rightly taken the climate crisis. The COP is not a bad model to look at in the context of the 110 million people.

Why is this great country of ours not taking the lead, as we did with people such as Eleanor Rathbone and Sir Winston Churchill in the period after the Second World War, in convening an international forum to drive an agenda that deals with not the pull factors about which we hear so much but the push factors that send people on these desperate journeys? I was recently in north Africa on the very day that a ship went down off the coast of Greece, killing more than 70 people. Why were they making those desperate journeys? It was mainly to escape destitution and conflict.

Cybersecurity

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Monday 3rd July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am trying to answer this question. Sir Patrick Vallance reported in April; it is now July. I do not think that is glacial or particularly slow. The fact is that these are complicated matters that need to be considered very carefully. They involve all sorts of different implications for us all.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in addition to the amendment to the 1990 computer Act and the opportunity the Minister will have to address that in due course, will he reflect on what Sir Patrick said about international harmonisation and the need for regulation of significant emerging technologies to reflect what other countries are doing, as well as what we are doing?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a very good point, and one I inquired about this morning. There is a considerable exchange of information with our friends and allies and other interested countries across the world. It is perhaps worth pointing out that the Department of Justice in the States has just reissued guidelines for prosecutions only. Guidance and prosecutorial discretion are major features of the American way of doing it; we are going a slightly different route and seeking consensus, but of course we will consult.

Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Report stage
Tuesday 27th June 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

107: After Clause 187, insert the following new Clause—
“Duty to disclose funds and economic resources
After section 16 of the Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018, insert—“16A Duty to disclose funds and economic resources(1) Any regulations made under section 1 (power to make sanctions regulations) must, for the purposes of preventing an offence under those regulations, make provision requiring designated persons—(a) to report to the Treasury or another competent authority, within three months after such regulations are made or within three months from the date of designation, whichever is the latest, the funds or economic resources that—(i) are currently held, owned or controlled by them within the United Kingdom, and(ii) were held, owned or controlled by them within the United Kingdom six months prior to the date of designation, and(b) to cooperate with the Treasury or other competent authority in any verification of such information.(2) A failure to comply with a requirement in subsection (1) may be considered as participation in activities the object or effect of which is (whether directly or indirectly) to circumvent such requirement.(3) Where a designated person has been convicted of an offence by virtue of subsection (2), a court proceeding under section 6, 92 or 156 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (confiscation orders) must consider such person as benefitting by the value of any assets concealed through such criminal conduct. (4) Assets concealed as a result of a failure to comply with a requirement in subsection (1) constitute recoverable property for the purposes of Part 5 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 (civil recovery of the proceeds etc. of unlawful conduct).(5) A court may only make an order for the confiscation or forfeiture of concealed assets if, or to the extent that, it would not be just and equitable to require the designated person to pay the amount recoverable under subsection (3) or to forfeit the property recoverable under subsection (4).(6) Regulations under subsection (1) may also be made in relation to a person who is subject to an International Criminal Court warrant for an offence that would constitute an economic crime in the United Kingdom.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment says that sanctions regulations must, for the purposes of preventing an offence under those regulations, require designated persons to disclose all assets they own or control in the UK. Failure to disclose such assets is defined as a form of sanctions evasion, which is already criminalized under UK law, and which could result in asset recovery under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

Amendment 107 enjoys all-party support, and its purpose is to insert a new clause imposing a duty to disclose funds and economic resources. In a nutshell, the amendment would require that sanctions regulations must, for the purposes of preventing an offence under those regulations, require designated persons to disclose all assets that they own or control in the United Kingdom. Failure to disclose such assets is defined as a form of sanctions evasion, which is already criminalised under UK law and which could result in asset recovery under the Proceeds of Crime Act.

The amendment is in line with the one debated in Grand Committee. One change has been made to reflect the Minister’s helpful view about proportionality— I am particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Garnier, and the noble Lord, Lord Faulks, for their helpful suggestion that the best way in which to ensure proportionality would be to incorporate the words “just and equitable”, as we have done in the revised amendment. In thanking the noble Lord and the noble and learned Lord, I thank also the co-sponsors, the noble Lords, Lord Leigh of Hurley, Lord Coaker and Lord Fox. Their input and wisdom have been invaluable. The Minister and his really excellent Bill team have engaged through meetings and in a flurry of emails and exchanges, which have been admirable, and I am grateful to them too. I hope that we can come to an amicable conclusion this evening.

