Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3G, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3H.

3H: Because the Commons consider that it is not necessary as the Bill comes into force on the day on which the Rwanda Treaty enters into force and Rwanda’s ongoing adherence to its Treaty obligations will be subject to the monitoring provisions set out in the Treaty.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A I will also speak to Motions B and B1. I am very grateful to noble Lords on all sides of the House for the careful consideration of this Bill. It is important that we have such detailed debates, and that the Bill has been scrutinised to the extent it has, but we must now accept the will of the elected House and get this Bill on to the statute book.

I turn now to the amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. Having now debated this issue on so many occasions, I will not repeat the same arguments, but I remind the House of a key point of which I am sure, by now, noble Lords are fully aware. The Bill’s provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force, and the treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. We will ratify the treaty in the UK only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty.

I refer to the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, during our debate on 20 March, when he said:

“I want to make it plain that I do not for a moment question the good faith of the Government of Rwanda when they entered into the agreement or when they seek to give effect to what the treaty says. I do not for a moment question their determination to fulfil the obligations that they are undertaking”.—[Official Report, 20/3/24; col. 226.]


The Government entirely agree with this sentiment. The noble and learned Lord was right not to question the determination of the Rwandan Government to fulfil the obligations that they are undertaking. Their commitment to the partnership and their obligations under the treaty have been demonstrated by the progress they are making towards implementation.

I set out last week the recent steps that have been taken to implement the treaty and I do not intend to repeat those again, but I am pleased to be able to confirm further progress. On 19 April, the Rwandan Parliament passed domestic legislation to implement its new asylum system. The new Rwandan asylum law will strengthen and streamline key aspects of the end-to-end asylum system, in particular decision-making processes and associated appeals processes.

I remind noble Lords of the role of the independent monitoring committee, which, as noble Lords will all be aware by now, has been enhanced under the terms of the treaty to ensure compliance in practice with the obligations under the treaty. The monitoring committee will have the power to set its own priority areas for monitoring. It will have unfettered access for the purposes of completing assessments and reports, and it will have the ability to publish these reports as it sees fit. It will monitor the entire relocation process from the beginning, including initial screening, to relocation and settlement in Rwanda. Crucially, the monitoring committee will undertake daily monitoring of the partnership for at least the first three months to ensure rapid identification of and response to any shortcomings.

As we have made clear, if the monitoring committee were to raise or escalate any issues to the joint committee, where standing members of the joint committee are senior officials of the Government of the UK and the Government of the Republic of Rwanda with responsibility for areas related to the partnership, or areas with a strong interest in and relevance to this activity, the Government will of course listen. I remind noble Lords that it is up to the independent monitoring committee to raise any issues at any point.

The Government are satisfied that Rwanda is safe. Of course, I cannot predict what will happen in the future but, as I have set out, I can assure this House that we have already established the right mechanisms so that, should a situation ever arise, the Government will respond as necessary. This would include a range of options to respond to the circumstances, including any primary legislation as required. Therefore, this amendment is not necessary.

I turn to the Motion in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne. As I have said previously, the Government greatly value the contribution of those who have supported us and our Armed Forces overseas. That is why there are legal routes for them to come to the UK. On 1 February the Ministry of Defence updated Parliament on developments relating to the Afghan relocations and assistance policy—ARAP—scheme, announcing a reassessment of decisions made on applications with credible links to Afghan specialist units. This followed the Ministry of Defence’s review of processes around eligibility decisions for applicants claiming service in Afghan specialist units, which demonstrated instances of inconsistent application of ARAP criteria in certain cases. We are taking necessary steps to ensure that ARAP criteria are applied consistently.

As such, the Ministry of Defence has decided to undertake a reassessment of all eligibility decisions made on ineligible applications with credible claims that have links to Afghan specialist units. This reassessment is being done by a team that is independent of those who conducted the original casework. It will review each application thoroughly on a case-by-case basis.

In existing legislation, including but not limited to the Illegal Migration Act, the Secretary of State has a range of powers to consider cases and specific categories of persons. I have already made clear, and given a clear commitment on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, that we will consider how removal under existing immigration legislation would apply. That means that once this review of ARAP decisions for those with credible links to Afghan specialist units has concluded, the Government will not remove to Rwanda those who have received a positive eligibility decision as a result of this review, where they are already in the UK as of today. The Government recognise the commitment and responsibility that comes with combat veterans, whether our own or those who showed courage by serving alongside us. We will not let them down.

The House of Commons has considered and rejected these amendments four times. For the reasons I have set out, they are not necessary. We will ratify the treaty only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty. We will not relocate people to Rwanda if circumstances change that impact on the safety of the country, and we will not turn our backs on those who have supported our Armed Forces and the UK Government.

Illegal migration is costing billions of pounds and innocent lives are being lost. Bold, novel solutions are required, and our partnership with Rwanda offers just that. Rwanda is a safe country that has proven time and again its ability to offer asylum seekers a safe haven and a chance to build a new life. I beg to move.

Motion A1 (as an amendment to Motion A)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I will speak to Motion B1 and Amendment 10H in lieu. I have given a great deal of thought, in recent times, to the question of what courage and strength look like. I ask myself today whether it a desperate and unpopular Prime Minister threatening to keep some of us septuagenarians up all night if we do not bow to his will, or putting yourself and your family in mortal peril by fighting totalitarianism alongside British forces with no idea of how that struggle will end. I know which I consider to be brave and strong, and I believe that the overwhelming majority of your Lordships, like others up and down the United Kingdom, of whatever age or political persuasion, agree. For weeks, Ministers have toured the TV and radio studios, saying that to repay our debt of honour to those who have served the Crown, in Afghanistan in particular, would open the floodgates of applications. If the concession I seek would open such floodgates, creating oceans of imposters, this would be only as a result of the Government’s own incompetence and lack of preparation. It is incompetence, as well as dishonour, that has brought us here this evening.

In the summer of 2021, the former Foreign Secretary, Dominic Raab, told us in a statement to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, that the Government were developing a plan for the evacuation of our exposed allies and agents from Afghanistan. If your Lordships will allow me a moment, I will read my exact words when reporting this to the House:

“Dominic Raab told the Foreign Affairs Select Committee that, back in July, the Government were planning for the possibility of an evacuation of British citizens and those who were quite rightly entitled to think that we had a moral obligation to secure their lives”.—[Official Report, 7/9/21; col. 812.].

I remember, post Operation Pitting, asking if someone would share that plan with me, to see whether it included the reality that those who were sent to help people evacuate left before those who needed to be evacuated could be.

In a Statement repeated in your Lordships’ House and set out in full in Hansard on 7 September, the Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, told your Lordships that the Taliban must ensure safe passage and that the Government would keep ongoing evacuation plans under review in respect of such people. He said this:

“Let me say to anyone to whom we have made commitments and who is currently in Afghanistan: we are working urgently with our friends in the region to secure safe passage and, as soon as routes are available, we will do everything possible to help you to reach safety”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/9/21; col. 21.]


Those are the words of the Prime Minister, repeated here. After the Statement was repeated in your Lordships’ House, we were told that this plan had been in existence for most of that year and that it had been reviewed in January, and was repeatedly reviewed, so that the chaos that we saw at Kabul airport would not happen—but it did.

You would have thought that, with all of that planning and information behind it, and having recruited and trained the Triples and paid them out of the embassy in Kabul, the 2,000 people who made them up—who were most at risk, and who had been working for us, in harm’s way—would have been known about, recorded and evacuated, and that it would have been the simplest thing in the world to triage anybody who claimed to be of that group out of the ARAP process. That is not how it turned out. Instead, a great many were left behind, and so the disastrous evacuation plan of 2021 continues.

The Government created this problem, which has caused at least nine of those who fought for us to be executed by the Taliban because the promised safe passage never appeared. His Majesty’s Government told us, even last week, that there would be no concession in respect of those people who had come here because they were frightened for their lives, and were entitled to be frightened for their lives and to find a way of getting here if there was no safe passage.

Why no concession for so long? I am asked this question every day—every day, since we started debating this issue, I am asked by many people, including many Conservative politicians, why there has been no concession: “Why have they not been able to work something out with you? Why the delay?”, they ask me. Either the Government have no confidence in their ability to implement this plan and are seeking in some way to delay it—considering it to be not their responsibility—or they just want the theatre of delay to their flagship Bill, so as to blame Labour, the Lords, the courts and so on. Today, the Government finally bring a concession: having offered and then withdrawn it last week, they refused to put it in the Bill.

I break away now to ask the Minister to re-read the passage of his speech that I call a concession—I know he does not—and to read it a bit more slowly, so that we can understand its implications. If not, if he has a printed a copy, I will read it slowly. I invite him to read it again, please. Will the Minister do that now, as it is important to the rest of my speech?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

With the leave of the House, I will read it very slowly:

“That means that once this review of ARAP decisions for those with credible links to Afghan specialist units has concluded, the Government will not remove to Rwanda those who have received a positive eligibility decision as a result of this review, where they are already in the UK as of today”.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

You cannot be removed and deported to Rwanda unless you are here by what the Government call illegal means and what I call irregular means. Those words are important for this reason. The Minister does not believe this to be a concession; it is to him a restatement of what he has been telling us for some time, but in a different form. In my view it is quite clearly a concession, although I guarantee that the media out there are being briefed that it is not, because there can be no concessions on this Bill.

Let me tell noble Lords why it is a concession. At Report on this Bill in your Lordships’ House, on 4 March, as recorded at col. 1420 in Hansard, I asked this question of the Minister:

“Will the Minister answer the question I asked in February when this review was announced”—


meaning the Triples review of eligibility for ARAP—

“will anyone who is eligible but was told they were ineligible—and acted in a way in which a small number of them did in extremis to protect themselves from possible death—be disqualified from being allowed to become eligible on review? Will they be excluded from the requirement of the Illegal Migration Act and this Bill if it becomes law that they must be deported to Rwanda?”

The Minister answered—it was the first time he was in a position to do so:

“As I understand it, they will be deported to Rwanda”.—[Official Report, 4/3/24; cols. 1420-1421.]


Now they will not be. That is a concession in anybody’s language.

