Illegal Migration Update

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I will not repeat the questions which have already been asked, except to emphasise the issue about the ODA money and the question of where on earth they will find funding for this to be changed.

This Statement is, basically, very thin gruel, because it opens the door to more problems than the problems we had already raised. I will question two of those big problems which are additional to the ones which have already been asked. The first is about the number of claim withdrawals. There has been a big increase in withdrawals of asylum claims, particularly from countries which have a very high grant rate for asylum claims. The previous rules on treating asylum claims as withdrawn provide three reasons that an asylum claim will be treated as implicitly withdrawn. The new version of the rules, since we completed the debate before the Recess, now adds two more grounds: failure to maintain contact with the Home Office or to provide up to date contact details, and failure to attend reporting events unless due to circumstances outside the applicant’s control. The Government say that the rule changes are to improve clarity regarding the withdrawal of asylum applications. It is difficult to see how adding yet further grounds will do anything other than increase the number of people who have genuine asylum claims thrown out.

The claims that I want to talk more about are those where, according to the rules, the circumstances in which an asylum claim will be treated as explicitly withdrawn have now widened. Before, the only circumstances in which a claim would be treated as explicitly withdrawn were where an applicant signed a specified form. Now, an applicant may also

“otherwise explicitly declare a desire to withdraw their claim”.

Can the Minister clarify what the “otherwise” circumstances are? These are new circumstances, but nowhere are they explained. How can he be sure that these people do not require protection, and what happens to them once their application has been withdrawn?

I will now follow on from the question I asked the Minister earlier today about the moving on process from Home Office accommodation. He indicated today that the process would be very swift, and he did not demur from the seven days I mentioned. That was down from the 28 days that currently exists; seven days now seems to be the new norm. We understand the urgent need to move people out of hotels and into more appropriate, community-based accommodation, but the way to achieve that is not by evicting them into homelessness—in effect, dumping them on the front door of the local authority, many without the biometric certificate which is the essential ticket to getting universal credit and the gateway to a home.

So my questions are these. What, if any, communication exists between the Home Office and local authorities of the names and details of those who are to be released and when? At what point, following the letter telling the recipient they have leave to remain, do recipients receive their biometric certificate, without which they cannot really proceed anywhere? Is there any standard of service in the Home Office on any time gap between the letter arriving saying that they have leave to remain and the biometric certificate being delivered? The Minister spoke today of the need to protect the service provision, but the actions taken by the Government focus entirely on the numbers issue, not on seeking a sensible solution to those coming through and out of the system. I fear that we are in for many more debates on the chaos left by a system that is driven by numbers and not by people.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their questions. It is apparent that I would refute the allegation from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that, in any sense, the illegal migration update did not reveal a sensible and competent approach.

I will remind the House of the six points contained in the Statement. The first was the agreement we have recently struck with Turkey to take action with the Turkish authorities to disrupt gang activity and to prosecute those who would seek to smuggle people across the channel. The second point was the reiteration of the department’s approach to lawyers who would seek to undermine the efficacy of the asylum system by coaching or by, in effect, enabling fraudulent use of asylum and other routes; we have created the Professional Enablers Taskforce to prevent such an abuse of the system. The third was the massive increases in civil penalties for illegal working and for renting to those who are not entitled to do so.

Fourthly, on the very satisfactory statistics in relation to returns, I need not remind the House that 3,500 Albanians have been returned in recent times—a 90% reduction in the numbers arriving on small boats. Fifthly, my right honourable friend the Immigration Minister reminded the House of Commons that the target of 2,500 asylum decision-makers has now been met. Finally, there has been a 20% reduction in small boat crossings, compared to this time last year. This must be viewed in the context of circumstances where small boat arrivals in Italy have gone up by 100%.

In the context of all those points, it is notable that none of the questions from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, or the noble Lord, Lord German, focused on these points. That is because neither the Liberal Party nor the Labour Party has any answer to the problem posed by small boats.

I turn now to address some of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker. First, on the article in the Times about the report of the Independent Commission for Aid Impact, the Government are looking at that report and considering its outcome. It may be that the outcome is not something with which His Majesty’s Government agree, but in any event I can reassure the noble Lord that funding for asylum support will remain.

On the noble Lord’s question about Catterick garrison. I can confirm that work is ongoing to bring forward accommodation there as part of wider efforts to relieve pressure on the asylum system.

On the noble Lord’s question about the “Bibby Stockholm”, as my right honourable friend made clear in the other place, we are confident that we will be able to return asylum seekers to such accommodation within a fairly short period. Final checks are being conducted.

As to the work with France, I can reassure the noble Lord that our agreements with France have yielded a great deal of success. Our French deal has prevented some 33,000 illegal crossings in 2022—40% more than in 2021. In the first eight months of 2023, around 15,000 of these dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossing attempts have been prevented. This is on top of the agreements with Albania which have had the effect I have already outlined. We have a similar agreement with Turkey to tackle and disrupt the small boats supply chain. This includes the creation of a Turkish national police centre of excellence, based in Turkey, to tackle organised immigration crime.

This must all be viewed in the context of the operationalisation of the Illegal Migration Act, which will demonstrate the effect of the provisions. If you come to the UK illegally in a small boat, you will be detained and speedily removed.

[Lord Howard of Lympne (Con)]

My Lords, has my noble friend seen the recent, extremely sensible suggestion that, since the boats which are used in such dangerous circumstances to cross the channel do not comply with the safety requirements of the European Union, France and other member states have the power—and, indeed, the responsibility—to confiscate those boats? What representations are His Majesty’s Government making to France and the other countries to exercise these powers?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My noble friend makes an important point. It is right that Home Office officials and National Crime Agency officers are working closely with the French to try to disrupt the supply of small boats. We now have many of the boats used in the crossings which have been confiscated following the journeys across the channel. By and large, they are not ones which are sold on the French market; most of these vessels are constructed for the purpose. I have seen them myself, and they are incredibly dangerous and not fit for crossing an area of open water such as the English Channel. I can reassure my noble friend that, from what I have been told, the practice of the French, when they disrupt a launch, is to destroy the effectiveness of the boat and to confiscate what remains of the boat. This is something the French authorities have been handling. We are working, as ever, with them to disrupt the maritime side, and further work to disrupt the upstream provision of both boats and engines is ongoing.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, there is a shocking omission from the Statement. During the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill, a number of noble Lords expressed concern for the safety of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children arriving in Kent and who was responsible for them. The Minister repeatedly reassured us that these minors were rapidly transferred to other local authorities beyond Kent because it was not fair for one local authority to manage the numbers. Following a court case last month, the leader of Kent County Council said that the national transfer scheme was failing. Kent is now caring for 661 unaccompanied asylum-seeking children and more than 1,000 care leavers. Last month alone, Kent received 489, but only 136 went elsewhere. Shockingly, the judge said that neither Kent County Council nor the Home Office knew where the children are or whether they are safe and well. What is the Home Office doing to make the NTS work? Above all, are these children safe?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Clearly, the Home Office has the judgment of Mr Justice Chamberlain in the decision of which the noble Baroness speaks. The High Court found that Kent County Council was in breach of its obligations under the Children Act in relation to housing these children. It found that the contingency use of Home Office hotels was acceptable for short periods in an emergency where the facilities of Kent were overwhelmed. It was his view that the periods for which these children were in the hotels had exceeded the permissible period. Obviously, the Home Office is considering that recent judgment. As the noble Baroness observed, the practice has been for Kent to take responsibility for these children. Clearly, the national framework is being used and will continue to be used to redistribute the unaccompanied asylum-seeking children around the country.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

My Lords, small boats week was, unfortunately, a fiasco—it would have been a hoot were it not so incredibly serious when what we need is competent administration. The real problem is the Government’s prioritisation of gesture politics and grandstanding over hard work on dealing with this getting on for 200,000 backlog.

In his response to the Front-Benchers, the Minister said that funding would remain for asylum support. During the passage of the Illegal Migration Bill, Members from across the House warned—I remember that my noble friend Lord Purvis of Tweed in particular raised the issue—that international aid money could not be spent on people who are not asylum seekers if the Government refuse to admit them to the asylum process, which is what the Illegal Migration Act provides. Are the Government ever going to implement the Illegal Migration Act, or will they kick it into touch as they did with part of the Nationality and Borders Act, whose provisions on group 2 refugees have not been implemented? One wonders why we spent so many hours debating this—including till 4.15 am, as I remember —when the Government were acting all macho that this legislation had to go through. I would be intrigued to find out whether they will implement the Act not only because of these issues about budget but also because, as we warned, possibly hundreds of thousands of people will be left in limbo. It is an unworkable Act. What are the Government going to do?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I can confirm for the noble Baroness that we will certainly commence the Act. She will be happy, I am sure, to see statutory instruments commencing various provisions very shortly.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, one of the most welcome aspects of this Statement is the clampdown on the despicable lawyers who have benefited so much from leading on many young people who have come to this country illegally. Can the Minister tell the House honestly—I am sure that he is always honest—whether he really believes that we are getting value for money from the French Government for the £480 million that we spend? Can he also tell us how much training all these extra decision-makers, as I think they are called, have had? Were they all newly appointed or have they come from other parts of the Home Office?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I will deal first with the question about lawyers. I can confirm to the noble Baroness that the purpose of the Professional Enablers Taskforce is to bring together regulatory bodies, law enforcement teams and government departments to exchange information thus to investigate, disrupt and increase enforcement action against those lawyers who help illegal migrants exploit the immigration system. I am sure that I do not need to remind the House that such prosecutions against corrupt immigration lawyers could result in them facing sentences up to life imprisonment for assisting illegal migrants to remain in the country by deception.

Turning to the noble Baroness’s question about value for money from our agreement with the French, plainly, it is very hard to put a price on the lives of those saved who may have drowned while attempting to cross the channel. However, I venture to suggest to the noble Baroness that the answer is yes.

I turn to the noble Baroness’s third question, which related to the 2,500 additional asylum case workers. They are all fully trained. The Home Office also has a detailed programme of ongoing refresher training to ensure that each case worker is up to date. As to their source, I am afraid that I do not have the precise breakdown, but my understanding is that they have been recruited to that role. I can certainly look into how many of them are entirely new to the Home Office and how many have moved from other parts of the Home Office, and I will write to the noble Baroness in respect of that.

[Lord Jackson of Peterborough (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the Government’s initiatives in this policy area, in particular the 10-point plan, the 20% reduction in arrivals and the deal that was secured with Albania. However, can I gently press the Minister on the possibility, or the suspicion, that we might be moving towards a de facto amnesty situation in our haste to reduce the waiting list of asylum claimants? I pray in aid evidence by way of comparison with France, which accepts and grants the claims of only 25% of its asylum claimants whereas we grant 73%. Retaining robust standards is an important issue that people are concerned about, particularly in terms of the people we are training to adjudicate these claims in order to reassure the public that real action is being taken in this vital area.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I can assure my noble friend that we are certainly not engaging in an amnesty. Of course, that is what the previous Labour Government did in relation to bringing down the backlog, and it would be incredibly damaging to deterring false asylum claims if one were to go down that line. Every asylum claim is considered properly and fully against the acceptable standards. I can put my noble friend’s mind at rest on that question.

I realise that I omitted to answer the question from the noble Lord, Lord German, in relation to asylum support, and I ask for the indulgence of the House to provide those answers. There appears to be some confusion around the moving on process. The provision of asylum support is heavily regulated. I assure the noble Lord that the prescribed period for someone given notice that their asylum claim has been granted or that their appeal has been allowed or that their asylum claim has been refused and they have been given another type of leave is 28 days. In all other cases, it is 21 days. As per Regulation 22 of the Asylum Support Regulations, individuals will receive a notice-to-quit support letter, which will be issued in writing at least seven days before the individual’s support payments are due to end. Where an individual’s 21-day or 28-day period has passed but they have not received their seven days’ notice, they will still receive the seven-day notice period.

I should add that there is no legislative power to provide such support beyond the 21-day or 28-day prescribed periods and that there are no plans to change the periods. I hope that that provides a sufficiently detailed answer for the noble Lord.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

My Lords, before the Recess, I asked a simple question expecting a simple answer from the Minister. I asked what is the youngest age of an unaccompanied asylum-seeking child to have been placed in a Home Office hotel? It is a simple question, but the answer was quite breath-taking in that the Home Office could not give an answer because the data could not tell it the age of the youngest unaccompanied asylum-seeking child to be held in a hotel. Why is that the case? If the Home Office cannot answer that question, what are the implications for safeguarding and appropriate provision for such young children?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Clearly, safeguarding is a significant consideration. The Kent Intake Unit, where unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are initially triaged, is certainly somewhere where safeguarding concerns are taken very seriously. The staff there pay very close attention to ensuring the best possible care for the children who pass through the centre. Careful consideration is given in the cases of very young children that they are not sent to hotel accommodation but, rather, to local authority accommodation if it is at all possible.

I should add that, of course, the vast bulk of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children are nearer the age of 18—that is, 16, 17 or 18 years old.

[Lord Faulks (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Statement and, indeed, the Minister emphasised how lawyers have been, and are, capable of frustrating this process in ways that would often constitute serious criminal offences. Of course, those are matters for prosecuting authorities or the Solicitors Regulation Authority if the stories that the Daily Mail has helpfully published are true, and there is no reason to think that they are not true.

The Statement talks about the Professional Enablers Taskforce. Can the Minister set my mind at rest about whether this will help very much? Is there not a danger that having a bureaucratic organisation such as the Professional Enablers Taskforce may get in the way of the fairly straightforward process of prosecuting by the authorities or, indeed, pursuing professional matters under the regulation authority?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. The Professional Enablers Taskforce will perform the important function of ensuring that information is shared between the Home Office—of course, it has access to the documents relating to the various cases and could arguably provide witnesses in relation to them—the regulatory bodies of the various lawyers concerned, the police and the prosecuting authorities. The exchange of information in such circumstances is a great enabler to the successful prosecution and conviction of these people who would abuse our asylum system and our system of humanitarian protection for personal or professional financial gain.