The topicality and urgency of this amendment was underlined by the Statement made in another place yesterday, and repeated here last night, on the Ukraine Recovery Conference. We have all been shocked by the sheer scale of the destruction unleashed by Putin’s illegal war—the massive loss of life and the ruination of cities, towns and villages, and the destruction of the country’s agricultural base. In this lamentable context, we are right to plan for the future. The European Union has set aside a €50 billion recovery fund, and the United Kingdom has said that we will provide loans worth $3 billion over the next three years. Globally, some 500 businesses from 42 countries have pledged more than $5.2 trillion to back Ukraine’s recovery. However, as the Prime Minister made clear to that conference, Russia must pay for the destruction that it has inflicted. In that respect, the Foreign Secretary has said that the United Kingdom is working with allies to explore lawful routes to use frozen and immobilised Russian assets to fund Ukrainian reconstruction. It was to enable that to happen that the movers of this amendment raised this question in Grand Committee.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool, for this amendment, for his constructive engagement throughout the passage of the Bill through this House and, of course, for his typically thoughtful and powerful introduction. I also pay tribute to noble Lords from all sides of the House, and Members in the other place, for continuing to pursue this important issue and engage with the Government on a cross-party basis, not least the APPG on Anti-Corruption and Responsible Tax. I can reassure the noble Lord that the Government are supportive of mechanisms to deprive sanctioned individuals, where appropriate, of their assets, with a view to funding the recovery and reconstruction of Ukraine. More broadly, the Government want to drive further transparency on assets held by sanctioned persons in the UK.

On 19 June, the Government announced four new commitments which reaffirm that Russia must pay for the long-term reconstruction of Ukraine. This includes new legislation, laid the same day by the Foreign Secretary, to enable sanctions to remain in place until Russia pays compensation for damage caused. In this announcement the Government also confirmed that we will lay new legislation requiring persons and entities in the UK, or UK persons and entities overseas, who are designated under the Russia financial sanctions regime to disclose any assets they hold in the UK. The Government are firmly committed to bringing forward this secondary legislation, subject to the made affirmative procedure, and to introducing this measure before the end of 2023, subject to the usual parliamentary scheduling. This will strengthen transparency of assets and make it clear that the UK will not allow assets to be hidden in this country.

Sanctioned individuals who fail to disclose their assets could receive a financial penalty or have their assets confiscated. This demonstrates our continued commitment to penalising those who make deliberate attempts to conceal funds or economic resources. The new power builds on and strengthens the UK’s existing powers around transparency of designated persons’ assets. HMG already use the annual review of the Office of Financial Sanctions Implementation, known as OFSI, to collect and detail assets frozen under UK financial sanctions. Additionally, relevant firms such as banks, other financial institutions, law firms and estate agents have an ongoing obligation to report to OFSI if they know or reasonably suspect that a person is a designated person or has committed offences under financial sanctions regulations, where that information is received in the course of carrying on their business. Those firms must provide information about the nature and amount of any funds or economic resources held by them for the customer.

The designated person reporting measure will act as a dual verification tool by enabling the comparison of disclosures against existing reporting requirements that bite on relevant firms. This will tighten the net around those who are not reporting and are evading their reporting requirements.

On asset seizure, prosecutors and/or law enforcement agencies can currently apply to confiscate or permanently seize assets where someone has benefited from their offending, or the assets have links to criminality, by making use of powers under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Importantly, the new measures will also give His Majesty’s Government the ability to impose fines. Overall, this designated person reporting measure will be focused on strengthening the UK’s compliance toolkit while giving options for penalising those who seek to hide their assets.

The noble Lord’s amendment includes a specific provision which would require the designated person also to report assets which were held six months prior to the designation. The Government are still fully developing the non-disclosure measure and I can assure the noble Lord that we are carefully considering this suggestion. Although not retrospective in terms of regulating or criminalising conduct that occurred before the measure came into force, requiring designated persons to provide a snapshot of their assets at a historical point in time is necessarily more onerous than a forward look requirement. The Government will need carefully to consider the design of the measure and the proportionality and additional value of so-called retrospective reporting to ensure that it is operationally deliverable and legally robust. This will include working with relevant law enforcement agencies to determine how such information would be used.