It is an extremely important concession, because these are the small number of people who I have said, in every speech I have made in support of my amendment, are the target of my ambition that they will not be deported. Today, the Government finally bring a concession, having offered then withdrawn it, so should I trust them at their word? They left these people behind; they messed up any subsequent evacuation plan. This is a third opportunity competently to do the right thing. Why should I trust them now?

I will tell your Lordships why I am minded to consider doing so, although I have not yet made up my mind. It is because we are now part of a grand coalition, including noble and gallant Lords, many very senior politicians and officials, who have secured this country for years and put their names to this, veterans, campaigners and many voters of all persuasions and traditions across our nations—and we will not be silent until today’s promise is honoured by this Government or the next one.

Finally, what does this ignominious history tell us about the Rwanda policy as a whole? There were no safe routes for those heroes to whom we owe a debt of honour, still less are there safe routes for any other genuine refugees worthy of the promise of the refugee convention—also paid for in courage and strength in an earlier war, so many years ago. While I may not press my Motion this evening, I look forward to the day when a Labour Government repeal this immoral and unlawful excuse for legislation in total.

--- Later in debate ---

It is your Lordships’ House at its finest: the Government being forced to concede in a way that they should have done before. But we should not underestimate that the Government have made an important concession and, as such, we welcome it.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as ever, I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to this relatively short debate. I will deal with the points in the order in which they were made, starting with the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, with whom I am afraid I am going to have to respectfully disagree. I do not believe that we have debased our principles; I believe that we have upheld them. We have upheld the principle of the integrity of our sovereign borders; the principle of not ceding our immigration policies to criminal gangs; the principle to safeguard lives and deter, of course, dangerous and illegal channel crossings. That is and always has been the point of the Bill and it deserves to be restated.

Going back to my opening remarks, things have progressed since we were last discussing these matters, and I shall repeat them for the record. On 19 April, the Rwandan Parliament passed its domestic legislation to implement its new asylum system. The new Rwandan asylum law will strengthen and streamline key aspects of the end-to-end asylum system—in particular, decision-making processes and associated appeals processes. I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Hodgson for reminding us of Rwanda’s high standing in international league tables. Things could not be clearer: there has been significant progress towards many of the things that the noble Lord was asking for. That includes, of course, the monitoring committee, and I will repeat this too. If the monitoring committee were to raise or escalate any issues to the joint committee where standing members of the joint committee are senior officials of the Government of the UK and the Government of Rwanda with responsibility for areas relating to the partnership or areas with a strong interest and relevance in this activity, the Government will of course listen. I remind noble Lords that it is up to the independent monitoring committee to raise issues at every point.

The future is not fantasy, as has been alleged. As is well known, the Government are satisfied that Rwanda is safe. We have acknowledged that we cannot predict what will happen in the future but, as I also set out, we can assure the House that we have already established the right mechanisms so, should a situation ever arise, the Government will respond as necessary. I repeat: this would include a range of options to respond to the circumstances, including any primary legislation as required. We do not regard this, as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, asserted, as inexplicable. We regard this amendment as unnecessary.

Turning to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, I am not going to get into the semantics of what this is or is not. What it actually is is the right thing to do. I say to the noble Lord, Lord German, that his remarks seem to have missed the entire point of the Bill. The simple answer to his question is: “Do not come here illegally”. There will be no possible pull factors. There is a safe and legal route available to those in Afghanistan who have served and can prove their eligibility under ARAP, and over 15,000 people have already availed themselves of it.

The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, raised the issue of Passover, and I heard what he said. The start of Passover was considered and very much understood and we completely understand the noble Lord’s concerns, but, ultimately, scheduling decisions are made with a variety of different factors in mind. However, I hear what he said.

I will also go back to the fact that stopping the boats is not an idle boast; it is actually in the introduction to this very Bill. I repeat for the record:

“The purpose of this Act is to prevent and deter unlawful migration, and in particular migration by unsafe and illegal routes, by enabling the removal of persons to the Republic of Rwanda under provision made by or under the Immigration Acts”.


The purpose is not an idle boast; it is on the face of the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord German, referred to refoulement. This is from Article 10(3) of the treaty:

“No Relocated Individual (even if they do not make an application for asylum or humanitarian protection or whatever the outcome of their applications) shall be removed from Rwanda except to the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 11(1)”.


The treaty needs to be ratified before the Bill comes into effect, so I say to the noble Lord that that is when we will see the provisions being acted upon.

As I said earlier, the Commons have considered and rejected these amendments four times now and, for the reasons I have set out, they are not necessary. We will ratify the treaty only once we agree with Rwanda that all the necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with their obligations under the treaty, including refoulement. We will not relocate people to Rwanda if circumstances which impact upon the safety of the country change. We will not turn our backs on those who supported our Armed Forces and the UK Government.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, who I am going to struggle not to think of as Lord Indiana Jones from now on, that I obviously hope I am not in his place in a few months’ time, but of course I respect his right, which he frequently deploys, to make my life difficult—and he does. Seriously, illegal migration is costing billions of pounds and innocent lives are being lost. Bold, novel solutions are required and our partnership with Rwanda offers just that. Rwanda is a safe country that has proven, time and again, its ability to offer asylum seekers a safe haven and a chance to build a new life. I beg to move.

[Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)]

Before the noble Lord sits down, will he deal with one piece of nitty-gritty? Will he tell us a little more about the contract that apparently was reached with an airline?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

No, I will not. That is an operational matter; we are discussing the amendments in ping-pong.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken to my Motion A1. Perhaps I may make two short points in response. First, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, who knows how much I appreciate the work he does in this House and its committees, that a vote for this amendment is not a vote for delay. It simply gives the Secretary of State a power to declare Rwanda safe, having consulted his monitoring committee. He could do that tomorrow if he had the evidence for it. If he does not have the evidence for it, how can he expect us to do it tonight?

Secondly, I thank the Minister for his measured response, not to mention the best laugh of the evening, and for the additional scrap of information concerning the Rwandan law, I assume the asylum law, that he says was passed on Friday. I am afraid that it is the first I have heard of that. I do not know how many of us in the House have had an opportunity to study that law. He knows that these scraps fall far short of the comprehensive picture that we would need if we were seriously to make our own judgement that Rwanda is safe and that the concerns identified by the Supreme Court and our own International Agreements Committee in great detail, only in January, have been satisfied.

In a less frenetic political environment, this common-sense amendment or something like it could, I am sure, have been hammered out between sensible people around a table. Sadly, that does not appear to be the world that we are in. I am afraid that I see no alternative to pressing Motion A1 and testing the opinion of the House.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10F, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10G.

10G: Because the Commons consider that it is not necessary as the only way individuals should come to the UK is through safe and legal routes.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

Motion B agreed.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Monday 22nd April 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3J, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3K.

3K: Because the Commons consider that it is not necessary as the Bill comes into force on the day on which the Rwanda Treaty enters into force and Rwanda’s ongoing adherence to its Treaty obligations will be subject to the monitoring provisions set out in the Treaty.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, this Bill has now been scrutinised a number of times. The Government have rejected this amendment several times, so we must now accept the will of the elected House, bring the debate on this last amendment to an end and get this Bill on to the statute book. Having now debated this issue on so many occasions, I will not repeat the same arguments but reiterate a few key points. The Bill’s provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force, which is when the parties have completed their internal procedures. We will ratify the treaty in the UK only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty.

I have set out the steps that have been taken to be ready for the treaty to be ratified, and I will remind noble Lords once again of the most recent step. Last Friday, 19 April, the Rwandan Parliament passed its domestic legislation to implement the new asylum system. Rwanda has a proven track record of working constructively with domestic and international partners, including the UNHCR, the International Organization for Migration and other non-government organisations to process and support asylum seekers and the refugee population. As I have already set out this evening, the Government are satisfied that Rwanda is safe and has the right mechanisms in place should a situation ever arise that would change that view. The Government will respond as necessary, and this will include a range of options to respond to the circumstances, including any primary legislation if required.

The monitoring committee will undertake daily monitoring of the partnership for at least the first three months to ensure rapid identification of, and response to, any issues. This enhanced phase will ensure that comprehensive monitoring and reporting take place in real time. During the period of enhanced monitoring, the monitoring committee will report to the joint committee in accordance with an agreed action plan to include weekly and biweekly reporting, as required. The implementation of these provisions in practice will be kept under review by the independent monitoring committee, whose role was enhanced by the treaty, which will ensure compliance. I beg to move.

[Lord Anderson of Ipswich (CB)]

My Lords, Amendment 3J in my name turned out to be the last one standing. Perhaps I may say just a few words at its funeral. It was not much, perhaps, compared with some of those amendments that had already been defeated. Indeed, it survived so long under the guidance of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope of Craighead, who I am delighted to see back in his place, precisely because it was so modest and unthreatening to the Government’s policy. But it at least touched on a central disease of this Bill and perhaps of our body politic more generally: the imputation of decisions to Parliament to reduce the possibilities for challenge and the pretence that by asserting something to be true, even in the teeth of the evidence, one can not only make it true but keep it true for ever.

Many people, some of them perhaps still watching even now, will have wished us to keep on fighting, but without the threat of double insistence—which remains part of our constitutional armoury, but which did not command the necessary political support on this occasion—there would have been no point in doing so. The purpose of ping-pong is to persuade the Government, through force of argument, to come to the table and agree a compromise. They have refused pointedly to do so, and after four rounds of ping-pong, their control of the Commons remains as solid as ever.

The time has now come to acknowledge the primacy of the elected House and to withdraw from the fray. We do so secure at least in the knowledge that the so-called judgment of Parliament was not the judgment of this House, and that we tried our hardest to achieve something a little more sensible. We must take comfort from such assurances as the Minister has been able to give and hold the Government to them. This is the Government’s Bill, resolutely free of any outside influence. As a patriot, I can only hope—though I am afraid, without much optimism—that it will bring benefits, in some way, commensurate to its real and painful cost.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord True (Con)]

My Lords, I hope it is in scope for the Leader of the House to interpose his body, particularly when the noble Lord is active and spirited, as he is at this hour. I will say two things. First, we have had many hours of debate on this legislation. I think the doubts about the Bill, and we believe the beliefs and proprieties about it, are entirely clear. So far as further discussion and the development of events are concerned, we in the usual channels are always open to discussion with other parties about when or in what way further discussion can be made. I apologise to the House for my intervention but these are important things which we need to reflect on. Perhaps this has been a prolonged process, but I would like, in the immortal phrase of the Senate of the United States of America, to yield the floor to my noble friend Lord Sharpe to conclude the proceedings.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for his intervention. He put his points across extremely eloquently, and I agree with all of them.