[Lord Scriven (LD)]

I will try again. Very simply, why does the Home Office data not have a simple answer on the age of the youngest unaccompanied child seeking asylum who is in a hotel run by the Home Office, or, I should say, procured by the Home Office? Why is that data not available as a matter of fact?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As I have already made clear, the categories of data held by the Home Office are held in accordance with the practices that are deployed in the triaging of the various UASC who come through the Kent intake unit. Some data is held, and obviously some of that is protected because it is personal data. It will not surprise the noble Lord to learn that there is a vast amount of data which is held, and it is simply not satisfactory for the noble Lord to complain that one particular category of data is not held.

[Baroness Hoey (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, could I push the Minister very gently a little more on his obvious reasons on the question of value for money with France? Am I right that we have a relationship with Belgium, which does not get £480 million, and that it is doing much better at stopping these boats? Is there not some way that we can get the French to copy their colleague nation in the European Union to do the same?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for that remark. She is absolutely right: the Belgians are doing an excellent job. The Belgians, in contradistinction to the approach taken by the French authorities, stop the boats when they are in the water and return them to the shore, rather than the approach adopted by the French authorities, which is that they are unable to interfere once the boats have launched. Clearly, this is a topic that is the subject of frequent discussion. I reassure the noble Baroness that her point is well made, and I will take it away.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

I am sorry to come back on this point but the answer that the Minister has given twice now to my noble friend Lord Scriven is in conflict with the answer that he gave the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne. To the noble Lord, Lord Howard of Lympne, he said that the Home Office received data, whereas to my noble friend Lord Scriven he said that that data was not available. We know from the data that has been in the press that Kent County Council is certainly aware of the number of children and other details, as would be any other corporate parent local authority receiving children. We are not asking for individual data and the names of children, but there must be statistical ranges of the children who have arrived. The Minister has said that the Home Office holds some data—why does it not hold that data?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I have already answered that question. I am afraid I simply do not accept the noble Baroness’s point that there is conflict between the answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Howard, and the answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. The point is this: certain categories of data are simply not collected and this falls into that category. Lots of data is held, as it will not surprise the noble Baroness to learn.

[Baroness Ludford (LD)]

Can I have one last try at this? Does the Home Office record and hold data on the age of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children who are triaged in Kent and who are placed in hotels? A simple yes or no will do.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As I have already made clear, the data requested on a child in hotels could not be provided as it comes from operational databases that have not been quality assured.

Asylum Applications Backlog

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Wednesday 6th September 2023 Lords Chamber

[Earl Russell]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the growing backlog of asylum applications and to ensure new cases are processed in an efficient manner.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

We committed to increase our headcount to 2,500 decision-makers. As of 1 September, we have met that commitment. We have taken immediate action to speed up asylum processing while maintaining the integrity of the system. The streamlined asylum process plays an important role in achieving that. We are on track to clear the legacy asylum backlog by the end of 2023. It is presently down by more than 30,000 cases.

[Earl Russell (LD)]

I thank the Minister, but the asylum backlog had risen to a high of more than 175,000 waiting for an initial decision as of the end of June, up 44% from last year. There was a service standard that set a target of 98% of straightforward cases receiving an initial decision within six months. That was withdrawn in 2019. Can the Minister confirm that this Government are still committed to the efficient processing of asylum claims? If so, when will a new service standard be put in place?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I can reassure the noble Earl that we are very much committed to the efficient dispatch of the consideration of asylum claims. There were 78,768 asylum applications in the year ending June 2023, which is higher than at any time since the European migration crisis. The asylum backlog is high because there are so many applications. We entirely appreciate the point the noble Earl makes—that we need efficient dispatch of these applications—and that is why we have made the reforms and the headway with the backlog that we have.

[Lord Kirkhope of Harrogate (Con)]

While the application numbers should, of course, reduce—it is very important for this to be an initiative by the Government —do we not also have to look at the removals of those who fail to meet the criteria under the 1951 convention? Is my noble friend satisfied that we have discussed enough with the countries of origin—I emphasise “origin”—of these applicants that they will take back those who fail to meet those criteria, particularly countries of origin that claim to be free, democratic respecters of human rights?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My noble friend is entirely right that one of the keys to the asylum process is to remove those whose asylum applications are refused, but in some cases some countries are difficult about taking back their citizens. The Government take very seriously their obligations to seek to negotiate an improvement in those situations. An example of that being very successfully achieved was in relation to the Albanian cohort. As the House will hear later during the Statement repeat, we have successfully removed many Albanians to Albania under that agreement.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, when are the Government going to apologise for having created this backlog by closing all the safe and secure routes, except for a few nationalities? When will the Government apologise for making asylum seekers and refugees, who have experienced the most horrendous conditions, into some sort of right-wing trope and hate figures?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I do not recognise any of the items raised by the noble Baroness. I can reassure her that there will be no such apologies.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, from my time as Minister for Immigration, I have some experience of the challenges of asylum casework. Indeed, when I was the Minister we had a backlog and the problem of many countries not taking back their own citizens, but they were nothing like this scale. The backlog has increased by 44% over the last year. I recently heard a Home Office explanation for this. Apparently, it is

“due to more cases entering the asylum system than receiving initial decisions”.

Where I come from, in the west of Scotland, explanations of that nature are responded to with the words, “You don’t say?”. This is a description, not an explanation, of failures. My experience in government was that, when there were failures, the best way to deal with them was to change methodologies. Can the Minister honestly tell us whether, in his review of how this came about, the Home Office has identified any failures on its part that have caused this backlog?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am afraid the Government do not accept any lessons in handling the asylum backlog from the Labour Party, which resolved the issues in relation to its own asylum backlog by granting an asylum amnesty. That is not something we propose to do. The Government have addressed the problem by taking concrete steps, including the streamlined asylum processing model. This concentrates facilities on applicants from high-grant countries such as Afghanistan, Eritrea, Libya, Syria, Yemen and, latterly, Sudan. That is on the basis of the high grant rate. Various other steps have been taken to make the system more efficient. That is why we have had a drop in the number of applicants.

[Lord Ricketts (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that up to a third of the funds intended for overseas development assistance are being spent on the accommodation of asylum seekers, who are unable to work? Does he agree that reducing the backlog of asylum seekers would free up money to spend on overseas development, which is such an important part of Britain’s overseas reputation?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I rather agree with the noble Lord. The Government’s policy is to reduce expenditure on hotels, which will free up more government money to be spent on overseas aid. I can reassure the noble Lord, the House having passed the Illegal Migration Act, that one of its consequences is that those in the cohort covered by Section 2 will not be able to make asylum claims. As a result, they will not be in the asylum backlog.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister confirm that since the Prime Minister pledged to clear the pre-June 2022 asylum backlog the Government are now withdrawing many more claims, meaning that they no longer count? Can he say how many such claims have been withdrawn and whether a Home Office official was right when reported in the press as saying:

“This is done to basically bring the backlog down”—


in other words, changing the way the Government count numbers to give them the result they want?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

No is the short answer. The Home Office is committed to ensuring that the asylum system is not open to abuse. By promptly withdrawing asylum claims from non-compliant individuals, we are ensuring that decision-making resources are concentrated on those who genuinely wish to continue with their asylum claims within the UK. Asylum seekers can withdraw their claim, should they no longer wish to claim asylum in the UK, and may do so for a variety of reasons, including that they want to leave the UK or have permission to stay on another basis. Asylum claims may also be withdrawn where the individual fails to comply with the asylum process or absconds before a decision is made on their claim.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

Following the question from the noble Lord, Lord Ricketts, will the Minister confirm that, as reported in today’s press, it will no longer be possible to charge to the aid programme the costs of asylum seekers whose claims are deemed inadmissible under the Illegal Migration Act?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I have not seen the article to which the noble Lord refers. I will of course look at it and reply to him in due course.

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

Returning to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, how long does the Home Office consider a reasonable length of time for an asylum seeker to provide reasons and evidence as to why their asylum request should be reinstated after receiving a decision and the application is withdrawn? Will the Government publish statistics on the number of applicants reinstated?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The GOV.UK website contains detailed guidance on circumstances in which a claim will be withdrawn or deemed withdrawn, including a timescale. I do not believe, although I do not have the facts before me, that there is a concrete deadline after which a claim may not be restored, but I will check that and revert to the right reverend Prelate in relation to it.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my interests in the register. One of the consequences of the Government’s rush to beat the backlog is that those who have the right to remain are given as little as seven days, or sometimes even less, to leave their asylum seeker accommodation—seven days to find a home and a job and, most crucially, to put in a successful application for universal credit. Do the Government believe that making people homeless and passing the buck to local authorities and the voluntary sector, while that may solve the Government’s problem, places cash-strapped councils in an impossible position?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

Clearly, as the noble Lord knows, it is a priority for the Government to reduce and eliminate the use of hotels. If people have successfully claimed asylum, the position is that they should no longer reside in Home Office accommodation and that they become the responsibility of the local authority. This is a well-known procedure and has been in place for a long time. I do not believe that there is any reason why that should not be the case.

Police Act 1997 (Criminal Record Certificates: Relevant Matter) (Amendment) (England and Wales) Order 2023

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Tuesday 25th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 19 June be approved. Considered in Grand Committee on 24 July.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Sharpe of Epsom, I beg to move the Motion standing in his name on the Order Paper.

Motion agreed.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2023

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Tuesday 25th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 6 June be approved.

Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument). Considered in Grand Committee on 24 July.

Motion agreed.

Creative and Cultural Industries: Impact of Visa and Immigration Policies

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Tuesday 25th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact that the United Kingdom’s visa and immigration policies have on the UK creative and cultural industries.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, the United Kingdom is, and will continue to be, an attractive destination for top international talent in these fields. Our visa and immigration system has been designed to support, and is supporting, all areas of the United Kingdom’s thriving and expanding creative and cultural industries. It is a very generous, adaptive and flexible proposition from the department.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)]

I thank the Minister for his response. As I think he was trying to say, and as the Chancellor recently said, the creative industries are one of the UK’s five high-growth priority sectors. Skills and talent from a global pool are essential to its success, but it is experiencing widespread workforce shortages from both here and abroad—exacerbated, of course, by Brexit. Does the Minister accept the concerns of the chief executive of Creative UK that the Migration Advisory Committee’s shortage occupation list, as a mechanism for addressing this problem, is not fit for its core purpose? Some occupations from the creative sectors already appear to have been deemed out of scope. Why? The recently published Creative Industries Sector Vision says:

“the Home Office, DCMS and industry will work together to maximise the effectiveness of existing immigration routes for the creative industries workforce”.

How is the Minister’s department planning to do this while at the same time limiting such an essential route?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am afraid that I do not accept the noble Baroness’s proposition that we are, in some way, limiting access to the United Kingdom for creative workers. As I alluded to in my Answer, our domestic law allows musicians, entertainers, artists and their technical staff from non-visa national countries, such as EU member states, the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, to perform in the UK without requiring a visa. A non-visa national can stay one month without a visa if they are invited to the UK by a UK-based client or organisation and paid by a UK source, under the permitted paid engagement visitor rules. A non-visa national can stay three months without a visa if they have been assigned a certificate of sponsorship by a licensed sponsor, which is usually a UK company. A non-visa national can stay six months without a visa if performing at a permit-free festival; they are listed in the Immigration Rules and run from Glastonbury to Glyndebourne. All nationalities can apply for a 12-month stay, on a temporary work creative worker route visa, if they obtain a visa and have a certificate of sponsorship.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the recently announced increase of at least 20% in the visa charge for people on the 10-year route to settlement and their families will mean a rise of at least £18,265 for an adult and much more for a family. What assessment has been made of the impact on long-term residents, many of whom are on lower incomes and already struggle to meet visa fees?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I regret that I did not hear the beginning of the noble Baroness’s question. How is that connected to the creative visa schemes?

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My question is connected to visas, and visas were in the original Question. I asked about the recently announced increase of at least 20% in the charge for people and their families on the 10-year settlement route, which will mean a rise of at least £18,265 for an adult and more for a family.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am afraid that I still do not follow the noble Baroness’s question, but I reassure her that we will bring forward a further fees order in the autumn. No doubt she will ask further questions then, but I reassure her that visa fees are carefully studied by the department. It is vital that they appropriately reflect the cost of running the visa scheme.

[The Earl of Clancarty (CB)]

My Lords, looking at this in the opposite direction to the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, is the Minister aware of the real concern of losing British creative skills permanently to Europe, including our music touring technicians such as sound engineers and lighting crews, because of the obstacles the current agreement with the EU now poses to their work if they remain in this country?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As I have already said, we are proud of the fact that we have a very generous offer to those coming into the UK for creative purposes. We hope that other countries will reciprocate. I reassure the noble Earl that we have spoken to every EU member state about the issues facing our creative and cultural industries. From these discussions, 20 member states of the EU have confirmed that they offer visa and work permit-free routes for UK musicians and performers.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I find myself meeting nothing but young homegrown Brits who want jobs in the creative industries. What are we doing to develop our own national talent in this area?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

DCMS recently published its Creative Industries Sector Vision, which was published in June and has been developed in partnership between the Government and industry. It is a vision for creative industries to become an even greater growth engine, where creative talent from all backgrounds and creative businesses from all areas of the United Kingdom can thrive.

[Baroness Bull (CB)]

My Lords, there have been recent welcome discussions between the UK and some European countries about a bilateral reciprocal youth mobility visa to address the needs of specific sectors. This would not be the complete answer, but it would help those people most impacted by the current situation, which is young and emerging still-to-be-established talent. Will the Minister ensure that, if such a youth mobility scheme is introduced, it includes roles and paid work in the cultural and creative sector?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I agree with virtually everything the noble Baroness said. I reassure her that we remain committed to expanding our YMSs—youth mobility schemes—to more nations, including, but not limited to, those within the EU. Those youth mobility schemes provide cultural exchange programmes, to allow a person aged between 18 and 30 from participating countries and territories to experience life in the United Kingdom for up to two years. As the noble Baroness says, it is subject to bilateral reciprocal agreements which benefit British citizens equally.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain why so many people in the creative industries are complaining about the length of time it takes to get a visa and why they often cannot get their equipment here? From listening to what the Minister outlined, there does not seem to be any problem, but that is not the view of the creative industries, so what will he do to sort it out?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I reassure the noble Lord that the visa system is operating within the service standard in every sector, so there is no delay in creative visas being awarded to those who apply. The system works well. I simply do not recognise the account that he gives; if he has any particular cases, I would be grateful if he would write to me, and I can look into them.