Before laying these regulations, the Government will complete their ongoing evaluation of possible operational or implementation challenges to help ensure the successful delivery of this measure. For example, investigating non-compliance will require significant resources from the enforcing agency. We want to ensure that it has all the capability, skills and resources to succeed.

I note the interest in and strength of feeling on this issue. The Government will continue to work collaboratively and constructively with interested parties in the lead-up to bringing forward the legislation, including on reporting assets which were held prior to a designation. We will continue to engage with the civil society organisations that have campaigned for this measure, and I would be happy to work with the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and other parliamentarians to keep them informed of progress ahead of it being formally introduced.

Again, I am grateful to the noble Lord for bringing this issue forward for debate and for the continued interest and engagement of many stakeholders. I hope that, given the reasons I have outlined and the action the Government are already taking, he will consider withdrawing his amendment.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for the manner in which he has addressed this issue and the House this evening. He was right to pay tribute to the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Anti-Corruption and Responsible Tax; I would link with that the specific work of Dame Margaret Hodge MP, the Royal United Services Institute and many of those in civil society to which the Minister has referred. I was especially pleased to hear what he said about working collaboratively with those organisations that have been involved in taking this amendment forward.

I do not underestimate the importance of what the Minister has said to the House. He said that he will look at the outstanding issue of the six-month retrospective period; although he gave no guarantees or assurances on that front, at least we will be able to discuss and examine it further. However, he has agreed to introduce secondary legislation before the end of the year—not “at a time to be agreed” or some possibility of legislation coming in the next nine or 10 months, but by the end of this year. I welcome that very much. He also told the House that it would be done under the affirmative procedure, which will give us the chance to come back again. Significant progress has been made on this and I am very grateful to the Minister. I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment 107 withdrawn.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Alton of Liverpool Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 7th June 2023 Lords Chamber

The welfare and care of unaccompanied children seeking asylum is paramount. They should have the full protections of the Children Act 1989 from the moment they reach our shores. These amendments will ensure that the rights of the child are paramount if the Home Office insists on detaining a child or putting them into temporary accommodation before they are in the care of a local authority. I believe it is paramount that this is in the Bill. The rights of the child and the Children Act 1989 are absolutely key to protect vulnerable children who are seeking asylum. That is why I tabled these amendments.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, I have only two questions to put to the Minister. I reinforce the remarks of the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord German.

First, I ask the Minister directly about the issue of capacity. I also want to ask him about the role of the Independent Family Returns Panel. Dr Peter Walsh says that the current detention estate has capacity for about 2,500 individuals, yet we all know that last year 45,000 people arrived on our shores. In addition, there are 160,000 asylum seekers still awaiting decisions. If we take those numbers together, how do they square with the capacity that is planned for the estate? I was also struck by the Taskforce on Victims of Trafficking in Immigration Detention saying:

“We expect that tens of thousands of individuals will be indefinitely detained in immigration detention facilities, with the current already overstretched detention estate being unable to hold anywhere near the numbers anticipated”.


My second question is brief. I am concerned about the disapplication of the duty currently placed on the Secretary of State to consult with the Independent Family Returns Panel in every family returns case, particularly where the family involves children. Has the Minister seen the statement from the UK Committee for UNICEF, which has described this decision for disapplication as “regrettable”? Is that something he might give further thought to?

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I want to make two quite separate points. I pick up on what the noble Lord just said; have the Government looked at what is really happening on the ground, the numbers of people currently waiting to be removed—that is a very large number—and the numbers coming in? How on earth are they going to get people away? Where they are going and what is going to happen was set out in much greater detail on an earlier amendment.

What worries me as I have sat listening, today in particular but really throughout the debates on the Bill, is that I do not think the Government have yet put their mind to the problems of numbers and how on earth they are going to get rid of these people, if I may put it rather bluntly.