I say gently to the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that the Bill does comply with international law. It is profoundly moral and patriotic to defend the integrity of our borders, and it is profoundly moral and patriotic to prevent the needless loss of life in the channel and to put the criminal gangs out of business.

I also ask the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, why the Green group is currently a solo act. Where is her partner?

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

I have been asked a direct question. I am sure the House would have been delighted to hear from both of us this evening, but we made a choice to have one representative. If the House would like to hear and see more of us, we would welcome being invited to do that.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Speaking personally, I would rather hear a lot less, but there we are.

Rwanda is a safe country that has proven time and again its ability to offer asylum seekers a safe haven and a chance to build a new life. Rwanda has a strong history of providing protection to those who need it and currently hosts over 135,000 refugees and asylum seekers, who have found safety and sanctuary there. Binding provisions in the treaty place obligations on the Government of Rwanda to provide for those relocated under the partnership, and this is long overdue. I put on record my thanks to officials in the Government of Rwanda for all their efforts in delivering this partnership. I commend the Motion to the House.

Motion A agreed.

Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) Order 2024

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 18th April 2024 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) (Amendment, Surrender and Compensation) Order 2024.

Relevant document: 12th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, the order before us adds zombie-style knives and zombie-style machetes to the list of prohibited offensive weapons, by amending the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (Offensive Weapons) Order 1988 to include them. The purpose of this draft order is to maintain public safety by restricting the supply of weapons which can be used in violent crime or to create fear in our communities. The Government keep legislation in relation to prohibited offensive weapons under review and we will act when the police raise concerns about specific weapons. For example, zombie knives were banned in England and Wales in 2016, followed by cyclone knives in 2019.

We are now concerned about the availability of certain types of machetes and large outdoors knives, which do not seem to have a practical use and instead appear designed to look menacing. The police tell us that these bladed articles, which can be purchased for as little as £10, are favoured by those who want to use them as weapons to perpetrate violent crime. While sales of these weapons are relatively low, they have a disproportionate effect because their appearance creates a fear of and glamorises violence.

We are aware that machetes and other large, bladed tools such as scythes, billhooks and large outdoor knives have traditionally been used as tools in farming, gardening, clearing land and waterways, as well as in outdoor activities such as bushcraft, hunting and camping. However, unlike more conventional knives and machetes, zombie-style knives and machetes have no legitimate purpose. In our conversations with manufacturers and retailers, they have been clear that, in their view, these articles are not designed as tools but as weapons. If these dangerous weapons remain available, there is a risk that they could be used to intimidate or cause fear. Worse, they could be used to perpetrate serious acts of violence. The Government will not tolerate such a risk.

This brings me to the details of the order before us. Under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, it is an offence to possess, import, manufacture, sell, hire, offer for sale or hire, expose or possess for the purposes of sale or hire, a weapon specified in an order made under that section. An offence under Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 currently carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment, but we have introduced provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill to increase the maximum penalty to two years.

A number of descriptions of weapons have been specified under Section 141 and therefore prohibited, including butterfly knives, knuckledusters, telescopic truncheons and certain types of swords with curved blades, commonly known as samurai swords. Using the order-making powers in Section 141(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, the Government wish to add zombie-style knives and zombie-style machetes to the list of offensive weapons to which Section 141 applies. These weapons are defined as a bladed article with a plain cutting edge, a sharp pointed edge, and a blade over eight inches in length. This length was chosen to exclude knives designed for legitimate purposes, such as many kitchen and outdoors knives. To be within the scope of the ban, the article should also have one or more of the features specified in Article 1(1)(a), namely, a serrated cutting edge, more than one hole in the blade, spikes, or more than two sharp points in the blade.

It is right that we take the firmest possible action to prevent violence and to stop dangerous weapons getting into the wrong hands, and we are not seeking to criminalise law-abiding citizens. There will therefore be defences to cover a range of circumstances, including where the article in question is one of historical importance, is made by hand, is possessed, sold or imported for religious purposes, or was given as a gift by a Sikh to another person at a religious ceremony or ceremonial event. Antiques are already exempted from Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988. Furthermore, we are providing a defence for blunt items to protect the fantasy knives market. We have also taken the opportunity to extend this defence to curved swords.

There are a couple of further points to mention before I finish. First, Parts 3 and 4 of this instrument are concerned with the surrender and compensation scheme, through which owners with weapons in scope of the ban will be able to surrender them and claim compensation if they so wish. Secondly, in terms of territorial scope, the statutory instrument will only apply to England and Wales. We very much hope that the devolved Administrations in Northern Ireland and Scotland will take similar action to ensure that these dangerous knives are prohibited across the United Kingdom. To this effect, officials have engaged with the Governments in both Northern Ireland and Scotland.

In summary, nothing matters more than public safety. That is why we are bringing forward this order, to prevent dangerous weapons being used in violent crime or to create fear in our communities. I beg to move.

[Lord Lucas (Con)]

My Lords, I say thank you to the Minister and his Home Office team, which drafted this order, for including a clear and comprehensive exemption for objects of historical importance. Carving out a space for history is not the easiest thing to do when you are dealing with people being killed and seriously hurt but it is really important, and to have done it in a way that the ordinary citizen—rather than just museums—can take advantage of is particularly appreciated.

History is real. Iconoclasm is not a virtue. We have a long history of our ancestors carrying blades into armed conflicts, not just as weapons but as tools of utility and survival. Preserving these items is important. Museums have a limited capacity, so the role of preservation falls mostly on the amateur collector and the descendants of our brave veterans. I am delighted that the Government recognise that.

Historical knives do not play a significant role in crime—they are far too expensive for that—so excluding them from the order does not in any way decrease the protection that it offers. By way of illustration, it was not so long ago that a curved sword was sold for £400,000, possibly because it belonged to Lord Nelson. Generally, these articles fetch a decent price—far more than it costs to purchase a replica on the net or elsewhere.

Ministers have not always been so perspicacious. The historical importance exemption is not available for items prohibited by Section 141 of the Criminal Justice Act 1988, so there are items from World War II—obviously, they are not 100 hundred years old yet—issued to, for instance, the commandos and their SOE, as well as to their equivalents in other nations, that are not protected. I very much hope that the Minister and his team will make a note on the file that this is something they might set right when next an opportunity occurs. We ought to preserve these objects for just the reasons that have motivated the exemption in this order.

I also believe that there is scope for clarifying the law on truncheons. As it is at the moment, I am not at all clear that the police practice of presenting long-serving officers with engraved, old-style truncheons is legal; it would be nice to know that it is. There is also some scope for looking through the guidance that the police use when applying these rather convoluted regulations on prohibited items, so that they really understand how the various descriptions and exemptions work and so that things are made clear and easy for them.

I look forward to further conversations on these matters, both directly and as a result of the Home Office’s most helpful interactions with both Bill Harriman of the British Association for Shooting and Conservation and John Pidgeon of the Coleshill Auxiliary Research Team.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, we too welcome this SI. I will start with some questions for the Minister, then comment on other noble Lords’ contributions to the short debate.

First, what are the Government doing to increase prosecution rates for knife crime? Currently, fewer than half of those who come to police attention are actually prosecuted. Do the Government have any plans to introduce a new serious violence strategy, given that the existing strategy is five years old? What assessment have the Government made of the threat of so-called “ninja swords” and why are they not covered by this legislation? The Government, as we heard, have tried to ban zombie knives before but the retailers have adapted their designs to get past the laws. Are the Government confident that they have done enough to stop the same thing happening again this time?

Further, online knife sales represent a serious issue in terms of lack of supervision by the websites and the lack of regulation over online marketplaces hosting illegal knife sales, particularly when these websites are hosted overseas. Can the Minister say something about buying these types of knives from overseas websites, how they may be intercepted and the obligations put on the people running those websites?

I also want to acknowledge that I understand this is a difficult problem and do not want to score political points on this issue, but there is a wider strategy to be developed and adopted to try to cut down this scourge in our society. The noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, made an extremely good point when she drew the comparison between the cuts in youth services and the corresponding increase in knife crime. That really points to one of the sources of the problem that we have seen in recent years.

As an aside, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that I am glad he made the points that he did. I agreed with those points and many families, including mine, have historical pieces which would certainly be illegal if they were sold nowadays in shops—so I thank him for that.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, raised some detailed questions, which I thought were very interesting, about the practical steps that police forces can take to track down sales and do some proactive policing to see what has happened to the knives that have been sold legitimately over the last few years. Of course, a huge number have been sold illegitimately, but we understand that point.

In conclusion, I want to talk slightly more generally. As noble Lords may know, I sit as a youth magistrate and regularly see knife crime-related charges in both youth and adult courts. One of the things I always do in the youth court is make sure that the parent, responsible adult or elder sibling sees the knife, because very often the person who accompanies the young person in court does not really know the extent of the danger which may have been posed through carrying that knife. Whether it is the physical knife itself, which we sometimes see in court, or a picture of it, I always make sure that the responsible adult sitting next to the young person sees that object, so that they know what we are talking about.

The other thing I always do with the young person, however serious the knife-related offence is, is say to them that their own lives are in danger. What we regularly see in court is young people being attacked with their own knives when fights break out. Twice in the last five years, I have had young people not turning up to court for a knife offence because they themselves have been killed. This is why I say that to the young people in front of me; one can only hope that it drives the message home.

We need to say that it is gang-related or drug-related, of course, but a lot of these people will say that they carry these knives for their own defence. They are more frightened of the harm posed to them by other people carrying knives than they are by what the court can do to them by way of sanction. This is not to argue for higher sanctions, but it is to argue for education and better youth services, and for a wider intervention through schools and other youth programmes to try to bear down on this scourge.