[Lord Swire (Con)]

I think the noble Baroness, Lady Bonham-Carter, has hit on something, because we all know, if only anecdotally, that the system is not working as well as it should. Will my noble friend the Minister commit to going back to his department and having a discussion with DCMS as to how this regime can be better applied? There is no threat of people overstaying, particularly in the performing arts—it is unlikely, other than the national state orchestra of North Korea, who would probably want to stay here, but otherwise they just want to come here and perform and then go away. We are shooting ourselves in the foot by making it rather difficult for some of these performing artists to go about their business.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am afraid, timid as I am to disagree with my noble friend, that is just wrong. There are no issues here. In 2022, we issued 6,498 creative worker visas, of which 180 were issued to EEA nationals. Over the last decade, the number of creative visas issued has remained consistently high compared to other temporary work routes, such as the charity and religious worker visa routes. While the volumes fell during the pandemic, as one might expect, they have returned to high volumes. I suggest that the high volumes and low barriers to entry are a symbol of the excellence of our own success in the areas of work to which these visas relate.

[Lord Cashman (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, I am sorry not to give way to the noble Lord.

The Minister’s assurances roll over the Dispatch Box like treacle. Is he not aware that organisations as diverse as BECTU, the technicians’ trade union, and Barbican, the arts centre, are making exactly the same complaints as his noble friend just made? Is not the root cause of this that Brexit, far from being oven-ready, is half-baked and has left our creative industries in particular bereft of support?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, the answer is no.

Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2023

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Monday 24th July 2023 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) (Amendment) Order 2023.

Relevant document: 44th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Special attention drawn to the instrument.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, this fees order sets out the immigration and nationality functions for which a fee is to be charged, and the maximum amount that can be charged in relation to each of those functions. In the order we are debating, we are proposing a number of changes that will facilitate major government policy, play an important role in the simplification of the Home Office’s fee structure, and allow vital decisions to be made to ensure that the migration and borders system is properly funded.

Before I set out in detail the changes proposed in the order, I reiterate that the Government’s aim is to reduce the burden of operating the migration and borders system on the UK taxpayer. The fees set within the parameters of this order are a vital part of the Home Office’s funding settlement. Without the flexibility afforded by the order to adjust fees for all immigration and nationality routes through separate legislation, it is not possible for the Home Office to take a balanced approach to setting fees.

It is therefore vital that the maximum amounts set out in the order allow appropriate choices to be made on individual routes to support a balanced overall approach, avoiding the potential for increases to fall disproportionately on routes where there is flexibility to adjust fee levels. Noble Lords will be aware of proposals to increase fees across a number of immigration and nationality routes. Those fees can be set only through separate legislation, which will be laid later this year, and not the instrument we are debating today. That separate legislation will be accompanied by the production of a full economic impact assessment.

Turning to the changes we are proposing to the fee maximas, the majority of these have not changed since the previous order was laid in 2016. The changes we propose, which are accompanied by an economic impact assessment, will provide the necessary flexibility to make changes to fee levels where they are required to ensure that the sustainability of the migration and borders system is maintained and that we are able to set fees at a level that recovers the cost of processing an application.

As the Committee will know, the United Kingdom is launching an electronic travel authorisation scheme that will strengthen the security of our border and support our wider ambition for digitising the UK border. This is a familiar concept to the majority of international travellers, with many of our international partners having had similar schemes in place for a number of years. My Written Ministerial Statement on 6 June this year outlined the intention to set a fee of £10 for each application on the initial rollout of the scheme. The order before us provides a power to charge a fee for the scheme and sets the maximum fee that can be set by the Home Office for each application. Although we have announced our intended fee level of £10, that fee cannot be set through this order. We will set the fee formally through the immigration and nationality fees regulations, which, as I said, will be subject to approval by Parliament later this year.

We are continuing to simplify our fee structure by removing fees that have become increasingly redundant as part of the wider transition to digital evidence of immigration status or that are no longer required to support wider policy objectives. We will remove the chargeable function for biometric enrolment for all remaining instances of the £19.20 fee in the regulations, reducing the number of fees that customers are required to pay in relation to an application in respect of biometric enrolment. We are removing the £161 fee charged in country for a transfer of conditions for those with limited leave to remain because this fee is now largely obsolete, with all new customers applying in country now issued with a biometric residence permit or digital status.

We are also removing the fee to amend details on physical documents—such as name, sex marker, nationality and photograph—for those with limited leave to remain. This will bring these customers in line with those issued digital status and those with indefinite leave to remain, who are not charged a fee to make this sort of amendment. Finally, the order provides that we will no longer charge a fee for a like-for-like replacement of a biometric residence permit where that document has expired. This will primarily benefit those with indefinite leave to remain, whose cards have a maximum 10-year validity, with most due to expire in 2024.

The final changes that we are proposing in the order will ensure that it and subsequent fees regulations are aligned with the wider policy changes being made in the migration and borders landscape. Under new arrangements being rolled out as part of broader reforms to the innovator route, contact point meetings—a term defined in the order—will be required between an endorsing body and the individual applicant to assess progress against their business plan. The fee maximum for these meetings is set at £500. The fee for each assessment will be £500 and will be set in the Immigration and Nationality (Fees) Regulations in the next year, ahead of these meetings being chargeable in April 2024.

The current sponsorship system is being reformed, with the existing system of certificates of sponsorship being phased out and replaced with the “sponsor a worker” service. This will happen in stages with a limited beta test in 2024, during which both the certificates of sponsorship and the “sponsor a worker” scheme will operate side by side. The amendment that we are making in this order will facilitate this charge, providing a fee maximum to be set at the same level as the certificate of sponsorship, which is £300.

In closing, the changes that we are proposing through this order are vital to providing enough flexibility to amend fee levels, with the approval of Parliament, to ensure that the system is sustainable. I beg to move.

[Baroness Lawlor (Con)]

May I ask my noble friend the Minister about something to do with the policy background? In discussing the changes for which the order provides, both in function and fee levels under the regulations, my noble friend referred to one of the policy objectives: the overall security of our borders. In discussing security here and elsewhere, the Government have referred to pre-entry checks that will facilitate entry at our borders. My related question is: is there any proposal or plan to have ongoing checks, including checks when a successful applicant leaves the country, given that the proposed electronic travel authorisations will last for up to two years for short visits? If so, what does the Home Office intend to do to operate these?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, following the passage of the Nationality and Borders Act 2022 and related changes to the Immigration Rules in March this year, this order is the next stage of a lengthy process to implement the Government’s planned ETA system. Ministers have set themselves a target to begin issuing ETAs to people from Qatar and other Gulf states this autumn and for the scheme to be fully operational by the end of next year.

With respect to the new ETA system, the scope of the order is limited to fees to be charged and requirements for applicants to submit biometric information. A number of the most important issues, about how the scheme will work and what impact it will have, are left for another day. The new ETA system is a major undertaking, and its effects will be wide-ranging.

Significant numbers of UK-bound travellers who do not need a visa will be required to obtain formal clearance to enter the UK for the first time. Whether or not the system will function as it should will depend to a substantial degree on the effectiveness of new technologies that are still in development. In this case, the ETA system will require applications to be made and, eventually, biometric information to be submitted, online or via a new app which is yet to see the light of day. The Government say that even the decision-making process may be automated. That will take highly sophisticated technologies, and robust testing will be essential before the new system comes online. Will the Minister therefore provide an update on what progress has been made in the development of those technologies to date, and tell us whether he believes that the Home Office is currently on track to meet the deadlines it has set for the rollout of those changes?

There is a series of questions about the potential impacts of the order, especially on the tourism sector and the wider economy, including how travel across the border with Ireland might be affected. I have yet to be convinced that Ministers are taking adequate steps to address the concerns raised by stakeholders and to mitigate the unintended consequences. With regard to tourism, the impact assessment published alongside the order recognised that it is reasonable to expect a fall in tourist numbers once the ETA has been implemented, and that revenues can be expected to decrease as a result.

Concerns about the implications for cross-border travel between Northern Ireland and the Republic are especially acute in this sector. However, the impact assessment fails to capture the different effects that the ETA may have across the UK’s different nations and regions. That is a significant oversight. Members of the Northern Ireland tourist board have expressed extreme concern about this issue. They feel that their marketing strategy is very much based on an all-Ireland approach and that the ETA might risk this. Will the Minister therefore set out what steps the Home Office plans to take to mitigate any adverse effects on the tourist trade that these changes may have across the UK, including but not limited to the effects on Northern Ireland?

Given that we are dealing with an order that addresses fees, can the Minister tell us what consideration the Government have given to the potential merits of ring-fencing some of the income generated from applicants’ fees as a means of providing financial support to any business that may find itself struggling with the transition?

Alongside the measures pertaining to ETAs, this order makes changes to the maximum fee level applicable to a range of UK visa routes. For the most part, the proposed increases are relatively modest. The notable exception is for student visas. At present, applicants cannot be charged more than £490, but the order would increase the maximum fee to £600, which equates to a more than 20% increase on the current level, with significant potential implications for international student numbers. As the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has noted, the scale of the increase is particularly striking when measured against the actual cost to the Home Office of processing those visas, which is less than half of what applicants have to pay. The Government’s impact assessment for the student visa fee increase acknowledges that this potential change is likely to have significant knock-on effects on the number of visas granted to international students and, as a result, on revenue from tuition fees, on which so many of our leading universities remain reliant.

Can the Government go some way to quantifying this? The noble Lord, Lord German, talked about quantifying these impacts and was disappointed by this lack of quantification, but, of course, this funding can be monitored as the system continues to roll out as there will be a number of stages in future. I seek reassurance from the Minister that the impact of the system as it is rolled out will be monitored in a quantitative way as far as possible.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I am very grateful for this constructive short debate. Turning to the various points that have been raised, first, I confirm to my noble friend Lady Lawlor that the Home Office will continually monitor the suitability of a person to hold an ETA and will cancel an ETA once granted if that becomes appropriate. An ETA can be cancelled on a range of grounds, including criminality, exclusion or deportation and on non-conducive grounds. Clearly the whole point of having an ETA of limited duration—two years—is that when a further application is made, further checks are run on the applicant. The electronic travel authorisation scheme is designed in such a way that the security of our borders is paramount.

On the process point made by the noble Lord, Lord German, as the SI Minister for the Home Office, I am very familiar with the work of the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and the content of its report. I reassure him that, as I said in my Written Ministerial Statement on 6 June, our intention is to charge a fee of £10, and this order allows for £15 as a potential maximum. As this order establishes only the chargeable function and the maximum chargeable fee, not the actual intended fee, the Explanatory Memorandum for this SI focused on the chargeable function and maximum rather than the intended fee, which will, as I said in my earlier remarks, be set out later this year in the immigration and nationality fees regulations.

The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee raised concerns with the Home Office that the Explanatory Memorandum did not, as the noble Lord said, provide enough information about the bigger picture of the ETA policy and should have included the intended level of fees and the rationale for them. I have explained the logic behind the way we have set out the Explanatory Memorandum for this instrument, but of course I will bear in mind what the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee said when I prepare and review the Explanatory Memorandum for the fees regulations that will be introduced later this year, and of course I will reflect more generally on the point in relation to fees legislation in future. I thank the noble Lord for raising the point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord German (LD)]

Perhaps I could probe a little deeper there, because we get most of our tourists, in bulk numbers, from within the European Union. That is the number we are looking at, and where people can choose which other country they want to go to. They have a choice of 25 countries, including the Republic of Ireland. The difficulty here is that it is suggested that there will be a 1% drop in the number of tourists to this country, and it is that bit I am trying to find out. If they are predominantly from the European Union, then it is not the cost issue there, because for people who are in the European Union, there is no cost to moving from one country to another. So I would just like to probe a little bit more on that.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

As I say, it is the Home Office’s view that the cost will have a negligible impact on the choice of destination. Interestingly, just picking up on a point that the noble Lord raised, the Republic of Ireland is not proposed to be part of the ETIAS, and has chosen to opt out, as it is not in the Schengen area. So the Republic of Ireland is something of an outlier now in this field, which of course ties back to the point that I will come to in relation to the noble Lord’s third point on the common travel area.

I turn to the noble Lord’s second point: the impact on universities. Fees for immigration and nationality applications are kept under review, as the noble Lord knows. Increases to student visas were announced as part of a wider announcement on fees on 13 July by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. Those changes will be made in the same regulations that I have already discussed that will come later this year. Those fees will be within the maximum that we are setting in today’s order. While the student fee maximum was increased by a small amount in 2022, the Home Office has determined that further flexibility is necessary to ensure that we are able to take a balanced consideration of fee levels across all routes. The amendment we are proposing to this order will allow this to happen over the longer term.

The Government are of the view that it is right that those who benefit most from the immigration system should contribute towards the cost of operating it. We also note that there is limited evidence that past fee increases have affected demand on study routes.

I turn to the noble Lord’s final point, in respect of the common travel area. As now, there will be no routine immigration controls on journeys within the common travel area and no immigration controls whatever on the Ireland/Northern Ireland land border, as the noble Lord would expect. However, as is currently the case, individuals arriving in the United Kingdom, including those crossing the land border, will need to continue to enter in line with our immigration framework, which obviously will include the requirement to obtain an ETA when they are introduced. I should add that an ETA will not be necessary for an Irish national, of course, because they have special status.

The general principle that one enters the common travel area while adhering to the immigration framework is a long-standing and well-established one. Those crossing from Northern Ireland into Ireland have long been expected to comply with immigration requirements. Once granted, an ETA will be valid for multiple journeys over an extended period, as I discussed in relation to the point made by my noble friend Lady Lawlor. Third-country nationals who are already legally resident in Ireland will be exempt from the requirement to obtain an ETA when travelling to the UK on a journey within the common travel area. In order to benefit from this exemption, if required to do so by a UK immigration official, non-residents of Ireland will need to present physical evidence demonstrating that they are legally resident in Ireland. I hope that this answers the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord German. Guidance as to the forms of identification that will be required has been provided as of Thursday last week; I can provide a copy to the noble Lord after this debate.

I turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, in relation to the process; in particular, how we have tested the tech for electronic travel authorisations. I assure him that I have personally tried the tech. It is very impressive and is swift and easy to use. It simply uses a mobile phone handset, the chip in the applicant’s passport and their credit card details, while their biometric details are taken by the camera on the phone. I assure the noble Lord that this technology has been subjected to robust testing and the Home Office remains on track to launch the scheme in Qatar in October this year.

We have made a deliberate decision to have a phased rollout, starting with Qatar, before rolling it out worldwide in 2024, to ensure that our systems and processes can accommodate the expected number of applications; we expect the figure to be in the region of 30 million a year. We have invested in brand new technology to ensure that customers receive the best user experience when applying for an ETA. As I say, the Home Office has done extensive testing on the mobile application. We are using the same technology that we used for the highly successful EU settlement scheme, so we are confident that the tech should be fully successful when the scheme is launched; as I say, we remain on track to launch in October 2023.

I have already partly responded to the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord German, about Northern Ireland tourism. I can assure him the Home Office has been working closely with tourist bodies across Ireland to ensure that the ETA requirement has as little impact as possible on Irish tourism, both from Northern Ireland into the Republic of Ireland and the other way around. We are committed to working with stakeholders to ensure that the requirement is effectively targeted through a variety of channels and to mitigate any risk of it being seen as a barrier to pan-Ireland tourism, if I can call it that.

Finally, on the noble Lord’s point about the general increases proposed, these increases clearly reflect that the majority of fees have not been subject to a significant increase since 2018, despite a context of high inflation and record high migration into the UK. As I have already said, it is the Government’s policy that those who use and benefit most from the immigration system should contribute towards the cost of operating the system, reducing the burden on the UK taxpayer. The increases announced by the Government will mean that a greater share of that cost will be met by those users of the system. This in turn will allow more funding to be prioritised elsewhere in the Home Office, including to pay for vital services and support public sector pay rises. These increases, which are within the existing fee maxima, will, as I have said, be made through separate legislation after the Summer Recess.

I reassure noble Lords that the immigration fees will be kept under review over the lifespan of this order and will be updated within the parameters that we are setting today. In the event that fee levels are changed, they will need to be approved by this House and accompanied by a full economic impact assessment. I commend this order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 17th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 1B, 7B and 90D to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 90E.

90E: Because Amendment 1B is unnecessary, as the courts should have regard to the UK’s international legal obligations in interpreting legislation; because Amendment 7B is inappropriate because the Bill already provides for two classes of suspensive claims with a right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal, so an application for judicial review should not provide an additional route for suspending removal; and because Amendment 90D is contrary to the purpose of the Bill to prevent and deter unlawful migration.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, before I get into the detail of the amendments, it is worth reiterating why we are here again debating this Bill late at night. The United Kingdom has a proud history of providing protection to those who genuinely need it through our safe and legal routes. The United Kingdom is one of the largest recipients of UNHCR-referred refugees globally, having resettled 28,000 through UNHCR resettlement schemes between 2015 and 2022. This places the United Kingdom second only to Sweden in Europe.

However, the volume of illegal small boat arrivals has overwhelmed our asylum system. We have a duty to house those arriving illegally, but that is now costing £6 million a day and £3.6 billion a year. With over 45,000 people making dangerous channel crossings last year, this is simply no longer sustainable. If people know there is no way for them to stay in the UK, they will not risk their lives and pay criminals thousands of pounds to arrive here illegally. It is therefore only right that we stop the boats and break the business model of the criminal gangs exploiting vulnerable people, ultimately enabling the Government to have greater capacity to provide a safe haven for those at risk of war and persecution.

We have spent many an hour debating these issues. That is, of course, as it should be, but your Lordships will have also seen that the elected House has today reconsidered amendments a second time, and by a significant majority disagreed with the Lords amendments. I suggest we therefore respect the will of the elected House and the British people by passing this Bill.

I turn to the amendments. As I have set out throughout the passage of the Bill, and as the Immigration Minister has set out in the other place, the Government take their international obligations, including under the European Convention on Human Rights, very seriously. There is nothing in the Bill that requires any act or omission that conflicts with the United Kingdom’s international obligations.

In her speech last week, the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, in referring to her revised amendment, talked of “softening its requirements”, but the words in Amendment 1B,

“and any acts and omissions made as a result”,

mean that it was not simply an interpretive clause. The effect of those words would be that these conventions would, in effect, be incorporated into our domestic law. A Lords amendment to a purported interpretation provision is not the right place to effect something so constitutionally significant.

Amendment 90F seeks to address this concern by substituting new wording, namely:

“In interpreting this Act, regard shall be given to the United Kingdom’s obligations under”


the various specified conventions. I suggest that the revised wording still presents the same challenges I outlined earlier. Either the new clause has substantive effect or it serves no purpose, and the noble Baroness’s intent is clearly the former.

On Amendment 90H, the Bill creates a bespoke suspensive claim and appeals process which will allow illegal migrants to make a suspensive claim if they consider that a mistake has been made in applying the duty, or if they would face a risk of serious and irreversible harm if removed to a third country. These are the only claims that should suspend removal, and limiting the ability of any other claims to prevent removal is necessary to deliver the essence of the Bill, ensuring that illegal entrants are promptly removed following the determination of any suspensive claim and appeal.

The Commons has now considered and rejected amendments similar to this on three occasions. It is time to restore the original Clause 1 to the Bill, with its clear statement of purpose: to avoid and deter unlawful migration, and to create certainty. It is time to respect the clearly expressed view of the elected House by endorsing Motion A. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s Motion A1. We believe it to be a very important Motion.

The only comment I will make in response to the Minister’s opening remarks on the passage of the Bill in the other place is this. We have always said that the Government have a right to get their legislation, but this place also has a right to put forward amendments and to ask for revisions and consideration. It does not help us to believe that this place receives proper consideration of its amendments when the Minister in the other place announced at the end of last week, even before proper consideration, that no concessions would be made with respect to what this House is proposing. That is not the way for business to be conducted. This place has a proper constitutional role to play, which includes sometimes saying to the Government that they should think again, and even sometimes saying it twice.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I simply cannot accept the proposition advanced by the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti. As the House will remember from the last occasion, a court always has regard, if possible, to the international treaties binding the United Kingdom, as was made clear by Lord Dyson in the Supreme Court in the Assange case.

The noble Baroness’s amendment is simply unnecessary, and, in addition, it would have the effect of changing the constitutional relationship of our law and international law. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept her proposed Motion. I invite noble Lords to vote against it in the event that it is not withdrawn.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords. I have moved Motion A1 and I ask noble Lords to approve it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9C.

9C: Because the Amendment is contrary to the purpose of the Bill to prevent and deter unlawful migration.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move Motion B that this House do not insist on its Amendment 9B to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9C. I will also speak to Motions C, D and E.

Amendment 9B was rejected by the Commons for the second time earlier today by an increased majority. The elected House agrees that declaring asylum and certain human rights claims to be inadmissible is a core part of the scheme provided for in the Bill which must not be reversed. It is not a proportionate or considered amendment and simply creates a perverse incentive whereby people exploit every opportunity, including through protracted legal challenges facilitated by the early amendments, to reach the six-month point.

I note Amendment 9D has an additional provision, but this does not substantially change the effect of the earlier version of this amendment. Having debated this Bill for many hours, we will all be familiar with one of the key objectives of it—to remove illegal entrants in days and weeks, not months or years. That should be our start and end point. As such, this amendment is not only wrong but it is not needed.

I turn to Amendment 23B. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, suggested last week that the Government’s case against this amendment was simply to provide an assurance that,

“this will all come out in the wash”.—[Official Report, 12/7/23; col. 1826.]

There is rather more to it than that. The legislation is clear and affords the necessary protection for LGBT people fearful of persecution if they are removed to a particular country.

Throughout the debates in this House, I have been clear that it is simply not the case that anyone who meets the conditions in Clause 2 can be sent to any of the countries listed in Schedule 1 without further ado. The schedule needs to be read with the provisions in Clause 5, which determine whether a person can be returned to their home country, and with the provisions later in the Bill which enable a person to make a serious harm suspensive claim where they are being removed to a third country.

As to the noble and learned Lord’s point about Rwanda and the ongoing litigation, I point him to the terms of the Commons reason, which states that the amendment is not necessary

“because removal of any person to any country will only be done where the arrangements to do this are lawful”.

The Bill therefore already contains sufficient safeguards. This was recognised by the Commons when they voted for a second time to reject this amendment.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and the noble Lord, Lord Cashman, are doughty defenders of LGBT rights, and I entirely understand their desire to get clarity and certainty on this issue. I believe that the Bill provides the necessary clarity, and on that basis, and in view of the further vote by the Commons to disagree with the amendment, I hope that the noble and learned Lord and the noble Lord will now be content to support Motion C.

The detention powers in the Bill are fundamental to achieving its objectives. We need a robust scheme which broadly applies to all and does not allow the system to be gamed. The Bill is designed to be operated both quickly and fairly, and our aim is to ensure that people are not held in detention for longer than is absolutely necessary to effect their removal from the UK.

With regard to Amendment 33B and the detention of families for no more than 96 hours, or the new Amendment 33D, which sets a time limit of 120 hours, I put it to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol that these amendments risk creating a significant loophole in the system. We will see criminal gangs putting together fake family groups, more adults seeking to pass themselves off as children, and genuinely unaccompanied children being put at risk.

On Amendments 36C and 36D, I remind noble Lords that unaccompanied children are not subject to the duty to remove. The power to remove them in Clause 3 will be exercised only in limited circumstances. Therefore, for the most part, unaccompanied children will not be detained under the provisions of the Bill but will instead be quickly transferred to local authority accommodation.

Where an unaccompanied child is detained, this will be for the shortest possible time, in appropriate detention facilities and with relevant support provisions in place. Such a person will be detained in age-appropriate accommodation, as the law already provides. As I informed the House previously, this is already set out in the Detention Centre Rules 2001.

The elected House has now on three occasions endorsed the Government’s positions on the detention powers in the Bill. Indeed, the votes earlier today delivered increased majorities for the Government’s position. Your Lordships’ House should be under no illusion that the position would change if new Amendments 36E and 36F, which only marginally change the earlier amendments, were returned to the other place. I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, has asked me to give a short commentary. He did not put an amendment down, but he wanted me to say, first, that the Government have never denied that the specified countries in the Bill are unsafe for LGBT people, and that includes Rwanda. He also asked me to say that it is reasonable that there should be no removals to Rwanda so long as there is litigation in process, and that prohibition on removal in the case of countries facing a proposal of proceedings under Article 7 is right in principle and mirrors the existing provisions regarding return under Section 80A. He wanted me to make those points even though he has chosen not to table a further amendment.

We have heard all the movers of amendments give a full explanation of their amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Kerr, spoke about common humanity—I of course agree with that—and about trying to support people who will potentially be kept in limbo through this Bill. The noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, gave four examples of why she will be moving her amendment. The one that resonated most with me was her second point about needing to get an emergency protection order for a medical intervention for a child. As a family magistrate, I occasionally do those orders. I find it really quite shocking that, even for relatively routine orders, the Home Office would have to go to court to get a medical intervention. She made other points as well but that is the one that particularly resonated with me.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol introduced her amendment about a time limit of 120 hours, or up to seven days when authorised by a Minister; we will support the right reverend Prelate should she choose to move to a vote.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, His Majesty’s Government cannot accept any of the proposed amendments. I shall deal first with the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kerr, in relation to his Motion B1 and his amendment concerning a proposed subsection (3C) where subsection (3) would not apply

“if the reason that the person has not been removed from the United Kingdom can be attributed to the actions of that person”.

I suggest that that phrase would generate a tidal wave of litigation were this amendment to be accepted. It would make the statute wholly uncertain and, I suggest, open a very large loophole in the scheme of the Bill.

I turn to the points raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bristol in relation to the provisions concerning the responsibility in respect of children. I can reassure both the noble and learned Baroness and the right reverend Prelate that we are working closely with DfE on the implementation of this Bill, but I am afraid that I cannot accept the other propositions that they advanced.

Finally, in response to the noble Lord, Lord German, it is not our intention to “lock up children”, as he put it, under this Bill. It is our intention to have the power to do so should that be necessary in very rare circumstances. For those reasons, I invite the House to reject these amendments in the event that they are not withdrawn.

[Lord Kerr of Kinlochard (CB)]

The Minister said at the outset that Motion B1 contained no substantive change. He has now asserted that it contains a change that would be unworkable, wrecking and mammoth. He ought to make up his mind; but I hope the House’s mind is made up that we are not prepared to see sine die incarceration. I ask to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 23B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 23C.

23C: Because the Amendment is unnecessary as an LGBT person who is a national of a country specified in the Amendment and who makes a protection claim will not be returned to their home country and can make a serious harm suspensive claim in the event that it is proposed to remove them to a safe third country, and because removal of any person to any country will only be done where the arrangements to do this are lawful.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its disagreement with the Commons in their Amendments 36A and 36B; and do not insist on its Amendments 36C and 36D.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D. I beg to move.

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 33B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 33C.

33C: Because the Amendment is contrary to the purpose of the Bill to prevent and deter unlawful migration.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion E. I beg to move.

Motion E1 (as an amendment to Motion E)

Tabled by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 56B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 56C.

56C: Because the Bill already makes sufficient provision to enable a potential victim of modern slavery to remain in the UK where the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the person to do so for the purpose of cooperating with a public authority which is investigating their exploitation.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Motion F, I shall speak also to Motions G, H and J. As regards Amendment 56B, this Bill provides an important exception to the application of the public order disqualification where it is necessary for a potential victim of modern slavery to remain in the United Kingdom for the purpose of co-operating with a law enforcement agency in connection with the investigation of their exploitation.