The second point, which is so much more important, relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, just said, and I not only support him but admire him enormously for saying it. As I said on another Bill some time ago, I remind the Government that the Home Secretary is not a corporate parent, nor indeed at the moment is the Secretary of State for Education. The concept of the corporate parent is to be found in the Children Act 1989, as a local authority. Currently, the Government are expecting to deal with sometimes quite young children. I think they are concentrating on the 16 and 17-year-olds who are coming through and are not looking at a minority—but probably a relatively substantial minority—of children who are much younger. They have to be looked after. I do not want to repeat what the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, said, but it is crucial that they be looked after. The only corporate parent who can care for them is in fact the local authority where the children are. It is about time the Government started to look at not just the best interests of the children, which is so obvious—it worries me that I keep having to talk about that—but the points that the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made, which really should strike home.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am very happy that the noble Baroness has asked me that question. I am delighted to say that, as of yesterday, there are zero children in Home Office UASC hotels. They are all in the care of local authorities. I hope that provides a fairly clear answer to her question. Perhaps I can invite the noble Lord, Lord Alton, to intervene.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

I am grateful to the Minister. My question rather builds on what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, has been asking. Earlier I specifically asked about the disapplication of the duty on the Secretary of State to consult with the independent family returns panel and the criticism that has been made by the UK Committee for UNICEF, which said that it regretted that decision. I asked the Minister if he would give further consideration to that point and think further about the safeguards that it enables to be put in place to deal with the kinds of issues the noble Baroness has put to him.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am very grateful to the noble Lord. I am sorry that I did not answer that question. The relevant provision is in Clause 13 of the Bill. We will come to discuss it in the 11th group of amendments. Perhaps that might be the moment to explore those detailed points more thoroughly.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Lord Bishop of Southwark]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendments 59, 63, 64 and 67 which, as has been demonstrated, have strong support from all quarters of this Chamber. It was the intention of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham to speak to these amendments but he is unable to be in the Chamber tonight.

I believe that the strength of opposition to any change in the current detention limits for both accompanied and unaccompanied children is because it is one of the most alarming and unedifying provisions in the Bill. Ministers have set out what they see as the need to detain children for immigration purposes in order to ensure that we do not inadvertently create incentives for people smugglers to target vulnerable individuals. Were this the case, then there would be a case for considering some sort of remedy. However, yet again we have been provided with no evidence that this is the case.

Building an asylum system with deterrence diffused throughout, as described by His Majesty’s Government, has led to this inappropriate proposal to restart detaining children, potentially for an unlimited period. As the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, said, it was a Government led by the party currently in office who took the brave decision to end the routine detention of children. That was against significant departmental pressure to retain the practice. How have we arrived, just 10 years later, at the conclusion that the well-being and welfare of children can now be sacrificed in consequence of the need to control migration?

In a rare admission to an evidential base for policy, on Monday the Minister referred to most persons deemed children in these categories being around the ages of 16 and 17. I accept his assertion on this point. However, as was said then, some children as young as 10 are involved.

The noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, elegantly set out the impacts of detention of children. Studies show that the inescapable institutional nature of detention is traumatic for children and detrimental to the child’s physical and mental development. The Government are fully aware of the damaging impact of detention on children. I quote from one small section of the Home Office’s Assessing Age guidance, published only this March:

“Failure to adhere to the legal powers and policy on detaining children can have very significant consequences, for example … detention can be extremely frightening for a child, with their perception of what they might experience potentially informed by previous negative experiences of detention”.


It needs to be said explicitly that the Government will be sanctioning an intolerable level of emotional distress for the most vulnerable children. Understandably, a child will ask themselves, “What must be wrong with me to have been subjected to such conditions?”.

The Prime Minister stated that the Government’s objective behind the Bill is not the detention of children. None the less, that is what the Bill does. Given the Prime Minister’s just objective, why has the 2014 requirement that child detention be for the shortest time possible been expressly removed? In the year to March 2023, more than 8,000 children entered the UK who would meet Clause 2 conditions and who therefore could be detained indefinitely. In the first three years of the Bill’s operation, this may mean that up to 25,000 children will be deprived of their liberty. Should the deterrent effect of the Bill—about which we currently have no modelling whatever—fail, surely the 2014 requirement must be retained.