The final point I want to make is that people often ask questions about racial disproportionality, with young black men attacking each other. In this House and elsewhere, you hear of people saying that the police are disproportionate in their response to this and in stopping and search young black people. I have certainly been in more than one meeting with black mothers who have said to me and to the people with me, “You’re not doing enough to protect our sons”. So we need to do more to protect their sons and we need a holistic approach to do that, but, as far as this SI goes, I support it.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this relatively short debate. I thank in particular the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, for his personal insights from his courtroom; they made a great deal of sense and, in some cases, were very disturbing. I have had similar conversations with some of those mothers; they are particularly relevant in the context of some of the debates on stop and search that we have had in this House. Perhaps we need to do more to publicise the results of some of these conversations.

I will do my utmost to address the questions asked of me. I will start by talking about the serious violence duty, which the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me about, because that obviously informs the entire debate. In 2023-24, the Government allocated £13.1 million to continue the implementation and delivery of the serious violence duty; that followed a commitment made in January 2023. The noble Lord will remember that, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, the serious violence duty requires a range of specified authorities—such as the police, local government, youth offending teams and health and probation services —to work collaboratively and put in place plans to prevent and reduce serious violence in their local communities, enabled by new powers to share both data and information. Of course, that Act also contains measures such as serious violence reduction orders as well as other things; it is probably a little too soon to tell precisely how effective those are but, obviously, they are in train.

Local areas have the flexibility to determine the geographical extent of their partnerships. We are encouraging local areas to use multiagency partnerships where possible. The point was made by both the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, that educational institutions, prisons and youth custodial institutions—known as “the relevant authorities”—are under separate duties. We expect them to co-operate with the core duty holders when asked as well. We also require partnerships to consult such institutions in their areas.

The fact is that this is a societal issue. We are not going to solve it this afternoon, but I have heard the points made and, of course, I will make sure that they are shared round the relevant parts of government—that is, most of government and most of society.

Both the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, and the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, asked me about ninja swords and other types of bladed articles that are used in crime. Concerns have been raised during the passage of the Criminal Justice Bill through Parliament in relation to swords, in particular so-called ninja swords. Those that have the features set out in this legislation will be banned; however, those that do not have those features will not be, because we have focused our efforts on the types of weapons that the National Police Chiefs’ Council has raised as being of particular concern.

As my noble friend Lord Lucas mentioned, many members of the public legitimately own antique swords and swords of historical interest. People also own modern swords as collectible items, and there are those who own swords for activities such as martial arts, fencing and re-enactment. Many British military swords have straight blades and are treasured by service personnel when they serve, as well as by their family members when they are passed on. These articles are generally owned and used responsibly, obviously.

The noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, is quite right about blunt blades. Something that is blunt can be sharpened. However, we have provided the defence of blunt items, which would enable collectors of fantasy knives to purchase for display items that would otherwise be prohibited. We are taking the opportunity to extend this defence to curved swords, as I have mentioned, but it is important to note that, if an item were sharpened, it would become illegal. If this comes to the attention of the police, they will be able to make a charge for unlawful possession of a bladed article if the blade is sharpened.

I also point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, that the unfortunate and awful crime in Croydon that she mentioned was actually committed with a kitchen knife.

The statistics are not quite as bleak as the noble Baroness, Lady Doocey, suggested. I am always a bit nervous talking about statistics in relation to what are individually horrific circumstances, so please bear that in mind when I mention them. The latest provisional admissions data for NHS hospitals in England and Wales showed a decrease in the number of admissions for assault with a sharp object in the year ending September 2023. The figure was 4% lower than in the year ending September 2022. We should also bear in mind that many of the comparisons that we make are with the years of Covid, when many people were locked up—metaphorically speaking—so they are not direct comparisons. If we compare like for like, the numbers are improving. That is not to say that they are not still awful, as I said, and obviously we have to do much more about that.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Hogan-Howe (CB)]

Would it be possible before the Minister sits down to ask two questions? My question about the value of a weapon was about whether manufacturers, retailers and wholesalers will be paid the wholesale trade value or the retail value of the weapon, if that is known. More importantly, they will have lists of people who had weapons sold to them, so will they be asked, encouraged or told that they must share their customer list with the police, who in my view should be expected to follow up on that?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

On the first part of the question, I do not know the answer. I will have to come back to the noble Lord. I think I tried to answer that when I was talking about the guidance. Obviously, the guidance has yet to be published. The noble Lord is 100% right, of course, that they should have those lists and they should consult them, but, as he knows, operational policing remains independent. The guidance will be published in June, and I think the noble Lord makes a very good point.

Motion agreed.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Wednesday 17th April 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

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

1E: Because the Commons consider that the provisions of the Bill are compliant with domestic and international obligations, and that it is therefore not necessary to refer expressly to having due regard for domestic and international law when setting out the purpose of the Bill.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Motion A I will also speak to Motions B, B1, C, C1, D and D1. I am grateful to noble Lords on all Benches for their careful consideration of this Bill. We have debated the same issues for some time, and it is of course right that the Bill is properly scrutinised. However, the time has come to get the Bill on to the statute book.

Motion A relates to Lords Amendment 1D in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, which seeks to make it clear in the Bill that it must have due regard to international law and specific domestic legislation. As I made clear yesterday, the Government take their responsibilities and international obligations incredibly seriously. The Bill simply ensures that Parliament’s sovereign view that Rwanda is a safe country is deferred to and binding in domestic law. This is to avoid systemic legal challenges frustrating removals. What it does not mean is that the Bill legislates away our international obligations. There is nothing in the Bill that requires any act or omission that conflicts with our international obligations.

In relation to domestic law, I have set out in previous debates the provisions in the treaty that take account of the needs of children and those who are victims of modern slavery. Rwanda has a long history of supporting and integrating asylum seekers and refugees, having already hosted over 135,000 refugees and asylum seekers, including women and children, and it has the necessary provisions in place to support those who are vulnerable.

I turn to Amendment 3G in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. At this late stage in the passage of the Bill I fear I am repeating much of what I have previously stated, but it is important to make it clear and to re-emphasise that we will ratify the treaty in the UK only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty.

Article 24 of the treaty states that the treaty will

“enter into force on the date of receipt of the last notification by”

Rwanda or the UK

“that their internal procedures for entry into force have been completed”.

Both I and my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton set out yesterday the details of the internal procedures that are now in place and continue to be put in place. We have spoken at length during our many debates about the monitoring committee, so I do not propose to reiterate all the details which are clearly set out in the Government’s published policy statement. However, it is important to point out again that the joint committee and the independent monitoring committee will oversee the partnership and ensure that the obligations under the treaty are adhered to in practice. This will prevent the risk of any harm to relocated individuals, including potential refoulement, before it has a chance to occur. As I said yesterday, there will be an enhanced phase of monitoring.

As I also set out yesterday, Article 4(1) of the treaty sets out that it is for the UK to determine

“the timing of a request for relocation of individuals under this Agreement and the number of requests”.

This means that the Government would not be obligated to remove individuals under the terms of the treaty if there had been, for example, an unexpected change to the in-country situation in Rwanda that required further consideration. Pausing removals to a particular country in response to any potential changes which may affect that country’s safety and suitability for returns is the general approach the Government take across the board and will continue to take when looking to relocate individuals to Rwanda.

Moving to Amendment 6F in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Chakrabarti, as clearly expressed by the other place on several occasions now, this is an amendment the Government simply cannot accept. It seeks to undermine the key measures of the Bill and is completely unnecessary. We have made it clear that we cannot allow relocations to Rwanda to be frustrated and delayed as a result of systemic challenges on its general safety. In this context, the safety of a particular country is a matter for Parliament, and one on which Parliament’s view should be sovereign. The evidence we have provided and the commitments made by the United Kingdom and the Government of Rwanda through the internationally binding treaty enable Rwanda to be deemed a safe country. This Bill makes it clear that this finding should not be disturbed by the courts.

Turning to Motion D, which relates to Amendment 10F in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, as I said yesterday—and I again reassure the House—once the UKSF ARAP review has concluded, the Government will re-visit and consider how the Illegal Migration Act and removal under existing immigration legislation will apply to those who are determined ARAP-eligible as a result of the review, ensuring that these people receive the attention they deserve and have earned. The Government recognise the commitment and responsibility that comes with combat veterans, whether our own or those who have shown courage by serving alongside us. We will not turn our backs on those who have served.

[Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)]

My Lords, I shall speak to Amendment B1, as an amendment to Motion B.

I have asked for a further amendment in lieu to be put down, because I have raised important issues which need to be resolved before the Bill finally passes. As has been mentioned by the Minister, the Act will come into force on the day on which the Rwanda treaty enters into force. This means that your Lordships are being asked to say that, as from that very moment and without more, Rwanda is a safe country. That is not all, as Clause 2 states that from that date, every decision-maker, including the Secretary of State himself,

“must conclusively treat the Republic of Rwanda as a safe country”.

That is so, whether or not the treaty has been fully implemented, and whether or not Rwanda ceases to be safe some time in the future. The Secretary of State, just like any other decision-maker, will be locked by the statute into the proposition that Rwanda is a safe country, with no room for escape. In other words, it is no use his advisers saying that things still need to be done before all the protections and systems that the treaty provides for are in place. Nor is it any use his advisers saying that as these arrangements have broken down, Rwanda can no longer be considered safe. The Secretary of State is required by the statute to disregard that advice. He has no discretion in the matter. That is what the word “conclusively” in Clause 2 means.

The Minister has told the House several times that the Government are not obligated by the treaty to send anybody to Rwanda if the facts change. That may well be so, but that is not what the Bill says. The Secretary of State is bound by the statute to ignore any such changes. He is required by Clause 2 to treat Rwanda as safe, conclusively, for all time. If the Minister will forgive me, his head is buried in the sand, like that of the proverbial ostrich.

My amendment seeks to add two provisions to Clause 1. Before Rwanda can be judged to be a safe country, the mechanisms that the treaty provides for must be put into practice. Ratifying the treaty is an important step, but that is not enough. As has been pointed out repeatedly, the situation on the ground is still being developed. The treaty must be implemented before Rwanda can be considered safe. My amendment seeks to write into the Bill a provision whereby Rwanda cannot be treated as a safe country until the Secretary of State has laid before Parliament a statement from the independent monitoring committee that the key mechanisms the treaty provides for have been created. It provides that Rwanda will cease to be a safe country for the purposes of the Act if the Secretary of State makes a statement to Parliament to that effect. In other words, it provides the Secretary of State with the escape clause he needs if he is to escape from the confines of Clause 2, should that situation develop.