While there is indeed a presumption that it is not necessary for such co-operation to take place within the United Kingdom, the presumption does not apply where there are compelling circumstances to the contrary. In deciding whether there are such compelling circumstances, caseworkers will be guided by statutory guidance, and we are committed to such guidance having particular regard to persons believed to have been victims of slavery or human trafficking in the United Kingdom. Noble Lords will therefore appreciate that this guidance will effectively achieve the aims set out in this amendment.

The guidance will be published ahead of commencement of the relevant provisions of the Act. Statutory guidance assists decision-makers by providing them with detailed information and examples to consider when making judgments. It allows for flexibility in its implementation, which can be adapted to different situations while still adhering to the overarching legal framework, and plays an important role in supporting the interpretation and application of legislation. My noble friend and I are therefore of a similar mind as to the support offered to victims of exploitation that takes place in the UK. The Government’s view is that statutory guidance is the appropriate way to achieve this aim.

Amendment 103B seeks to confer an explicit statutory function on the National Crime Agency to combat organised immigration crime connected to illegal entry into the United Kingdom via the channel. As the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, will be fully aware, the NCA’s functions already extend to combating all types of organised crime, including organised immigration crime. Following the pledge made by the Prime Minister last December to stop the dangerous small boat crossings, the Government have doubled the funding for the next two years for the multiagency organised immigration crime task force, of which the National Crime Agency is a leading component. Our determination to tackle the criminal gangs that facilitate the channel crossings is not in doubt. It remains the case that this amendment is not needed.

We have debated at length what the Government are doing, and by when, to establish additional safe and legal routes. Therefore, in response to Amendment 102B, I will simply repeat what my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart set out last week. These commitments are on behalf of His Majesty’s Government and not just an individual Minister. I therefore hope that this amendment will not be pursued.

Finally, returning to the amendment proposed by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, I remain wholly sympathetic to the need for an holistic approach and action in dealing with large-scale displacement crises and the abhorrent crimes of modern slavery and human trafficking. We work relentlessly to identify victims of modern slavery and human trafficking, delivering personalised, needs-based support and assisting recovery to rebuild lives for some of the most vulnerable in our society. Alongside this, we collaborate with a wide range of domestic and international partners to enhance awareness of modern slavery and human trafficking, bolster resilience and minimise opportunity for exploitation, supporting our ability to take a long-term approach to this issue.

The Government have already embedded actions to tackle refugee crises through existing cross-government strategies, including the international development strategy and the humanitarian framework. Much of this work has effectively and appropriately been spearheaded by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office due to its focus beyond our borders. We also continue to collaborate with state and non-state actors, such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and non-governmental organisations. As noble Lords will be aware, the UNHCR has a global mandate to protect and safeguard the rights of refugees. We will continue to work with the UNHCR, as we have done many times before, to respond to displacement crises globally and offer safe and legal routes to protection in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, we have played a key role in intergovernmental processes that have shaped the way the international community responds to displacement crises, such as through the Global Compact on Refugees adopted by the international community in 2018. We continue to work to find durable solutions for refugees with like-minded international partners.

I agree with many of the points made previously on the Bill by the most reverend Primate and other noble Lords. I wholeheartedly recognise the importance of addressing the underlying drivers and taking a long-term approach to tackle these issues, and believe that our ongoing efforts already embody a commitment to an extensive and strategic approach.

Our dedication to tackling these challenges and to finding sustainable solutions remains unwavering. However, the immediate focus of this Bill is stopping the boats. As I set out at the start of this debate, it is only through stopping the boats that we can enable the Government to have a greater capacity to provide a safe haven for those at risk of war and persecution.

The House has fulfilled its proper role within our constitutional framework in relation to the Bill. Your Lordships have asked the elected House to examine these issues again—not once, but now twice. The answer has again come back from the Commons that it disagrees with the Lords amendments. It is time to leave it there. I beg to move.

Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

The most reverend Primate’s amendment is exactly what we are told by some of those who criticise opposition to the Bill. It is exactly what he is proposing and what we should be dealing with. He has attempted to require through the means of legislation a wide and long view of the issues, and the Government have rejected that. We will be supporting the amendments to the Motions that are moved.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, as I indicated in my opening remarks, I agree with my noble friend Lord Randall—from his speeches in earlier stages of the Bill—and much of what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, said, that we are of a similar mind as to the support offered to victims of exploitation that takes place in the United Kingdom. It remains the Government’s view that statutory guidance is the appropriate way to achieve this aim, and for that reason the Government resist the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Coaker.

Moving on to deal with the revised Amendment 103D, to which the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, spoke, he seeks to confer an explicit statutory duty on the NCA director-general to produce a report within a period of three months, beginning with the day on which the Act is passed and every three months thereafter. I am sure that noble Lords will join me in thanking the officers of the National Crime Agency, who consistently bring their expertise and dedication to combating serious and organised crime and making the UK a safer place. With regard to publishing reports, surely noble Lords can agree that the NCA’s time is better spent focusing on reducing serious and organised immigration crime and arresting the criminals behind it rather than producing reports. One has only to read the NCA’s annual report to appreciate the range of activities it is already engaged in to help tackle the cross-channel people-smuggling gangs. The NCA has also published its annual plan for 2022-23, which sets out priorities for the year ahead and how it will deliver them. I commend it to noble Lords.

On Amendment 107E, proposed by the most reverend Primate, I welcome the fact that he has put forward a new amendment which no longer seeks to provide for a 10-year strategy but rather a one-off debate. However, I am afraid that the Government remain unpersuaded of the case for his new amendment, and it is not accepted by the Government. It is not for the United Kingdom in isolation to assess the effectiveness of the refugee convention, as the amendment appears to suggest.

For all those reasons, I invite the House, in the event that any of these matters are put to a Division, to oppose them.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, for the reasons that I outlined earlier, and for the reasons that I gave with regard to the Modern Slavery Act, I beg to move my Motion F1 and wish to test the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 102B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 102C.

102C: Because the Amendment is unnecessary as the Government has already committed to implement additional safe and legal routes as proposed in the report to be published under clause 59 as soon as practicable and in any event by the end of 2024.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion G. I beg to move.

Motion G agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 103B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 103C.

103C: Because the Amendment is unnecessary as section 1 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 already provides for the National Crime Agency to have functions (including duties to publish information) in relation to combating organised crime; this function encompasses organised immigration crime.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion H. I beg to move.

Motion H1 (as an amendment to Motion H)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 107B and 107C, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 107D.

107D: Because the Amendments are unnecessary as the Government already works in collaboration with the UN High Commission for Refugees and others in response to refugee crises and in tackling human trafficking.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion J. I beg to move.

Motion J1 not moved.

Electronic Travel Authorisation

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Monday 17th July 2023 Lords Chamber

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

The United Kingdom’s electronic travel authorisation scheme, or ETA, and the EU’s European travel information and authorisation system, ETIAS, will require travellers to obtain authorisation prior to travel. In both cases, travellers must complete an online application form and receive electronic permission to travel, which is verified by carriers before boarding. The ETA scheme will collect biometrics upstream, away from the United Kingdom border. This will enable us to increase automation of passenger clearance at the UK border.

[Baroness Doocey (LD)]

My Lords, this new system will also require all passengers transiting through UK airports to have an ETA. The EU equivalent system has no such requirement. This means that more than 20% of passengers—and that was 20 million people in 2019—who go through airports will need to pay £10 a head for an ETA, despite the fact that they will not even leave the airport. Do the Government really believe that a family of four is going to choose to pay £40 to transit through a UK airport when it can transit through an EU airport for free?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

It is the intention of the policy to apply to those transferring in British airports. This makes Britain a more secure country.

[Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)]

My Lords, following the regret Motion debate on 23 May and subsequent amendments in Committee and at Report on the Illegal Migration Bill in respect of ETAs, what further discussions has the Minister had with his ministerial colleagues in the Home Office regarding further exemptions to ETA to ensure that the tourism industry in Northern Ireland is not further undermined as a result of such requirements?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Baroness for her question, and I can reassure her that work continues on the guidance discussed during the previous debate. The Government remain committed to the Good Friday agreement and ensuring there is no hard border between Northern Ireland and Ireland. In line with our commitments under strand 2, the Government are committed to working with Tourism Ireland and Tourism Northern Ireland to ensure that the ETA requirement is communicated effectively through targeting messages and a variety of channels. That would include Tourism Ireland, as a crucial body established under the north/south provisions.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, I draw attention to my entry in the register of interests as the chairman of Airlines UK. Does my noble friend understand that putting Britain at a commercial disadvantage in such an international industry will do us no good whatsoever in the long term? Perhaps the Government should look at how our airlines are able to compete internationally with others.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that question. I must say, however, that the cost of an electronic travel application in the UK is only £10. It will be €7 for an ETIAS, whereas among our comparators overseas—in the US, for example—the equivalent ESTA costs $21, which is £16 in today’s prices. In Australia, it is 20 Australian dollars and in New Zealand, it is 23 New Zealand dollars if completed online and 17 dollars if completed on a mobile app. By any measure, the price to be charged for a UK ETA is very reasonable.

[Lord McNally (LD)]

My Lords, the Minister has been extremely well briefed, to missing the point. Is he not aware that the tourism agencies in both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland have expressed grave concern at the catastrophic impact this will have on tourism across the island of Ireland, which is very important to both? Can we have some sense of action this day from him, rather than a few more meaningless statistics?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I am afraid that I do not agree with the noble Lord that the views of the tourist authorities across the island of Ireland have not been taken into account. Engagement has been deep and thorough, and it is for that reason that an agreement has been made that particular circumstances will apply in Northern Ireland. I simply do not agree with him that the impact of the introduction of ETAs will devastate the Irish tourism industry.

[Viscount Waverley (CB)]

My Lords, will these rules apply to those with full residency in the European Union—to British nationals entering the European Union? I declare that I am a full resident in Portugal. Are the Government aware that EU citizens can avail themselves of the opportunity to go through the UK’s electronic gate immigration system? However, as a result of Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, those with residency, when entering the EU, are consigned to third-country status. Would the Minister consider engaging with his EU ministerial colleagues—it has been suggested by EU immigration authorities that they would welcome this—to have this anomaly corrected?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Viscount for that question. He makes an important point. As I have said before in this House, we endeavour to operate our e-gates policy on the most welcoming basis we can, and this includes allowing EEA nationals to use our e-gates. It is perhaps unfortunate that the same privilege has not been extended reciprocally so far, but this is something officials continue to work on. I reassure the noble Viscount that my understanding is that the Schengen border area negotiations resulted in an agreement that there would be exemptions for residents and family members of EU citizens from ETIAS, although it is a little unclear what those are and how they will be affected at this stage.

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, is it not the case that, whatever systems are used at the border, staff are needed to oversee the border and the e-gates? Can the Minister comment on the recent Daily Mail article, which said that the Defence Secretary

“has refused the Home Secretary's request for 750 troops to be deployed to plug gaps in the UK’s Border Force—claiming that Ms Braverman should have made contingency plans for the shortages, rather than expecting him to act as a last-minute stop-gap”?

The Home Secretary has said that, without those 750 members of the Armed Forces

“to help man immigration posts to cover for striking or absent Border Force officers, then British travellers could face long queues”.

What does the Minister say to that?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that question. It is quite a long way from comparing ETIAS and ETAs, of course, but the short answer is that the figures that appeared in the Daily Mail article relate to the military aid to civilian authority application, which was made in order to make up for shortfalls in Border Force staff during strike action. I am glad to confirm for the House that there is no strike action planned during the peak of the summer season. I can also confirm that the Border Force strikes at Christmastime saw the effective deployment of soldiers; I am sure that Members of this House are grateful to them for their excellent work on that occasion.

I can assure the noble Lord that we have trained and are ready to deal with situations relating to a shortage of Border Force staff. We have recruited more staff, cancelled some leave and trained staff to address more front-line roles, so the noble Lord should be satisfied with that.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I voted for Brexit because I thought that it would result in making our country more competitive and reduce the burdens on people. Is this not a classic example of going in the opposite direction, and should we not abandon it?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

I agree entirely with my noble friend as to the sentiment behind the decision that we as a nation took. I can reassure him that the ETA system is as unbureaucratic as it can be and is not linked in the same way that ETIAS is to a burdensome requirement for biometric and fingerprint recognition on entry into and exit from the European Union. The British scheme simply requires the taking of a photograph when someone applies for an ETA on their phone. It will be much smoother and much less burdensome and as a result, economic benefits will, I think, accrue to our country.

[Viscount Stansgate (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister referred to fingerprinting. Can he update the House on what plans, that he knows of, are being prepared to force UK citizens travelling to Europe to be fingerprinted at the point of departure, whether it is Dover, Folkestone or St Pancras? If discussions are happening, can he tell us what steps the Government are taking to enable the infrastructure in those three locations to handle the large volumes of people who would need to be fingerprinted?

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

The noble Viscount makes an important point. Obviously, a vital part of the ETIAS system on which the EU will rely involves the implementation, six months before the introduction of ETIAS, of something called the European entry/exit system, which will require all non-EU nationals entering the EU to be photographed and to provide their fingerprints on both entry and exit. This is the topic of ongoing negotiations between our Government and that of the European Union and the member states themselves. Clearly, discussions are ongoing about the impact this will have at our ports and the border. I can reassure the noble Viscount that these things are being speedily considered, and it is hoped that changes may be made.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 12th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 1, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 1A.

1A: Because it is unnecessary, as the Bill does not require any act or omission that conflicts with the obligations of the United Kingdom under the European Convention of Human Rights or other listed international instruments, and it would undermine the UK’s dualist legal system.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A, I will, with the leave of the House, also speak to Motions D, S, T, U and V.

The Lords amendments do significant damage to the scheme provided for in the Bill. The Bill will only prevent and deter illegal migration if persons who meet the conditions in Clause 2 are swiftly returned to their home country or removed to a safe third country. For that to happen, we must end the cycle of late, repeated and spurious legal challenges. The Lords amendments will perpetuate that cycle.

Motion A relates to Lords Amendment 1, which would replace Clause 1 with a new clause that sets out that nothing in the Act shall

“require any act or omission that conflicts with the obligations of the United Kingdom under”

the five international agreements specified in the amendment.