The Home Secretary bears a legal duty to safeguard children. Home Office guidance makes clear that this duty requires a demonstration of fair treatment that meets the same standard that a British child would receive. Would we tolerate the Bill’s proposals for our own children or grandchildren?

I welcome the amendments made in this area in the other place, but they do not go far enough. Legislating for the option to place limits on detention and for these limits not to be specified in the Bill is simply not adequate. It is an area that cannot remain entirely at the discretion of a Secretary of State, and children must have a means of challenging the lawfulness of a decision. Also, there have been no equivalent provisions for children within families. Why is one child different from another? Children will be detained after they have fled unimaginable horrors at home or been trafficked against their will. Children will be born in detention and others will have their futures shaped by it. It is the hope on these Benches that we are better than this and know what is right, having banished this immoral practice before. It will take real courageous leadership to change course, but we must. There is concern among my brother and sister bishops about the state of the nation’s soul if we tread so easily down this path.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, that was a powerful intervention by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, whom it is a privilege to follow. I pick up a point he made a few moments ago about the amendments that were passed on Report in another place. Like him, I welcome those amendments but do not believe they go far enough. Nevertheless, the House of Commons recognised in those amendments that the power to detain unaccompanied children under the Bill should be exercised only in the circumstances specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State. Those regulations may include a time limit on such detentions, but the Bill neither requires nor establishes what other restrictions on detention will be put in place.

This is why the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made about the use of the affirmative resolution is so important. As things stand, the House of Lords Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee was right to say that, given the importance and the sensitivity of the subject matter, if regulations are made concerning the detention of children, the affirmative resolution procedure should apply. I hope that, when the Minister responds, he will deal specifically with that point and perhaps discuss with us how Clause 10 might be amended to take into account what the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee suggested.

I turn now to the substantive points made in the wonderful speeches by the noble Baronesses, Lady Mobarik and Lady Helic, from the Conservative Benches. I hope that the Government will take into account the arguments that they have placed before your Lordships tonight. There is an echo of what they said in the evidence from the UK Committee for UNICEF, to which I referred in an earlier intervention, which said this about Clause 10, permitting the detention of children both unaccompanied and in families:

“This is not compatible with international standards and also risks undermining the great progress that the UK has achieved in working to end immigration detention of children since 2010”.


That point was made eloquently by both noble Baronesses, who do not want to see the clock turned back.

Whatever limits on the detention of children are made in regulations issued by the Secretary of State, they are unlikely to be sufficient to meet the requirements of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 37(b) of the convention establishes the general principle that a child may be

“deprived of … liberty … only as a … last resort and for the shortest … period of time”.

The UK Committee for UNICEF says:

“Two relevant UN Committees have stated that the possibility of detaining children as a measure of last resort … is not applicable in immigration proceedings as it would conflict with the principle of the best interests of the child and the right to development … The Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment has stated that ‘within the context of administrative immigration enforcement … the deprivation of liberty of children based on their or their parents’ migration status is never in the best interests of the child, exceeds the requirement of necessity, becomes grossly disproportionate and may constitute cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of migrant children’”.


The power to detain unaccompanied children pending removal or a decision on whether to grant them leave to remain would no longer be subject to the 24-hour time limit and other protections currently provided in Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971. The Refugee and Migrant Children’s Consortium, referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, noted that this time limit was established by law

“because widespread evidence showed the long-lasting damage that detention has on children’s lives”.

The Government have stated that the detention of unaccompanied children will be

“for the shortest possible time in appropriate detention facilities with relevant support provisions in place”.

In an echo of what the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, said earlier, I simply press the Minister to say what that word “appropriate” actually means. Please spell it out, because it has no definition as things stand and we are being asked to agree to something pretty awesome in this Bill tonight. That is why the speeches by the noble Baronesses, Lady Mobarik and Lady Helic, are so important and the Government should take proper note of them.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, it is ironic that we are talking about detention when the Government Front Bench is trying to detain us here. What we are trying to do is our job of sensibly and calmly dealing with a Bill that has huge potential for the liberty and lives of some of the most vulnerable people in the world. It is absolutely disgraceful that, when the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, was talking about staying here all night, some on the Benches opposite, including the Government Chief Whip, thought it was funny and amusing. It is not funny and amusing to be told that we have to stay here until goodness knows what time to do our job because the Government Benches wish to rush this through at any cost as a red-wall, red-meat Bill, rather than allowing us the serious job that we have to do as Members of this House. It is an absolute disgrace.