I remind your Lordships of what Sir Jeremy Wright said in the other place when my amendment was being considered there on 18 March:

“But it is simply not sensible for Parliament not to be able to say differently, save through primary legislation, if the facts were to change … the Government … should give some thought to the situation of the Bill…it must be right for Parliament to retain the capacity to reconsider and if necessary revise it”.—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/24; cols. 679-80.]


Developing the point this afternoon, he said that I was wrong in my then amendment to give it to the monitoring committee to decide whether Rwanda was safe, as this should be a matter for Parliament. I agree with him and, as it happens, I have already deleted the reference to the monitoring committee from this part of my latest draft. What I am proposing now is that it be left entirely to the Secretary of State to decide, although he would no doubt seek the advice of that committee.

Sir Bob Neill and Sir Robert Buckland, both of whom spoke in favour of my amendment last time, also spoke in support of it this afternoon. Sir Robert Buckland accepted that there needs to be a system by which it can be verified that the treaty has been fully implemented. He said that to do this would reduce the possibility of legal challenge. He said that a reliable method of doing this was to use the monitoring committee set up by the treaty itself. He also said that there needs to be a mechanism for dealing with the situation if Rwanda is no longer safe, without resort to the time-consuming method of primary legislation. That is what my amendment seeks to provide, and as to the question of what happens in the future, my system is flexible: the Secretary of State can come to Parliament and say that Rwanda is not safe. He does not need primary legislation, so the Act is still there, and he could come back when the situation is cured to say that Rwanda can be regarded as safe now. It provides not only an escape clause but flexibility to enable the Act to continue if necessary, without the amending legislation.

The Commons reasons set out in the Marshalled List are exactly the same as last time. They state that my amendments are “not necessary” because the Bill comes into force when the treaty comes into force, and that

“it is not appropriate for the Bill to legislate for Rwanda adhering to its obligations under the Treaty as Rwanda’s ongoing adherence to its Treaty obligations will be subject to the monitoring provisions set out in the treaty”.

No doubt that is so, but that still fails to face up to what I am saying on both points.

In short, the coming into force of the treaty is not enough. We need confirmation and verification that it has been implemented before we can make the judgment that Rwanda can be considered safe. It simply is not sensible for Parliament not to be able to say differently, save through primary legislation, if the facts were to change.

I regret that I have had to press my points yet again. It is not my intention to obstruct the operation of the Bill in any way. My amendment is necessary to make sense of the Bill. It is modest, simple and easy to operate. The other place needs to think yet again.

--- Later in debate ---

I do not believe that those on the Front Bench here agree with their own Government on this. Their Government are asking them and all their Back-Benchers to vote for something that is morally bankrupt—something that goes against what we promised those who stood with us in Afghanistan. We promised that we would protect them—but we are not going to do that, because my noble friend’s amendment will not be passed if we send it to the other place and those there do not give way. We are not going to exempt them from the provisions of the Bill. It does not matter what political party you stand for; that cannot be right. I ask and urge every Member of your Lordships’ House not only to consider the noble and learned Lord’s Motion B1 but, when we come to my noble friend’s Motion D1, to consider what the consequences will be for this country if we cannot ensure that our word is our bond.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to this relatively short debate. The House of Commons has now considered and rejected these amendments on several occasions. I will keep my remarks brief and simply remind noble Lords of the key points.

We will ratify the treaty only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under the treaty. Rwanda has a strong track record of welcoming asylum seekers and looking after refugees, and it has also been internationally recognised for its general safety and stability. The Bill complies with our international obligations and allows direct access to the courts and an appropriately limited possibility of interim relief, consistent with what is required by the ECHR. No word is being broken. We will not turn our backs on those who have supported our Armed Forces and the UK Government.

It is simply not right for criminal gangs to control our borders and decide who enters the UK. It is not right that they exploit vulnerable people and put lives at risk—their own and others’. It would not be right if this Parliament did not pass this legislation, which will enable us to protect those being exploited, protect our borders and stop the boats.

Motion A agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 3E, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3F.

3F: Because the Commons consider that it is not necessary to refer expressly to the arrangements in the Rwanda Treaty being, and continuing to be, implemented and adhered to; the Bill is clear that it comes into force on the day on which the Rwanda Treaty enters into force and it is not appropriate for the Bill to legislate for Rwanda adhering to its obligations under the Treaty as Rwanda’s ongoing adherence to its Treaty obligations will be subject to the monitoring provisions set out in the Treaty.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

Motion C

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6E.

6E: Because the Commons consider that it is not appropriate to leave out clause 4 of the Bill and insert the new clause in the Amendment, as the Bill allows decision-makers to consider claims that Rwanda is unsafe for an individual due to their particular circumstances.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

Motion C1 (as an amendment to Motion C) not moved.

Motion D

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

Moved by

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10D, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10E.

10E. Because the Commons consider that it is not necessary as the only way individuals should come to the UK is through safe and legal routes.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D)

[Lord Browne of Ladyton]

Moved by

At end insert “, and do propose Amendment 10F in lieu—

EU Borders: Hand and Face Scanning

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 17th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Berkeley]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to minimise delays at borders with the European Union caused by the proposed introduction of hand and face scanning.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, the European entry/exit system—EES—is ultimately for EU member states to implement, but, to minimise delays for British citizens, the Government have engaged on it regularly with the European Commission and the French Government. We are supporting ports and carriers to ensure that they are prepared for implementation and planning communications for passengers travelling to and from the UK so that they will know what to do and can plan accordingly.

[Lord Berkeley (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer, and I am pleased that the Government are in discussion with the European Union. Can he confirm that all passengers travelling between the EU and the UK, by air, sea, rail or road, will have to submit to scans of both hands and a retina scan before they cross into or out of the EU? I am told that they will have to do this in little booths which have to be erected at every terminal. Can he confirm that and perhaps advise the House how long the queues will be while this is implemented?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The EES replaces passport stamping: it registers the time and place of entry and exit of third-country nationals to the Schengen area and digitally records biodata—as the noble Lord has observed—and the travel document, fingerprints and photo. It tracks compliance with the 90-in-180 day maximum stay duration. It will take place in booths— I apologise, as I should have said that—although there are works on various technical solutions to mitigate that going forward. I am told that the amount of time it will take is not particularly onerous.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)]

My Lords, given that airports have failed to meet the deadline that the Government suggested for introducing the rule about being able to carry liquids on board, and that there are long delays at Dover every possible bank holiday weekend, how confident is my noble friend that this deadline will be reached? What will happen if the delays are insufferable? Will additional staff be in place to assist passengers in this regard?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, considerable investment is going into the queues at Dover. Noble Lords may be aware that the Department for Transport has provisionally awarded £45 million of levelling-up fund money to Kent County Council for the Dover border improvement project, which aims to substantially reduce outbound queues at the port. Ferry operators have previously been very pragmatic about allowing vehicles on to ferries if crossings are missed due to disruption, but we recognise the impact of disruption. The Kent Resilience Forum has a package of well-tested traffic management plans to manage disruption to keep passengers and freight traffic flowing.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister will recall that I have raised with him the major mistake we made in abandoning the opportunity of having an identity facility. In fact, he said that I had a good point. Can he tell me whether he has taken it back to his department and whether they will act on it now and reverse the stupid decision taken by the coalition Government?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I think I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord West, only last week, that that is a good point. I have taken it back to the department and have no answer for him.

[Baroness Coussins (CB)]

My Lords, will the hand and face scanning procedure apply also to coachloads of schoolchildren going on educational visits to European Union countries? They already face long and stressful delays at the borders because they are no longer on group travel passports, and the individual passport of every child has to be separately checked. Can the Minister say whether the group passport system could be reintroduced, or whether, at the very least, those groups will be excused from hand and face scanning?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As I have said, I am afraid that this is a system being applied by the EU. It is not for us to say how it is applied; it is for it. However, coaches have already been dealt with as far as the new arrangements at Dover are concerned, and, as far as I am aware, this will not be particularly onerous.

[Baroness Randerson (LD)]

The Minister referred to freight traffic. Since Brexit, we have had phytosanitary certificates, plant passports, import licences and export health certificates. On 30 April, we will suffer Brexit-related import checks on meat and plants, leading to payment of common user charges of up to £145 per consignment, estimated to add 10% to the cost of those imports. Can the Minister tell us why the Government gave only 27 days’ notice of the size of this charge and the date of its implementation? What discussions have they had with small businesses in particular about the impact this will have?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Baroness will appreciate that, as a Home Office Minister, I am not party to those discussions, but I will go back to the relevant department and find out, and make sure that she is made aware of the discussions and their substance.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

I do not think so. The Minister will note that there is an air of scepticism in the House about the implementation of these new procedures. Will transitional measures be in place to enable the new system to bed in while the existing system carries on working?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

No, I do not believe that there will. As I say, this system is being operated and introduced by the European Union, so we have limited say in whether there should be transitional arrangements. Having said that, I do not think that the start date has been made public yet. I know there is a target start date, but I would imagine that there is no obligation to start on the date that has already been published if things are not yet ready.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord; I did think this was Back-Bench and not Front-Bench Questions.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Well, it is Back-Bench Questions. Could I say to my noble friend how much I sympathise with him? Not only has he had to deal with the Rwanda legislation but he is now being held to account by Opposition Members for foolish decisions taken by the European Union.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, I hope the Minister’s optimism will be proved accurate in the event, but I am bound to say that those of us who serve on the Justice and Home Affairs Committee that is currently looking at this are not so happy. There is probably a car crash on the way in Dover, I fear. What about the situation in Northern Ireland, where it will not be at all clear whether people coming from the EU or third countries can travel north from Dublin to Belfast if they choose to do so.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am not entirely sure what the noble Lord would like me to say. As I have repeatedly said, this is an EU system being rolled out by the EU. I am neither optimistic nor not optimistic; I am relying on the information I have received as to the EU’s plans.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell us how the people of Dover will benefit from the money being invested? It is supposed to be levelling up, to make those communities more enterprising. How will that work with this money being used in Dover?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The first thing it will do will be to ease traffic. I imagine that will be of enormous benefit to the people of Dover.