As I have set out throughout the passage of the Bill, the Government take their international obligations, including under the ECHR, very seriously, and there is nothing in the Bill that requires any act or omission that conflicts with the UK’s international obligations. The only way to break the business model of the criminal gangs and to deter illegal migrants is if it is abundantly clear that the only outcome of illegal entry is not a new life in the UK. Therefore, it is essential that we take bold steps. Although some of the provisions in the Bill are novel, the Government are satisfied that the Bill can be implemented in line with convention rights.

As my noble friend Lord Wolfson set out on Report, Lords Amendment 1 is also objectionable from a constitutional perspective. In the United Kingdom, we follow a dualist approach, whereby international law is integrated into domestic law solely through parliamentary legislation. The Government are often criticised for rushing legislation and not allowing adequate scrutiny. Here, the tables are turned. Amendment 1 has profound and wide-ranging implications. It should not be shoehorned into this Bill without proper consideration of its consequences and an opportunity for Parliament properly to scrutinise the significance of such a step. If a future Government want to incorporate into domestic law the refugee convention or the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, it is open for them to do so, but that would be a significant legislative undertaking and a profound change to our domestic legal landscape. Amendment 1 is not the way to do it.

I turn to Motion S and Amendments 74B and 74C from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, which relate to the meaning of serious and irreversible harm. Serious harm suspensive claims recognise that there may be a clear reason as to why a person cannot be removed to a particular third country specified in the removal notice, while any human rights claim in respect of a removal—or related judicial review, if that took place following removal—is resolved. These claims must be based on the fact that the person would face a real, imminent and foreseeable risk of serious and irreversible harm if they were removed for such a temporary period. This test reflects the approach and terms on which the European Court of Human Rights may decide to indicate interim measures under Rule 39 of their rules of court. It is fitting that we use it here in an analogous situation.

We also continue to believe that it is helpful to decision- makers and the courts to set out in the Bill specific examples of harm that do not, or are unlikely to, constitute serious and irreversible harm. This will ensure a consistent approach in the determination of claims by the Home Office and appeals by the Upper Tribunal. That said, we have reflected on the debates on these clauses in this House and revisited the recommendations from the Constitution Committee. I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, for his time in discussing his concerns. As a result, we have brought forward an amendment in lieu which limits the power by regulations to amend the meaning of serious and irreversible harm, such that the power cannot be used to remove the existing examples of harm that constitute serious and irreversible harm.

I reiterate two points made by my noble friend Lord Stewart on Report. First, Clause 38 makes it clear that persecution and onward refoulement are examples of harm which constitute serious and irreversible harm for the purposes of a suspensive claim. Secondly, if the open expression of a person’s sexual orientation would prevent them living in a specified third country for the relevant period without being at real risk of serious and irreversible harm, they would meet the threshold for a serious harm suspensive claim, in line with the principles set out by the Supreme Court in the case of HJ (Iran). With these assurances and the amendment in lieu, I hope that I have been able to address the concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton, and he would feel able to support Motion S.

In relation to Motions T and U, we remain firmly of the view that it is right to place limitations on judicial review challenges to removal. We are not preventing such challenges but saying that they should not suspend removal. The Bill includes bespoke provisions for removal condition suspensive claims and serious harm suspensive claims, which themselves afford appropriate opportunities for a person to challenge their removal before it takes place. Given these remedies, it is entirely appropriate that other legal challenges should be non-suspensive.

Finally, in relation to Motion V, I again reassure the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, that the Bill, in enabling a court to overturn an age assessment decision on the basis that it is wrong in law, already covers challenges based on Wednesbury unreasonableness. It therefore follows that Lords Amendment 95 is not needed.

The House of Commons has disagreed with Lords Amendments 1, 73, 90, 93 and 95 by strong majorities in each case. It has proposed Amendment 74A in lieu of Lords Amendments 73 and 74, which addresses one of the key concerns of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. I therefore invite the House to agree the government Motions in this group. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Chakrabarti’s Motion A1 and the various provisions that follow from it. Without getting into the legal arguments that have just been articulated by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Hope and Lord Etherton, I support the fact that the key words are the first few words, in particular to try to deal with the criticism that was made of the previous amendment.

The only point I would add is that it is important for us to have something like this in the Bill given the criticism, concern and questions that have been raised about the Bill by many well-respected international organisations, bodies and individuals. We all expect something to be done about the challenge that we face, but we want it done in a way which enhances our international reputation and conforms to the various international treaties and our responsibilities. That is why Motion A1 is particularly important and should be supported.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the House for the dispatch this group has been dealt with and for the contributions from across the Chamber. It will come as no surprise to the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, that I disagree with her interpretation and agree with that of my noble friend Lord Wolfson. Frankly, if one looks at Amendment 1B, one can see that “regard” must be read alongside “intended to comply”, so this revised amendment is equally problematic. The point my noble friend Lord Wolfson made is entirely right: it amounts to an acceptance that the earlier version of the amendment would also have been a very significant constitutional innovation, predicated on the back of an amendment to the Bill and a massive change to our constitutional framework. I am afraid that I therefore disagree with the noble Baroness and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on Amendment 1B.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 2, 12, 20 and 22 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 22A to 22Q in lieu.

22A: Clause 2, page 3, line 26, leave out “7 March 2023” and insert “the day on which this Act is passed”

--- Later in debate ---

22Q: Clause 66, page 65, line 41, at end insert—
“(za) section (Amendment of date in section 2(3) etc) (amendment of date in section 2(3) etc);”

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will speak also to Motions F and G.

Motion B deals with the retrospective application of the duty to make arrangements for removal. We have reflected on the arguments put forward on this issue by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, on Report. We have brought forward Amendments 22A and 22Q in lieu. Noble Lords will recall that the Lords amendments sought to move the operative date of the Clause 2 duty from 7 March this year to the date of that clause’s commencement. We believe that such a change carries a significant risk of there being a surge in channel crossings—a fire sale, if you will—as we approach the commencement date. To guard against this, the amendments in lieu instead provide for the duty to remove to apply to a person who enters the United Kingdom unlawfully from the date of this Bill’s Royal Assent.

We will keep this under review ahead of the Bill’s implementation, as we have included a reserve power to change the new operative date by regulations. This could, for example, enable us to focus the initial implementation of the Bill on those who arrived here illegally via small boats rather than by other means. I should stress that the 7 March date will continue to apply for the purpose of the power conferred on the Secretary of State to provide accommodation for unaccompanied children and for the purpose of the ban on re-entry, settlement and citizenship. I trust that this compromise approach will meet with the approval of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile.

Motion F relates to Lords Amendment 9, moved on Report by the noble Lord, Lord German. This relates to the issue of the inadmissibility of asylum and human rights claims within the UK system. It remains the Government’s contention that declaring such claims to be admissible is a core part of the scheme provided for in the Bill. The Court of Appeal unanimously confirmed that removing asylum seekers to a safe country for their asylum claims to be processed is entirely consistent with the refugee convention, including Article 31—a point that I mentioned a moment ago. This amendment would simply encourage people to game the system, drawing things out in an attempt to reach a six-month cut-off date. This amendment was rejected by the Commons by a strong majority of 76. Given that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord German, will be content to agree to Motion F.

Finally, Motion G relates to Lords Amendment 23, put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Etherton. The United Kingdom is a stout defender of LGBT communities across the globe. Our commitment to this cause remains unwavering. So, although I understand and sympathise with the noble and learned Lord’s desire to protect LGBT people who would face persecution were they to be sent to one of the countries listed in the amendment, I remain strongly of the view that the amendment is unnecessary as the Bill already delivers the protections that he seeks.

We are committed to the principle of non-refoulement, as a Jamaican national who makes a protection claim will not be returned to Jamaica. Were they to be fearful of being at real risk of suffering serious and irreversible harm, and were they to be removed to a specified third country, they would be able to make a serious harm suspensive claim. As I have previously indicated, in considering such a claim, the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of HJ (Iran) would be applied such that if the open expression of a person’s sexual orientation would prevent them from living in the specified third country without being at real risk of serious and irreversible harm, they would meet the threshold for a serious harm suspensive claim.

I hope the noble and learned Lord has been able to reflect on my assurances and on the outcome of the vote yesterday in the other place, and that he now feels able to support Motion G. I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

Moved by

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 22R as an amendment to Amendment 22B—

--- Later in debate ---

Motion C

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 6, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64 and 65, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 65A.

65A: Because it is necessary on grounds of public order to disapply protections for potential victims of modern slavery temporarily in response to the current scale of illegal migration.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I will speak also to Motions H, P and Q. It remains the Government’s view that there are clear opportunities to misuse our modern slavery protections. The amendments agreed by your Lordships’ House on Report would severely undermine and in some cases prevent the Government from being able to prevent potential misuse and effectively tackle the crisis of illegal entry.

As I have repeatedly made clear, the scheme provided for in the Bill will succeed in preventing and deterring illegal migration into the UK only if we can swiftly remove illegal entrants either to their home country or to a safe third country. Having to wait more than 500 days for a conclusive grounds decision is not swift by any stretch of the imagination.

While it remains the case that the Government cannot support any of the amendments to which these Motions relate, I recognise the concerns raised by my noble friend Lord Randall and others about the impact of the Bill on those who are exploited in the United Kingdom. It is worth reminding this House that these provisions will not affect potential victims of modern slavery referred into the national referral mechanism who are British nationals and nor will they impact unaccompanied children under the age of 18 or those who lawfully entered the UK and subsequently overstayed. Additionally, changes to the Bill agreed in the other place mean that the retrospective application of the duty to remove will be applicable only from Royal Assent, removing a significant cohort from the reach of these time-limited provisions.

Furthermore, this change reduces the likelihood of individuals in this cohort being exploited in the UK, given that they are more likely to be in detention rather than out in the community. None the less, the Government recognise the importance of enabling potential victims of modern slavery to co-operate with law enforcement to ensure successful prosecutions.

We are committed to stamping out human trafficking and to bringing criminal gangs to justice, including those who commit offences in the United Kingdom. That is why, alongside our pre-existing exception, which allows victims to remain in the United Kingdom to co-operate with an investigation where necessary, we will provide in statutory guidance that an individual who has arrived in the UK illegally and has a positive reasonable grounds decision based on an incident that has taken place in the United Kingdom will be afforded 30 days from this positive decision to confirm that they will co-operate with an investigation in relation to their exploitation. They will not be removed within this period, which affords them protection equivalent with those set out in ECAT. Should they continue to co-operate with such an investigation, they will continue to be entitled to the support and protections of the NRM. Given this, I do not see the need for my noble friend’s Amendment 56, or for the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, Amendment 57.

I hope I have been able to reassure my noble friend Lord Randall and other noble Lords as to how these provisions will apply and operate. We expect that relatively few of those subject to the duty in Clause 2 will be potential victims of modern slavery whose exploitation took place in the UK, and for those potential victims, our statutory guidance will make it clear that they can continue to access support where they are co-operating with an investigation.

On this basis, and in view of the votes in the other place to disagree with Amendments 6 and 56, I invite the House to agree the government Motions. I beg to move.

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Hunt for moving his amendments in a concise and informed way and for putting before the House the importance of the Modern Slavery Act and defending its principles.

I draw attention to Motion P1, moved by the noble Lord, Lord Randall, which is particularly important as it seeks to protect victims of modern slavery exploited in the UK. Although the Minister pointed to the protection the Government may give to British citizens, some of the exploited people the noble Lord, Lord Randall, referred to would not be British citizens and would therefore be out of scope.

It is worth spending a minute considering that we as a Parliament are here tonight reflecting on what was one of the finest achievements of the last Conservative Government and one of the proudest achievements of a former Conservative Prime Minister. I stand here as a proud Labour politician saying that. It was one of the reasons why our country was regarded as a world leader by countries across the world, and it was brought about by the actions of a Conservative Government.

When you read the speeches of not only a former leader, Iain Duncan Smith MP, but a former Prime Minister, it is no wonder that the latter is incredulous that her own party and Government would seek, as she says, to undermine completely an Act of which everyone was proud, including most Conservatives. I find it astonishing that the Government Front Benches of this House and the other place should simply sweep her views aside, almost as though they are the rantings of a failed person who is no longer relevant. She deserves greater respect than that, and to be recognised for what she achieved. I think I am right in saying that it was the first such legislation in the world. It was blown away not by a vindictive Labour Government but by her own Conservative Government, who have somehow just brushed it aside.

The noble Lord, Lord Randall, does us a huge service in bringing forward an amendment that I hope has the support of many of your Lordships, from all sides, and which tries to protect something of that achievement, that triumph, of a previous Conservative Government. In doing that, he gives us the opportunity to mark with great respect that achievement and work of a previous Conservative Government and Prime Minister.

I hope that the noble Lord will test the opinion of the House and that noble Lords will see fit to support the amendment in very large numbers, so that when it goes back to the other place they will think again about what they have done.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the House for the dispatch with which the speeches on this group have been dealt with. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, on just one point, clearly, we do not agree and I am afraid that I cannot accept his amendment. On the statistic that he cited, I simply say that that statistic demonstrates the problem we face when we seek to remove people. Such statistics relate to people who were in detention and it was those in detention who, at a massively increased rate, sought to claim to be victims of modern slavery in order, I suggest to Members of this House, to defer their removal.

For that reason, I must stress to the House that the proposed amendment would blow a hole in this scheme, and I am afraid we cannot accept my noble friend Lord Randall’s amendment, as supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. There are too many opportunities to misuse the provisions in the Modern Slavery Act, with allegations of modern slavery being made by those entering the country illegally. I entirely take on board what the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has said about the triumph of the Modern Slavery Act, and I remind the House that it remains in force in relation to victims of modern slavery who are within Britain and are British citizens. These provisions are protected in Clause 21 by a sunset provision. These are emergency measures to deal with an emergency, and for those reasons I cannot accept the amendments.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is tempting to respond in detail to the Minister, but obviously I will not do it. What is so striking is how little confidence he has in the department he and his Ministers run to administer a system they have legislated for. It is deeply disappointing, but I beg leave to withdraw Motion C1.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 7, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 7A.