Now that I have got that off my chest, I will speak to my Amendment 76A. It is not a probing amendment but a clear amendment that women who are pregnant should not be held in immigration detention. I see no reason for that. The noble Baroness, Lady Lister, pointed out what the equality impact assessment says on pregnancy and maternity—it is absolutely enlightening:

“Data on pregnancy and maternity in relation to people who enter the UK illegally is not available”.


It is not available—there is no data. They do not know the numbers and therefore they do not know what the impact is. It continues,

“it is therefore difficult to categorically establish whether there will be indirect discrimination”.

It is not just hard to determine whether there is indirect discrimination; because of the lack of figures it is absolutely impossible to determine what the effect will be of the primary part of this legislation and whether it will act as a deterrent.

I am sure that that is what the Minister is going to tell us: that there is no data or evidence available. As the Minister said on Monday, on all the proposals:

“Obviously, as these provisions are not in force, there is no evidence of the impact of these measures. The noble Lord appears to require me to look into a crystal ball”.—[Official Report, 05/6/23; col. 1175.]


When the Minister gets up at the Dispatch Box, if he trots out the ridiculous statement that locking up pregnant women will somehow act as a major deterrent to people coming here, both the equality impact assessment and what the noble Lord, Lord Murray, said on Monday show that that is not the case.

It is for those reasons—the lack of evidence, the lack of understanding of what the impact will be, and, as other noble Lords have said in the debate, the impact it will have on both the pregnant woman and the child—I believe there is no case in a modern, civilised country to have an immigration policy position of putting pregnant women in detention.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

My Lords, in 1979, when I was a young Member of another place, the then Conservative Government regularly kept us there all night. When you are younger, you are quite happy to do that but I suspect it would be better—and knowing how reasonable the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip are—if we could schedule our proceedings to include at least one extra day to consider this very important Bill, but also maybe to have a morning sitting if necessary to enable those of us who are not quite as young as we once were to ensure that we can focus properly on these very important questions.

I made common cause with the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, in 2016 and it was to the credit of your Lordships’ House that, after some ping-pong and debate between both Houses, we were able to ensure that the law was changed to introduce these restrictions on the detention of pregnant women. Similarly, the decisions that were taken about children were to the credit of this House. To see these things being rolled back brings no credit to any of us and I really hope that the Minister, when he goes away from our proceedings tonight and talks again to his officials and to the Secretary of State, will recognise the strength of feeling that has been expressed in the debate already, and that the very important points that my noble friend Lady Gohir made in her excellent speech will be taken into account.

The detention of pregnant women is currently restricted, as we have heard, to 72 hours. That limit would be specifically disapplied in respect of those detained because they are or may be subject to the Clause 2 removal duty. As the Bill stands, a pregnant woman could be detained for any period—I repeat: any period—considered “reasonably necessary”. Prior to 2016, the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and I argued that it was unconscionable that there was no time limit on immigration detention for pregnant women, leading to some of them being detained for weeks, even months, on end. That, inevitably, put pregnant women and their unborn babies at risk.

The Royal College of Midwives says:

“The detention of pregnant asylum seekers increases the likelihood of stress, which can risk the health of the unborn baby”.


Stephen Shaw, the former Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, mentioned earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, was emphatic. He said:

“That detention has an incontrovertibly deleterious effect on the health of pregnant women and their unborn children … I take to be a statement of the obvious”.


Back in 2016, Medical Justice told Parliament that the level of care for pregnant women

“falls short of NHS equivalence and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) standards”.

Are we seriously going to turn the clock back to those bleak times? Some of the women who will be affected will have experienced barbaric treatment, including rape, torture and trafficking. To forcibly return such women will be traumatic beyond belief for them. It will endanger their lives and the lives of the babies in their wombs, and we have no business doing it. That is why I support Amendment 68, and even at this late hour I hope that many of your Lordships on all sides of the Committee will support the noble Baroness, Lady Lister.