[Baroness Manzoor (Con)]

My Lords, on something that is in our control, and being very much an optimist, I was delighted just recently when I applied for my new passport. I expected it to take weeks or months and that there would be lots of delays. I was pleasantly surprised that I could do it electronically. I turned up to the Passport Office and got the passport in five minutes. That is a tremendous accolade to the Passport Office. I just want to put that on record.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that. That is a long-overdue compliment to the passport service, which has been operating extraordinarily efficiently now for quite some time. I remember there was a lot of disquiet on Opposition Benches post Covid about how long it took to square off the backlog. I have not heard any commendations for its recent very strong performance.

[Viscount Goschen (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend give an indication of the comparison that has been made between the efficacy and performance of the systems planned to be introduced on the other side of the channel and those systems that are in place at the UK end of passport control and immigration? Is he satisfied that our technology deployed in the UK is at least of equivalent complexity and competency?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I cannot say whether it is of the same complexity, but I can say that the ETA system, which, as noble Lords will be aware, began to be rolled out last year, is working very efficiently, so I am very optimistic about our end of the bargain.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, could I just refer the Minister to what he said? Why are we blaming the EU for the consequences of a decision that this Government made in leaving the EU?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am not blaming the EU for anything. The EU has a perfect right to control its own borders—I wish noble Lords in certain parties would afford the same right to us in this country. I would also like to say that the British Government did not leave the EU; the people of Great Britain voted to leave the EU.

Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Bill

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Consideration of Commons amendments
Tuesday 16th April 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton]

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

1C: Because the Commons consider that the provisions of the Bill are compliant with domestic and international obligations, and that it is therefore not necessary to refer expressly to having due regard for domestic and international law when setting out the purpose of the Bill.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendments 3B and 3C, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 3D.

3D: Because the Commons consider that it is not necessary to refer expressly to the arrangements in the Rwanda Treaty being, and continuing to be, implemented and adhered to; the Bill is clear that it comes into force on the day on which the Rwanda Treaty enters into force and it is not appropriate for the Bill to legislate for Rwanda adhering to its obligations under the Treaty as Rwanda’s ongoing adherence to its Treaty obligations will be subject to the monitoring provisions set out in the Treaty.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, in moving Motion B I will also speak to Motions D, D1, E, F and F1. At this late stage in the Bill’s passage through both Houses, it has been made unequivocally clear, here and in the other place, that it remains the Government’s priority to stop the boats. As I have stated before, the deterrent will work only if we apply the same rules to everyone. We need to take swift action now to put in place the policy that will enable relocations to Rwanda to take place, to create that deterrent and stop the boats. We have seen the deterrent effect work for Albania and we need to replicate it for everyone else.

I turn to Motion B and Amendment 3E. We have made it clear that the Government will ratify the treaty in the UK only once we agree with Rwanda that all necessary implementation is in place for both countries to comply with the obligations under it. Clause 9 clearly sets out that the Bill’s provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force, and the treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. Furthermore, the Government maintain periodical and ad hoc reviews of country situations, including Rwanda, and this will not change. The published country information notes include information from a wide range of sources, such as media outlets, local, national and international organisations, and the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office.

The treaty also sets out clearly in Article 4.1 that it is for the UK to determine the timing of a request for relocation of individuals under the terms of the agreement and the number of such requests made. This means that the Government would not be obligated to remove individuals under the terms of the treaty if there had been, for example, an unexpected change to the in-country situation in Rwanda that required further considerations.

The Government of Rwanda’s commitment to the partnership and their obligations under the treaty has been demonstrated by the progress they are making towards implementation. The recent steps taken were set out by my noble and learned friend Lord Stewart in the last group. On Thursday 21 March, the Rwandan Senate passed the legislation ratifying the treaty. The domestic legislation to implement the new asylum system has been approved by the Cabinet and is now with Parliament for consideration. A complaints process has been set up and will be further developed as we progress further into the partnership.

Motion D1 and Amendment 7D would result in the provisions of Section 57 of the 2023 Act applying only to decisions on age made by a designated person or local authorities under Section 50(3)(b) of the 2022 Act where the removal is to Rwanda, and would prevent Section 57 of the 2023 Act from applying to decisions on age taken by the other listed decision-makers in Section 57(6) where the removal is to Rwanda—for example, initial age decisions of immigration officers at the border. The initial decision on age is an important first step to prevent individuals who are clearly an adult or a child being subjected unnecessarily to a more substantive age assessment.

As part of this process, on arrival individuals will be treated as an adult only where two immigration officers assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest they are significantly over 18. This is a deliberately high threshold and the principle of the benefit of the doubt means that, where there is doubt, an individual will be treated as a child pending further observation by a local authority, usually in the form of a Merton-compliant age assessment. This approach has been confirmed by the Supreme Court in the landmark case BF (Eritrea) v the Secretary of State for the Home Department 2021, UK Supreme Court 38.

We know that assessing age is difficult, but it is important that the Government take decisive action to deter adults from knowingly claiming to be children. Unaccompanied children will be treated differently from adults under the 2023 Act, and there are obvious safeguarding risks of adults being placed within the care system. It is therefore crucial that we take steps to safeguard and swiftly identify genuine children, and avoid lengthy legal challenges to age decisions preventing the removal of those who have been assessed to be adults. This amendment would simply open the floodgates for more abuse within the system and encourage adults to knowingly claim to be children to avoid being relocated to Rwanda, placing genuine children at risk of being disadvantaged.

Furthermore, this amendment would give rise to differential treatment. The amendment would result in Section 57 of the 2023 Act applying only to decisions by local authorities and the National Age Assessment Board if the person is to be removed to Rwanda. That would result in treating differently those who are to be removed to Rwanda under the 2023 Act from those removed to another country under the 2023 Act. Decisions of immigration officers and the other listed decision-makers in Section 57(6) would therefore not fall within Section 57 if removal is to Rwanda. In judicial reviews to these decisions suspensive appeal rights could apply, and the judicial review could be heard on a matter-of-fact basis. There is simply no justification for that differential treatment.

I turn to Motion E and Amendment 9. As I have previously set out, under the internationally binding treaty the Government of Rwanda will have regard to information provided by the UK relating to any special needs that an individual may have that may arise as a result of them being a victim of modern slavery and human trafficking. Rwanda will take all the necessary steps to ensure that those needs are accommodated. Safeguarding arrangements are set out in detail in the standard operating procedures on identifying and safeguarding vulnerability, dated May 2023, which state that

“At any stage in the refugee status determination … and integration process, officials may encounter and should have due regard to the physical and psychological signs that can indicate a person is vulnerable”.


The standard operating procedures set out the process for identifying vulnerable persons and, where appropriate, making safeguarding referrals to the relevant protection team. Screening interviews to identify vulnerabilities will be conducted by protection officers who have received the relevant training and are equipped to competently handle safeguarding referrals. The protection team may trigger follow-up assessments and/or treatment, as appropriate. In addition, protection officers may support an individual to engage in the asylum process and advise relevant officials of any support needs or adjustments to enable the individual to engage with the process.

Victims of human trafficking and human slavery will receive the necessary support that they need in Rwanda, as they would in the UK. The Government of Rwanda have systems in place to safeguard relocated individuals with a range of vulnerabilities, including those concerning mental health and gender-based violence. To that end, the government amendment in lieu—Amendment 9C—requires the Secretary of State to publish an annual report about the operation of this legislation as it relates to the modern slavery and human trafficking provisions in Article 13 of the treaty.

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister explain to the House how far the scope of the annual report will go beyond what the monitoring committee will be doing, so that both the Government and Parliament are able to scrutinise exactly what is going on?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid that I do not know how far it will differ—or not, as the case may be—from the monitoring committee, so I will have to write to the noble Baroness on that subject.

[Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)]

My Lords, I apologise for interrupting. Can the Minister confirm that, before the Government are satisfied that Rwanda is a safe country, they will seek the views of the monitoring committee?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, in the last group my noble and learned friend discussed how the Government will be made aware of whether or not treaties should be ratified and so on. That is also dealt with in considerable detail, as we have rehearsed from the Dispatch Box on a number of occasions, in the agreement that was published in January of this year—starting, I believe, at paragraph 101—so I will not go through it all again.

I turn to Motion F and Amendment 10D. As we have set out before, the Government recognise the commitment and responsibility that comes with combat veterans, whether our own or those who have shown courage by serving alongside us, and we will not let them down. Once again, I reassure Parliament that, once the UKSF ARAP review has concluded, the Government will consider and revisit how the Illegal Migration Act and removal under existing immigration legislation will apply to those who are determined ARAP eligible as a result of the review, ensuring that they receive the attention that they deserve. For now, I beg to move.

Motion B1 (as an amendment to Motion B)

Moved by

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Coaker (Lab)]

My Lords, I rise briefly to say how much I support the remarks of the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, with respect to slavery, and my noble friend Lady Lister’s comments with respect to children. We will also support the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, on his amendment, should he test the opinion of the House. We think it is a very sensible amendment; it simply seeks reports saying that the things that are required to be implemented have actually been implemented. One has only to look at the International Agreements Committee report, which lists out 10 things in particular that it feels should be implemented before you can say that Rwanda is safe. As the noble and learned Lord has pointed out to the noble Lord, Lord Sharpe, there has been no answer from the Government, other than some vague platitudes as to progress being made and steps being taken to ensure that these things will happen, rather than that they have happened.

Similarly, we support the point that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has made with the second part of that amendment: to actually reflect on what happens in the future should, for whatever reason, changes happen in the environment with respect to Rwanda—political or whatever—that would require Parliament to reconsider its original decision that it was safe. We very much support the amendment that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, has put before us.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Browne on his amendment, and say how much we support it. The case was made in the Sunday Telegraph, as my noble friend pointed out, with 13 military and diplomatic leaders putting forward the case for exempting those who have served this country from the provisions of the Bill. This is something that we as a country should embrace without any debate or controversy at all. I say that because it is important that we support my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment, but also that the size of the majority is such that the other place is forced to reconsider the bland statement it made: “Don’t worry. We’ll revisit this at the end of the deliberations we are having”. There is no certainty in what the Government are saying.