7A: Because, as the Bill provides for two classes of suspensive claims, with a right of appeal to the Upper Tribunal, it is appropriate that any application for judicial review does not suspend removal.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion D. I beg to move.

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 8A.

8A: Because unaccompanied children will be removed only in the limited circumstances set out in clause 3(3) or once they turn 18 and will be able to challenge their removal by making a serious harm suspensive claim.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, this amendment to the Motion is about the rights of children, giving them their entitlement to claim asylum, which would be declared inadmissible under the provisions of the Bill. We have talked about children a great deal; indeed, concerns about children run right through many of the debates we have had and many of the other amendments. My point is that any child who arrives in this country, even if not by legally approved means, should still not lose their right to claim asylum. If, for example, a child in Calais with family in this country, not finding any legal method, gets here and uses, unfortunately, these nasty people traffickers, all I would say is that surely we should not deny that child the right to come to this country and claim asylum here; or, having got to this country, to claim asylum here. It is a very simple proposition.

As I understand it, in most instances they will not be removed from this country until they are 18, but at that point they will be removed. This seems to me a very harsh provision, penalising some of the most vulnerable asylum seekers that there can be: children.

There are two other amendments to Motions to do with children, Motion J1 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and Motion K1 in the name of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. Both are good and both are concerned with the length of time that a child might have to stay in detention. They seek to limit that to fewer days and I shall want to support them both. They do not go as far as my Motion E1, which is much more comprehensive and a much better way of protecting the rights of children. However, we have to be realistic and I shall certainly give my full support to Motions J1 and K1.

I have thought about this at length and had quite detailed discussions with my colleagues. The point is that we, of course, want to support Motions that have the best chance of making the Commons think again. I was persuaded that the Motions in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester probably have a better chance of making the Commons think again than something coming from me, even if my Motion is, with all due respect, better. I therefore feel that the right thing to do is to support a Motion tabled by a Conservative and a Member from the Bishops’ Bench, because they are more likely to persuade the Government. They do not have to persuade the Minister but they are more likely to persuade Members of the Commons. It is in that spirit that I have spoken to Motion E1, but I shall in due course be very keen to support the Motions I have referred to. I will not therefore press Motion E1 to a vote, but I shall certainly vote for the other Motions.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, as ever, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was ahead of me, and clearly I should address the amendments in this group. I have already moved Motion E, which is:

“That this House do not insist on its Amendment 8.”


With the leave of the House, I shall speak also to Motions J, K, L, M and N.

The Government have considered carefully the concerns raised in your Lordships’ House about the detention of unaccompanied children and pregnant women. We recognise the sensitivities around the detention of these cohorts and, accordingly, the Government have brought forward amendments in lieu, to which the Commons has agreed.

Regarding the detention of pregnant women, Amendments 38A to 38E are wholly in line with those tabled on Report by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, and my noble friend Lady Sugg. These amendments preserve the existing 72-hour time limit on the detention of pregnant women. As now, this 72-hour time limit would be extendable to an absolute maximum of one week, provided there is ministerial authorisation in place for the extension. It is important to note that, as per the existing Section 60 provision, this time limit will apply only where an immigration officer or the Secretary of State, as the case may be, is satisfied that the woman is pregnant. I trust that these amendments will be welcomed on all sides of the House.

On the detention of unaccompanied children, the challenge we received in the House of Commons was that in enabling a person to apply for First-tier Tribunal immigration bail after 28 days of detention, the Bill did not differentiate between adults and unaccompanied children, and there needed to be judicial oversight of the detention of unaccompanied children much earlier in the process. Amendments 36A and 36B, agreed by the Commons, do just that. They enable the First-tier Tribunal to review the detention of an unaccompanied child after eight days, where the detention is for the purposes of removal. The eight-day period aligns with the existing framework governing immigration bail for those detained at ports and the eight-day period for making a suspensive claim under the Bill.

I again assure my noble friend Lady Mobarik and other noble Lords that any period of detention for unaccompanied children will be the shortest possible. Where there is doubt that a person is indeed aged under 18, as they claim to be, they will be treated as a child while an age assessment is undertaken. Such a person will be detained in age-appropriate accommodation, as the law already provides. This is provided for by the Detention Centre Rules 2001, made under Section 153 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Rule 11 provides:

“Detained persons aged under 18 and families will be provided with accommodation suitable to their needs”.


If no such accommodation is available, an unaccompanied child will not be detained and will be transferred to a local authority instead as soon as possible. I hope this provides the assurances that my noble friend has been seeking.

The Commons has proposed no change to the Bill in response to my noble friend’s Amendment 33, which relates to the detention of families. We believe this amendment would put children at risk, as well as significantly weakening our ability to remove people from the UK, in accordance with the duty provided for in Clause 2. Such a change would incentivise unscrupulous individuals to co-opt unaccompanied children into a bogus family unit to escape detention. This presents very real safeguarding risks for those children. I hope my noble friend, having secured an important change to the Bill in respect of the detention of unaccompanied children, will be content not to pursue her Amendment 33 any further.

I turn to Motion M and the amendments originally tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, which sought to reinstate the existing Hardial Singh principles. Here again the Commons has agreed with the Government that the changes should be made to the existing legislation and that Clause 11 should stand. The Hardial Singh principles provide, among other things, that a person may be detained only for a period that is reasonable in all the circumstances and that if, before the expiry of the reasonable period, it becomes apparent that the Home Secretary will not be able to examine, effect removal or grant leave within a reasonable period, that person’s detention should not continue. The Government continue to take the view that it is for the Home Secretary, not the courts, to decide such matters as she will be in full possession of the relevant facts and best placed to decide whether continued detention is reasonable in all the circumstances. As I say, the Commons has endorsed this approach, and I hope that the noble Lord, having achieved some significant changes to other aspects of the Bill, will be content to agree Motion M.

Motion N relates to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham’s Amendment 50 to Clause 16. This relates to the Secretary of State’s power to direct a local authority in England to cease accommodating an unaccompanied child and to transfer the child into Home Office-provided accommodation. The amendment would limit the power such that it can be exercised only where the transfer would be in the best interests of the child.

We all accept that the best interests of the child is a very important consideration. That is why the Secretary of State is already required, under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009, to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children when exercising her immigration functions. In exercising the power in Clause 16, the Home Office will continue to comply with the Section 55 duty. I should also emphasise again that we expect to exercise the power in Clause 16 in only limited circumstances —for example, in advance of returning an unaccompanied child to a parent in their home country.

Finally, I can deal briefly with Motion E, given that this covers similar ground to Motion F, which we have already debated. As I said, it remains the Government’s contention that declaring such claims to be inadmissible is a core part of the scheme provided for in the Bill. The Motion from the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, would incentivise the people smugglers to prioritise young people, putting more lives at risk and splitting families. I am sure that the noble Lord would not wish to see this.

The Government have listened to the concerns raised by noble Lords about the Bill’s provisions relating to detention and the Commons has agreed significant changes. I hope, on this basis, that the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, my noble friend Lady Mobarik and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester would be content to agree Motions J, K and L. Where the Commons has disagreed with your Lordships’ amendments to Clauses 4, 11 and 16, I hope that the noble Lords, Lord Dubs and Lord Carlile, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester will be minded to accept that verdict and agree Motions E, M and N.

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, for his support for my Motion K1, even though I suspect we would both prefer his stronger Motion. I also welcome the government amendments that would allow an unaccompanied child to seek bail after eight days if they have been detained for removal.

I struggle to see why similar rules should not apply to all children. Hence, Motion K1 seeks to rectify the unreasoned omission of children who are with their families. It proposes a 24-hour extension to the current statutory 72-hour time limit for detention of children with families. Hence, the detention of these children would not be indefinite but be for no more than 96 hours or, if a Minister personally approved it, for no more than seven days. This seems a fair and reasonable change and I urge the Government to seriously reflect on it. I really cannot see that it is morally justified not to have equal provisions for children with families and those who are alone; one child is not different from another.

It remains the fact that the institutional nature of detention affects both the physical and mental development of the child and leads to their significant emotional and psychological regression. These impacts, which were witnessed often in children prior to 2010, were not limited to unaccompanied children. All children suffered under a regime which this Government are now proposing to reintroduce without limit for unaccompanied children. I cannot accept that it is right to be prepared to lock up these children for an indefinite period, simply because they happen to arrive with families, when we know the grave consequences. The evidence has not changed. How can it now suddenly be tolerable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, this has been an interesting debate and I thank my noble friend Lord Dubs for the way that he introduced his amendment to Motion E. He has been extremely practical and political, if I may use that word, in the way that he proposes to deal with the suite of amendments in this group. I agree with him that the two Motions in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, Motions J1 and K1, stand the best chance of making the House of Commons think again. On that basis, from these Benches we will be supporting the noble Baroness and the right reverend Prelate if they choose to put their Motions to a vote.

I want to comment briefly on the contributions of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Berridge, and on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Scriven. In a sense, they are talking from a local authority point of view. I too got the email from the Children’s Commissioner today; she is absolutely right to point to the jigsaw of child protection, which is very much overseen by local authorities. As she rightly pointed out, retrospectivity will apply to those children because that is the point which the Government did not concede on.

Responsibility is key to trying to resolve this as clearly as possible. We hope that the Minister will be able to say something clearer, but the real point is that if it is not, it will be resolved in the courts. The noble Lord, Lord Scriven, made that point and it is a very fair one. I understand that the noble and learned Baroness will not be pressing her amendment to a vote. Nevertheless, the Minister should give as clear an explanation as possible of how this matter will be looked at. For the purposes of this group, we will support Motions J1 and K1.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the House for the contributions to this debate. I will focus, if I may, on three points and address first the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, on aggregating detention periods. Noble Lords will recall that a question was asked whether the 72-hour limit for pregnant women could be evaded by detaining a pregnant woman first under the powers in the Bill, and then under the powers in the Immigration Act, or vice versa. From a practical point of view, any pregnant women subject to the Clause 2 duty would be detained under the new detention powers provided for in Clause 10. I assure the noble Baroness that we would not detain pregnant women under existing powers then switch to new detention powers, or vice versa, in order to double the detention period.

I thank my noble friend Lady Sugg for her kind remarks. I am gratified for the receipt from Members of the House for the position which we have arrived at in relation to pregnant women.

I turn to the issues raised by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, for whom I have very great admiration. They were raised also by the noble Lords, Lord Scriven and Lord Ponsonby, and my noble friend Lady Berridge in relation to Motion N1.

Amendment 50B would afford local authorities influence over whether the Home Secretary can utilise her powers. I am afraid we do not agree that her powers should be fettered in this way if a local authority simply does not consent. It would also create additional decision-making burdens for local authorities and could have unintended consequences—for example, if local authorities faced legal challenges in respect of their decisions. The Home Office, of course, already works closely with local authorities on matters concerning unaccompanied children and will continue to do so.

I turn to the question raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and Motion N2. The Home Office considers that Amendment 50C, tabled by the right reverend Prelate, is unnecessary. That is so because of Section 55 of the 2009 Act, which already requires the Secretary of State to have regard to the interests of children as a primary factor in immigration decisions affecting them. I assure the House that, in making decisions and in devising policy guidance under the Bill, the Home Office will continue to comply with the Section 55 duty.

In answer to the noble Lord, Lord German, and my noble friend Lady Berridge, the Home Office does not have, and therefore, for clarity, cannot discharge, duties under Part III of the Children Act 1989. It is for the local authority where an unaccompanied child is located to consider its duties under the Children Act 1989. There is nothing in the Bill which changes this position and local authorities will be expected to meet their statutory obligations to unaccompanied children from the date of arrival. The relevant duties under the Children Act 1989 sit with the local authority in which the young person is physically present. Accommodation of unaccompanied children by the Home Office does not change the obligations of any local authority in respect of assessment and the provision of services and support, including, where appropriate, suitable accommodation.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister and all noble Lords who have contributed. They have covered a number of aspects, all under the heading of this debate. I am not persuaded by the Minister’s arguments that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Mobarik, are not totally right in what they are saying. I very much hope the Minister will say something more positive to support them.

I have already indicated that I do not wish to press Motion E1, and I beg leave to withdraw it.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 9A.

9A: Because the Amendment is contrary to the purpose of the Bill to prevent and deter unlawful migration.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion F. I beg to move.

Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 23, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 23A.

23A: Because the Amendment is unnecessary as an LGBT person who is a national of a country specified in the Amendment and who makes a protection claim will not be returned to their home country and can make a serious harm suspensive claim in the event that it is proposed to remove them to a safe third country.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion G. I beg to move.

Motion G1 (as an amendment to Motion G)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 30, 32 and 34, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 34A.

34A: Because it is necessary to ensure that the National Referral Mechanism is not used as a loophole by persons arriving illegally to make false claims to avoid being detained in or removed from the United Kingdom and that persons subject to the clause 2 duty may be detained in order to facilitate their swift removal from the UK.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion H.

Motion H1 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 31, 35 and 36 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 36A and 36B in lieu.

36A: Clause 12, page 21, leave out lines 16 to 23 and insert—
“(3A) A person who is being detained under paragraph 16(2C)(d)(iv) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 or section 62(2A)(d)(iv) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (detention of unaccompanied child for purposes of removal) must not be granted immigration bail by the First-tier Tribunal until after the earlier of—
(a) the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the person’s detention under any provision of paragraph 16(2C) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 or section 62(2A) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 began, and
(b) the end of the period of 8 days beginning with the date on which the person’s detention under paragraph 16(2C)(d)(iv) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 or section 62(2A)(d)(iv) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 began.
(3B) A person who is being detained under—
(a) paragraph 16(2C)(a), (b), (c) or (d)(i) to (iii) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971, or
(b) section 62(2A)(a), (b), (c) or (d)(i) to (iii) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, must not be granted immigration bail by the First-tier Tribunal until after the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the person’s detention under paragraph 16(2C) of that Schedule or section 62(2A) of that Act began.
(3C) Where a person is detained under a provision of the Immigration Act 1971 and then (without being released) under a provision of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, or vice versa, the periods referred to in sub-paragraphs (3A) and (3B) begin with the date on which the person was first detained under the relevant provisions of either of those Acts.”