It is so important that my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment is in the Bill. What it requires, and what the people of this country want, is not some reconsideration of the policy in future but a certainty that those who have served with our Armed Forces, or served us in whatever circumstances, can be assured that the promises made to them are adhered to and kept.

I cannot believe that we as a country would turn our back on those who have served with us. It is unbelievable that we should be in this situation. I say to the Minister and others who may feel it important that they vote with the Government that we are talking about men and women who have served our country, stood alongside our Armed Forces and served with us to deliver the objectives of His Majesty’s Government. How on earth can we think it appropriate that the provisions of this Bill and the treaty should apply to them? It is simply unacceptable. As such, my noble friend Lord Browne’s amendment gives us a way of saying to the Government: “Think again. We believe it should be on the face of the Bill”. I hope that noble Lords will support my noble friend when he tests the opinion of the House.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, once again I am very grateful to all noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. To restate for the record, the Government’s priority is obviously to stop the boats. Although we have made progress, more needs to be done. We need a strong deterrent; we need to operationalise this partnership with Rwanda. Only by applying this policy to everyone without myriad exceptions will the deterrent work. We are not diminishing our responsibilities to provide support to those who are vulnerable, and we have ensured that the necessary support will be provided in Rwanda. We are sending the clearest signal that we control our borders, not the criminals who charge migrants exorbitant amounts to come here via illegal routes on unsafe small boats.

I will endeavour to deal with all the points that have been raised. I turn first to the points of the noble Baroness, Lady Lister. I restate for the record that as part of the process, upon arrival individuals will be treated as an adult only where two immigration officers assess that their physical appearance and demeanour very strongly suggest that they are significantly over 18 —I emphasise “significantly”. This is a deliberately high threshold, and the principle of the benefit of the doubt means that where there is doubt, an individual will be treated as a child, pending further observation by a local authority, which will usually be in the form of a Merton-compliant age assessment.

I turn to Amendment 3E from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope. As he correctly pointed out, Clause 9 clearly sets out that the Bill’s provisions come into force when the treaty enters into force. The treaty enters into force when the parties have completed their internal procedures. Furthermore, the Government maintain periodical and ad hoc reviews of countries’ situations, including Rwanda’s, and that will not change.

One of the things we have discussed in previous debates on this subject is that there will be a real-time enhanced monitoring phase by the monitoring committee. The enhanced phase will ensure that the monitoring and reporting takes place in real time, so that the monitoring committee can rapidly identify, address and respond to any shortcomings, and of course identify any areas of improvement or urgently escalate issues that may place a relocated individual at risk of real harm. This enhanced phase is dealt with in paragraphs 106 to 112 of the policy statement, and I say to my noble friend Lord Hailsham that, of course, if the facts change, this means that the Government would not be obligated to remove individuals under the terms of the treaty. That may very well prompt the parliamentary occasion to which he referred. I am afraid I cannot say quite what form such an occasion may take; if I have anything to do with it, it will definitely include alcohol.

[Lord Deben (Con)]

Will my noble friend give way on that point? My first problem with the Bill is that I am asked to say that something is safe when it is clearly not safe, and the Government have said that it is not. What I am really asked to say is that after all this has happened it will be safe, but the Government do not seem to explain to me exactly what will happen before we get to that.

I have another problem: how can I possibly vote that it will always be safe? I am not very keen on lawyers, but surely it is a very simple matter of saying that if the monitoring committee recommends to the Secretary of State that Rwanda is no longer safe, the Secretary of State can in fact change the situation as regards Rwanda. It seems very simple to me. If I had been the Minister, the first question I would have asked my civil servants is, “What happens if the situation changes?”, and my civil servants would not have left that room until they had given me an answer. How did he allow his civil servants to leave the room?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have already stated that the Government would not be obligated to remove individuals under the terms of the treaty if there has been a change, unexpected or otherwise, in the in-country situation in Rwanda.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

The Minister uses the phrase “not be obligated”. That just means they do not have to do it, but it does not alter the legal position.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I understand the definition of the word “obligated”.

The Bill builds on the treaty and the published evidence pack and makes it clear in UK law that Rwanda is a safe country, and it does address the concerns of the Supreme Court. The courts have not concluded that there is a general risk to the safety of relocated individuals in Rwanda. Rather, the Supreme Court’s findings were limited to perceived deficiencies in the Rwandan asylum system and the resulting risk of refoulement should any lack of capacity or expertise lead to cases being wrongly decided. My noble and learned friend Lord Stewart of Dirleton and I have dealt with exactly where Rwanda is in terms of ratification and so on. The Court of Appeal unanimously upheld the High Court’s finding that a policy of removing individuals to safe third country where their asylum claims would be determined did not breach the UK’s obligations under the refugee convention, and the Supreme Court did not disturb that finding. The Supreme Court recognised that changes may be delivered in future which could address those concerns, and those changes are being delivered.

Turning to Motion F1, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and spoken to powerfully, if I may I say so, by other noble Lords, I again reassure Parliament that once the UKSF ARAP review has concluded, the Government will consider and revisit how the Illegal Migration Act and removal under existing immigration legislation will apply to those who are determined ARAP eligible as a result of the review, ensuring that these people receive the attention they deserve. I will go a little further here and say to the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, that there is no intention to turn our backs on those who have served.

Finally, I am sorry to hear that the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Butler-Sloss, does not like the Government’s amendment in lieu, but I am afraid there is very little else that I can say on that subject.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

Before my noble and learned friend sums up on his Motion, I say to the Minister that he has not answered the question about what happens if there is a change in Rwanda and it is no longer safe.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I beg to differ from the noble and learned Baroness. I appreciate that it is a difficult place to be, but I think I have answered the question. As I have said before on a number of occasions, the Government are not obligated to send anybody to Rwanda if the facts change.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Stewart of Dirleton]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 6B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 6C.

6C: Because the Commons consider that it is not appropriate to leave out clause 4 of the Bill and insert the new clause in the Amendment, as the Bill allows decision-makers to consider claims that Rwanda is unsafe for an individual due to their particular circumstances.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

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

7C: Because the Commons consider that is it not appropriate to amend the age assessment provisions of existing legislation.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

Motion D1 (as an amendment to Motion D) not moved.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 9 and do agree with the Commons in their Amendment 9C in lieu.

9C: Page 5, line 23, at end insert—
“Report about victims of modern slavery or human trafficking
(1) The Secretary of State must—
(a) prepare and publish an annual report about the operation of this Act as it relates to the modern slavery and human trafficking provisions in Article 13 of the Rwanda Treaty, and
(b) lay a copy of each report before Parliament.
(2) The first report must—
(a) relate to the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act comes into force, and
(b) be laid before Parliament and published as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of that period.
(3) Subsequent reports must—
(a) relate to the period of 12 months beginning with the day after the last day of the period to which the previous report related, and
(b) be laid before Parliament and published as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of the period to which the report relates.”

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I have already spoken to Motion E. I beg to move.

Motion E agreed.

--- Later in debate ---

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That this House do not insist on its Amendment 10B, to which the Commons have disagreed for their Reason 10C.

10C: Because the Commons consider that it is not necessary as the only way individuals should come to the UK is through safe and legal routes.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

Motion F1 (as an amendment to Motion F)

Moved by

Police: Joe Anderson

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 15th April 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Heseltine]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the conduct of the police in their treatment of Joe Anderson, who resigned as the Mayor of Liverpool in 2021.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, an investigation involving Mr Anderson remains ongoing and it would therefore be inappropriate to comment while that remains the case. The police are rightly independent of government and decisions concerning investigations are operational ones for the respective police forces to make.

[Lord Heseltine (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, the Mayor of Liverpool, Joe Anderson, was arrested on serious charges, including fraud and bribery. That was three years and four months ago. He lost his job, his reputation and his income. No charge has been made since then. Does my noble friend the Minister think that is justice?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid I am unable to comment on whether this is justice or not. The fact is that the force has advised that this investigation remains ongoing and live. That includes ongoing investigation with the Crown Prosecution Service. By way of further context, Mr Anderson has previously challenged the decision to arrest him by way of judicial review, including with an appeal, and was unsuccessful in the courts. Since then, neither he nor anyone acting on his behalf has made a complaint to the police. However, the force has confirmed that it is seeking to conclude this investigation as expeditiously as possible.

[Lord Woodley (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine—one of the few Tories whose reputation is still strong in the city of Liverpool, thanks to the work following the Toxteth riots all those decades ago. I declare an interest insomuch as Joe Anderson is a friend of mine. He is a man who—as has just been said—has been destroyed. His reputation has been completely and totally destroyed, and everything that goes with it, although he has not been charged with a single thing. It reminds me of Sir Cliff Richard. Do not start charging and making allegations across anywhere to anyone if you do not have proof and cannot substantiate what you say. It is an absolute disgrace what has happened to this man.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

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

“justice delayed is justice denied”?

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

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Lord Deben (Con)]

My Lords, I remind the House of my business connections in Liverpool, but I must ask the Minister to come back to the general question of the longevity of this investigation. We have just had a Member of the other House who was under suspicion for two and a half years, unable to do his job, and then no case was held against him. I am sorry, but this is unacceptable. We really cannot have a justice system that punishes people, guilty or not guilty, without them knowing what the case is, what the charge is, or why it has been held up for so long. The police really do have to come to some conclusion rapidly.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as I say, that may very well be the case in the majority of investigations. I cannot comment on the specifics of this one, not least because I do not know the specifics of this one. It would be completely inappropriate for me to do so. However, I will agree that, obviously, in general, investigations should be as speedy as possible.

[Lord Addington (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that there should be some maximum timeframe on this because, otherwise, it could go on for ever—and it looks like it is going to. Surely, there should be some point at which you know, at least, whether there is going to be further action taken against you.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am afraid I do not agree with that. It depends very much on the complexity of the individual investigation. As I have said, the Merseyside police have confirmed that they intend to conclude it as expeditiously as possible. Beyond that, I can go no further.