36B: Clause 12, page 22, line 26, after “(3A),” insert “(3B),”

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion J.

Motion J1 (as an amendment to Motion J)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Motion K

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 33, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 33A.

33A: Because the Amendment is contrary to the purpose of the Bill to prevent and deter unlawful migration.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion K. I beg to move.

Motion K1 (as an amendment to Motion K)

[The Lord Bishop of Manchester]

Moved by

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 33B to the words so restored to the Bill—

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 37 and 38 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 38A to 38E in lieu.

38A: Clause 10, page 14, line 37, at end insert—
“(2CA) But if the immigration officer is satisfied that a woman being detained under sub-paragraph (2C) is pregnant, then the woman may not be detained under that sub-paragraph for a period of—
(a) more than 72 hours from the relevant time, or
(b) more than seven days from the relevant time, in a case where the longer period of detention is authorised personally by a Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975).
(2CB) A woman who has been released as a result of sub-paragraph (2CA) may be detained again under sub-paragraph (2C) in accordance with sub-paragraph (2CA).
(2CC) Where a woman being detained under sub-paragraph (2C) has previously been detained under section 62(2A) of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and has not been released in between, the definition of “the relevant time” in sub-paragraph (2CD) is to be read as if paragraph (b) referred to the time when the woman was first detained under sub-paragraph (2C) or section 62(2A) of that Act.
(2CD) In sub-paragraphs (2CA) to (2CC)—
“the relevant time” means the later of—
(a) the time at which the immigration officer is first satisfied that the woman is pregnant, and
(b) the time at which the detention under sub-paragraph (2C) begins;
“woman” means a female of any age.”

--- Later in debate ---

38E: Clause 11, page 19, line 27, at end insert—
“(aa) subsections (2AA) to (2AD) (limitation on detention of pregnant women);”

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion L. I beg to move.

Motion L agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48 and 49, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 49A.

49A: Because it is properly a matter for the Secretary of State to determine whether continued detention of a person is reasonable in all the circumstances.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion M. I beg to move.

Motion M agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 50, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 50A.

50A: Because the Secretary of State will be required under section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of the child when making a decision under clause 16(4).

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion N. I beg to move.

Motions N1 and N2 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 56, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 56A.

56A: Because the Bill already makes sufficient provision to enable a potential victim of modern slavery to remain in the UK where the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the person to do so for the purpose of cooperating with a public authority which is investigating their exploitation.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion P. I beg to move.

Motion P1 (as an amendment to Motion P)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 57, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 57A.

57A: Because the Bill already makes sufficient provision to enable a potential victim of modern slavery to remain in the UK where the Secretary of State considers it necessary for the person to do so for the purpose of cooperating with a public authority which is investigating their exploitation.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion Q. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 66 and 67, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 67A.

67A: Because it is right that the Government is able withhold protections from all individuals who pose a threat to public order and because the Nationality and Borders Act 2022, as amended by this Bill, provides sufficient discretion in the disqualification decision process.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion R. I beg to move.

Motion R1 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 73 and 74 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 74A in lieu.

74A: Clause 39, page 42, line 32, at end insert—
“(2A) Regulations under subsection (1) may not amend subsection (4) of section 38 to remove any example of serious and irreversible harm which is listed in that subsection when this Act is passed.”

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion S. I beg to move.

Motion S1 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 90 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 90A, 90B and 90C to the words restored to the Bill by the Commons disagreement to Lords Amendment 90.

90A: Page 53, line 40, after “court” insert “or tribunal”

90C: Page 54, line 7, after second “court” insert “or tribunal”

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion T. I beg to move.

Motion T1 (as an amendment to Motion T)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 93, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 93A.

93A: Because it is necessary to remove the right of appeal against an age assessment decision and to provide for any challenge by way of judicial review to be non-suspensive of removal in order to prevent and deter unlawful migration.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion U. I beg to move.

Motion U1 not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 95 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 95A and 95B in lieu.

95A: Clause 55, page 56, line 34, leave out from “may” to “was” and insert “grant relief only on the basis that the decision”

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I have already spoken to Motion V. I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Illegal Migration Bill

Lord Murray of Blidworth Excerpts

3rd reading
Monday 10th July 2023 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That the Bill be now read a third time.

Relevant documents: 34th and 37th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee, 16th Report from the Constitution Committee, 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Correspondence from the Senedd published.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Migration and Borders (Lord Murray of Blidworth) (Con)]

My Lords, before we commence proceedings on the Bill, I am obliged to make a short statement setting out the position on legislative consent. It is the UK Government’s view that the Bill relates to reserved or excepted matters—namely, immigration and nationality—in each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and is therefore not within the legislative competence of any of the devolved legislatures.

The United Kingdom Government note that the Senedd has declined to agree a legislative consent Motion in relation to certain provisions in the Bill, but it is our view that the legislative consent process is not engaged in relation to Wales.

Noble Lords will recall that we added a provision on Report relating to legal aid in Northern Ireland. Such a provision may amount to an alteration of the Department of Justice’s executive functions; as such, we consider that this provision engages the legislative consent process in Northern Ireland. However, due to the continued absence of the Northern Ireland Executive and Assembly, a legislative consent Motion cannot be secured.

For completeness, I add that no legislative consent Motion has been considered by the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Government sought to bring forward such a Motion in relation to the modern slavery provisions in the Bill, but the Presiding Officer concluded that it did not meet the terms of the relevant standing order of the Scottish Parliament and consequently it was not debated. Accordingly, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Murray of Blidworth]

That the Bill do now pass.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for too long at this stage but, in view of what transpired on Report, it is fitting that I say a few words before the Bill completes its passage through your Lordships’ House.

There is clearly some disagreement about the means, but we all agree on the necessary ends: we must stop the boats. It remains the Government’s contention that the provisions of the Bill, as introduced in your Lordships’ House, are a vital plank of the actions we are taking to stop these dangerous, illegal and unnecessary crossings of the channel. As my noble friend Lord Clarke so memorably noted, we have not heard an effective alternative. But, if we are to stop the boats, it is imperative that the scheme provided for in the Bill is robust and sends the unambiguous message that, if you enter the UK illegally, you will not be able to build a life here; instead, you will be detained and swiftly returned, either to your home country or to a safe third country.

As a result of the many non-government amendments agreed by your Lordships’ House on Report, that message is no longer unambiguous. It is, at best, half-hearted and, at worst, now wholly absent from the Bill. The Government are reflecting carefully on each and every amendment, but I have no doubt that many will not find favour with the other place and we will soon be debating them again.

Having said all that, I record my thanks for all the valued contributions made by my noble friends and noble Lords opposite during the Bill’s passage. It is particularly appropriate, following the sad news of his death late last week, that I express my sincere appreciation for the insightful contribution made by Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood at Second Reading. This was one of his last speeches in this place and I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords if I say that his passing is a great loss to this House.

While there has not been much common ground between these Benches and those opposite, I express my gratitude for the candid and courteous way in which the noble Lords, Lord Coaker and Lord Ponsonby, have engaged with me on the Bill. I also extend my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and his Front-Bench colleagues for their clarity of message, albeit not one that I have been able to agree with.

Finally, I am duty bound to record my sincere gratitude for the invaluable help and assistance of my noble friends Lord Sharpe and Lord Davies and my noble and learned friends Lord Bellamy and Lord Stewart. I put on record my particular thanks to the excellent Bill manager, Mr Charles Goldie, and thank Gurveer Dhami, the deputy Bill manager, the whole of the Bill team, my private office staff and the officials and lawyers in the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice who have provided excellent support, along with the first-class drafting of the Office of the Parliamentary Counsel.

As I have indicated, I suspect it will be an unusually short time before we are debating these matters again, but for now I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, we have a short time before this Bill comes back and I would like to take this opportunity to say to my noble friend that the Bill has been significantly altered and, in the view of many of us, generously improved in your Lordships’ House.

My noble friend said some fairly strong words and, of course, he is fully entitled to do that but I urge that he discusses with his ministerial colleagues, particularly the Home Secretary, some of the speeches that have been made in this House and the underlying concern of those speeches—many of them made from this side of the House—that there is an absence of kindness, consideration and concern in the Bill that came before us at Second Reading.

The Bill has been improved. It has been made more human and more humane. If there is a particular thing that illustrates what I am trying to say—and it was raised earlier this afternoon, and I raised it myself in the gap when we debated the Windrush generation on Friday—it is that this incident of the painting out of murals designed only to amuse unaccompanied children sends out a message that, frankly, is not worthy of our country. I urge my noble friend to permeate his discussions on this Bill and his consideration with the Home Secretary as to which amendments can be amended, which can be accepted and which they feel they have to resist, with a recognition that it is the kindness and consideration of this country that have made it a great country. One has only to cite the Jews in the years before the war and the Ugandan Asians who came into this country 50 years ago, both enriching our communities.

Of course we cannot have boat people coming indiscriminately, but we must recognise that they are human beings, that they are individuals and that they are worthy of consideration as such. I implore my noble friend to enter some of that spirit into the discussions that he is shortly to have with the Home Secretary and his ministerial colleagues.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I start on a sombre note and join other noble Lords and the Minister in paying tribute to Lord Brown, who will be sorely missed by us all. He spent many an hour in the tearoom and elsewhere trying to explain various legal niceties to me in a very calm and dignified way, always treating me with a respect and courtesy I am not sure I deserved. He was a truly remarkable man and a pleasant individual. He will be missed by us all, and it is very sad that he has left us.

I will start with some usual courtesies before I make a couple of comments. I thank the Minister for the briefings he gave us. We have fundamentally disagreed on certain things. We were not pleased about the lateness of the impact assessments, as my noble friend Lady Lister made clear. To be fair to the Minister, even when we have fundamentally disagreed, he has always tried to brief me with respect to the Bill, and I am grateful for that. I thank his colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, for being similarly available whenever needed with respect to the Bill. Again, we disagreed on various things, but I appreciated his courtesy and help. I would be grateful if he could pass on my thanks to the noble and learned Lords, Lord Bellamy and Lord Stewart, who at different times contributed to the Bill. I have to mention the Government Whip, who sat there all the way through with his normal face, which was always interested and agreeable. It was a pleasure to talk to him, if no one else at times. I also thank the Minister’s officials, who have been really helpful.

My noble friend Lord Ponsonby is always a welcome contrast to my calm and unexcitable demeanour. He generates the rhetoric, drive and passion that I sometimes lack, and I am grateful for him encouraging me to have a bit more zeal at times—but seriously, it is good to have him alongside me. I am grateful to the officials in our office, Dan Stevens and Clare Scally, who have been very helpful, and my Back-Bench colleagues—I am always a bit nervous about this; it is like being at a wedding when you forget the aunt at the back—particularly my noble friends Lady Chakrabarti, Lord Dubs, Lady Lister, Lord Bach, Lord Cashman and Lord Hunt, and many others, for their support and help as the Bill has gone through. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, and his team for their co-operation, and Peers from across the House, some from unexpected quarters, who rang me to ask about different things. It has been a pleasure to work with them.

I want to start with some related points, including the comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Deben. Having said what I said about the Minister, a couple of the things he said at the beginning were disappointing. There may have been times when some have thought it the right thing to do but, generally speaking, this House has not sought to block the Bill. It has recognised that the Commons has a right to pass its legislation. However, many in this House feel that the payback for that—for want of a better way of putting it—is that the other place has to respect that this place has a constitutional role to play as well. We will not be intimidated or made to back off from passing amendments that we think are important, or from saying where we think the Government have got it wrong.

I have been in government; it is hugely irritating to a Government to have this happen, but it sometimes works, in that better legislation is passed. If two and two does not make four, there is a problem. On a Bill as controversial and difficult as this, it is only right that large numbers of amendments be passed. It is only right to ask the other place—as a number of Peers have done—to give due consideration, in proper time, to the amendments we have passed and to adapt and make changes.

To be frank, it is difficult to know exactly what we should think about what will happen tomorrow, given that the only briefing we have had has gone to the newspapers and the media, telling us what to expect in the amendments to be published tomorrow or later today. Some may be things that we could agree to. Many in this place, including me, and a number of Members in the other place, will say that it cannot be right that journalists are ringing to ask your opinion, when you have no idea about it. They ask why you cannot comment and you have to say, “Well, I don’t know what the Government are suggesting”. That cannot be right, and it needs to be looked at.

The noble Lord, Lord Deben, made a passionate point. Sometimes, if a Government get something wrong, as they have with the murals at the detention centre, the right thing to do is to stand up and say that it should not have happened and they will make sure it does not happen again.

As part of our co-operation and work together, the Minister organised a trip to Dover and to Western Jet Foil for my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and myself. My noble friend and I went to the facility with the mural, where Mickey Mouse was painted on the wall. There was nothing offensive about it—nothing at all that anybody could take offence at. All it did was provide comfort and a sense of belonging to children in a desperate situation, which, presumably, is why somebody painted it. They did not paint it out of badness, or to make a political point or embarrass the Government. This was simply a human being, no doubt as an act of kindness, painting something on the wall to comfort children in a desperate situation.

In addition to the Minister’s response being wrong and disappointing, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, made the point he made—he will correct me if I am wrong—in order to show that that attitude cannot prevail when considering the other amendments we have sent to another place, where they are generally dismissed out of hand. The Government may have given way on four, five or six—we do not know—but the 20 or so amendments sent there deserve proper consideration. If the Government object to them, they will need to give a proper explanation. Underlying what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, said, that is what we are asking for.

This place deserves its proper position within the functioning of the constitution of this country. If it does not have that, the consequence will be poorer legislation. In respect of an Illegal Migration Bill that is so controversial, the impact will be on innocent people, including children, who do not deserve it.

[Lord Murray of Blidworth (Con)]

My Lords, I will not address all the speeches, but I can certainly say that I agree with parts of almost all of them. Of course, noble Lords are entirely right that I and the department should think deeply about the amendments proposed, and we will. It is clear that there will be some changes, and I hope to work with noble Lords on that in due course.

Without Lord Brown, this House is very much a lesser place, and I am glad that we had an opportunity to reflect on that today.