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, it is fitting that we are discussing police conduct today, 35 years, almost to the hour, since the Hillsborough disaster that killed 97 people. Today, the Labour Party has confirmed that it would introduce a Hillsborough law to ensure public authority accountability. Does the Minister agree that there is much more that we can do to achieve justice for those killed and to ensure that such a disaster never happens again?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I join the noble Lord in honouring those who died, of course; 35 years have passed since the tragedy and the impact continues to be devastating for many. The families have my sympathy. The families of the 97 have shown tremendous courage and determination and obviously their loved ones will not be forgotten. In his Statement to the other place on 6 December, the Lord Chancellor committed to a debate later this year on the Government’s response to the Bishop Jones report. It would be unwise of me to pre-empt that debate, so I shall say no more at this point.

[Baroness D'Souza (CB)]

My Lords, in view of the Minister’s repeated remarks, do I understand that he is saying that the Government have no role in influencing the police in their inquiries?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Yes—and nor should they.

[Lord McLoughlin (Con)]

My Lords, while it is true that the Government should not be able to direct the police in inquiries such as this, as the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, said, the amount of time that this man and his family have been under suspicion and under investigation, with rumours floating about, is not fair on any individual person, let alone a person who seeks to represent his community in high office, be it locally or nationally. We have seen far too many cases of inquiries—whether involving parliamentarians or local government officials—going on for far too long. The Government ought to have a look at this to see if something should not be done to put it right.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I absolutely hear what my noble friend has to say on the subject and I will, of course, take that comment back to the department.

[Baroness Blower (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that, notwithstanding the fact that he cannot comment on an individual case or its complexity, it does a disservice to the police service to be seen to be taking quite so long over this case?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Again, I would prefer not to pass judgment on the quality of the investigation that the Merseyside police have done, as the noble Baroness is asking me to do. I really do not know what the complexity of this case is. I do not know why it has taken so long to resolve. I would assume that there are very strong operational reasons, given the obviously high-profile nature of the people involved.

[Lord Dobbs (Con)]

May I ask my noble friend about a case on which he can comment? It is that of a public figure: Ted Heath. I can sense—although I cannot see—him gritting his teeth even as I raise that name. The only reason Ted Heath was accused, with the most vicious accusations, is that he was a public figure, and a vulnerable public figure. He died years ago. Surely, this is a matter of public service that we should be doing in this House, and my noble friend would become a local hero in this House if he simply went away and told the Home Office that this would be settled once and for all and that, at last, Ted Heath’s name could be cleared.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Well, I hear what my noble friend has to say. He has heard what I have had to say on this subject on at least 20 occasions and, no doubt, I will be called back to the Dispatch Box to say it all again. As I said last time, I have gone back to the Home Office and we are looking into ways of perhaps answering the noble Lord’s question.

[Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)]

My Lords, I speak as someone who is proud to have been brought up, and to have gone to school, in Toxteth, and who has a huge amount of respect for Joe Anderson and all that he achieved when he was mayor. Having listened to the various comments made on all sides of this House, I hope my noble friend the Minister will agree that we should ask: is there not a better way in which we can handle situations such as this? Citing the various examples that he has heard, could he perhaps give us the opportunity of coming back when he has reflected with his colleagues in the Home Office on the points that have been raised?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for that and I will of course reflect on the points that have been made. However, as I said in my earlier answer, it would be inappropriate for government to interfere with the organisational matters of the police.

Asylum Claims

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Monday 25th March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Lord Dubs]

To ask His Majesty’s Government how many asylum claims are currently waiting to be determined.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, at the end of December 2023, there were 95,252 cases in the asylum system, 28% fewer than at the end of December 2022. Claims lodged on or after 28 June 2022 and before 7 March 2023, when the Illegal Migration Bill was introduced, are being prioritised now that the legacy backlog has been cleared. We continue to review and improve processes to accelerate decision-making while maintaining the integrity of the system.

[Lord Dubs (Lab)]

My Lords, when do the Government expect to process the claims of the 55,000 or more people who arrived since March 2023, especially the 22,000 or so who arrived between March 2023 and July 2023, who are not covered by the possibility of being sent to Rwanda?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, those who arrive illegally and fall into scope of the Act will be banned from obtaining any form of lawful immigration status in the UK. So, since 7 March 2023, anyone who has arrived illegally may be unable to obtain settlement or citizenship or re-enter the UK using a lawful migration route. As we bring more of the powers of the Act into force, those who have arrived illegally will also be unable to obtain any form of temporary permission to stay in the UK, other than in very limited circumstances.

[Baroness Eaton (Con)]

My Lords, in considering measures for sustainably managing waiting times for asylum claims, does my noble friend agree that a balanced approach, which effectively deters economic migrants while prioritising the timely processing of genuine asylum seekers, is essential for maintaining the integrity and efficiency of the asylum system?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My noble friend makes a very good point. On the subject of productivity and the processing of claims, the decision output has increased significantly over the past 24 months. In fact, it has more than tripled as we have worked to deliver commitments to process the legacy backlog. For example, in November 2023, the average per decision-maker was about 7.89 initial decisions. The year before, that number was more like 2.6—so efficiency is very much improving.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, how many of those already denied asylum are still in the country?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I cannot answer that question in its entirety, but I can say that the number of complex legacy cases that remain has declined from about 4,500 to 3,900. Some of those are still in the country, but I do not know precisely how many.

[Baroness Brinton (LD)]

My Lords, the Oxford criminology department’s report, The Criminalisation of People Arriving to the UK on “Small Boats”, has said:

“There is no evidence that these prosecutions will have the ‘deterrent’ effect … Rather than minimising harm to people crossing the Channel, this report has highlighted the significant human impact of the current prosecution strategy”.


Will the Government review this report in light of what is happening at the moment?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)]

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

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

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

[Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede (Lab)]

My Lords, can the Minister update the House on returns agreements with safe countries? In particular, I am thinking of Egypt, as well as other safe Middle Eastern countries.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

Again, I am afraid that is rather outside this department’s remit, but I will endeavour to find out the current status and come back to the noble Lord.

[Lord Lilley (Con)]

Can my noble friend the Minister explain why British courts and tribunals grant asylum to 75% of those who make applications here on first application, whereas French courts grant asylum to only 25% of those making asylum applications on first application? Given that they are both applying the same international laws and agreements, are the French being unduly harsh or the British unduly lenient?

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I suspect it is not a particularly binary answer. Obviously, some of the cases we are looking at will involve people from Afghanistan, as the noble Lord will be aware, and we probably had rather more involvement in that particular situation than the French did. I would imagine it depends very much on the circumstances before the courts, but I cannot really answer the question.

[Lord Watts (Lab)]

My Lords, the Minister claims some credit for starting to deal with the backlog. What have the Government been doing for 13 years to make that backlog?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The Minister does not claim any credit at all for removing the backlog, but I applaud the department for having done so. The situation, as the noble Lord will be aware, has changed very dramatically in the world over the last 13 years.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, the sacked chief inspector has expressed concern that clearing the legacy backlog at all costs has led to perverse outcomes. This includes a soaring in the number of claims deemed to have been withdrawn but counted as outcomes without proper quality assurance, which he declared was not acceptable. Will the Government now publish data showing the reasons for this big increase in the number of claims deemed to be withdrawn, as called for by the British Red Cross?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I remind the House that the previous inspector was let go because he broke the terms of his contract, so I would argue that he has been somewhat discredited. Withdrawals can happen for a number of reasons, for example where somebody has already left the UK before their claim was concluded or where they fail to comply with the asylum process. There is a large number of reasons why withdrawals are made.

[Lord Sahota (Lab)]

My Lords, India was recently designated a safe country, along with Georgia, Albania and other countries. How many claims have been processed for India and what was the reason for designating India as a safe country?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

We debated that at some length last week and I will not go over the reasons again. I am afraid that I do not have those statistics.

[Lord Laming (CB)]

My Lords, how many of these asylum seekers are children and what happens to them if their claims fail?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, there were 3,412 asylum applications from unaccompanied children in the year ending December 2023. That was 41% fewer than in 2022. They make up about 5% of total asylum applications. Of those, 2,446 were aged 16 or 17. Noble Lords will be aware that there are commitments in the Bill going through the House, and in the treaty, that unaccompanied asylum seekers will not be removed to Rwanda.

[The Lord Bishop of Oxford]

My Lords, the National Audit Office published a report on 20 March expressing the view that government plans to relocate asylum seekers from hotels to larger sites are actually proving more expensive than the hotel accommodation. Is this affecting the Government’s long-term strategy for offering safe accommodation?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, the Government’s long-term strategy is a current subject of discussion via various other Bills. We will be closing all our hotels; we will have closed more than 100 by the end of March. Clearly, having hotels occupied by migrants is not optimal, and of course that goes to inform long-term strategic thinking.

[Lord Stirrup (CB)]

What progress is being made on police co-operation across Europe to target people traffickers, not just at the point of the channel but across the entire continent?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, there has been a considerable amount of progress. In March 2023, we signed a deal with France which, as noble Lords will be aware, has more than doubled the number of French personnel deployed across northern France. Most recently, we signed a working agreement with Frontex, the European Border and Coast Guard Agency. This long-term framework will provide the UK with access to new levers and intelligence to make our and the EU’s borders safer and more secure—as well as emphasising a shared commitment to close co-operation to tackle these organised crime gangs.

[Lord West of Spithead (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister not agree that possession of identity cards would make the handling of this situation a great deal easier?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I think the noble Lord has asked that question before—and last time I got myself into a bit of hot water by sort of agreeing with him, so I will not do so again.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, a Member on the Benches opposite recently said that Rwanda was safe as long as one did not oppose the Government. Is that the way that this Government are going—so we are all safe as long as we do not oppose them?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I point the noble Baroness to Scotland, where of course the Green Party is propping up the SNP Government. Are we safe there?

Asylum Seekers: Rwanda

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Thursday 21st March 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Chakrabarti]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what are the reasons for their new policy of paying failed asylum seekers to travel to Rwanda; how this policy will deliver (1) justice, and (2) deterrence; and how they expect it will work alongside their policy of seeking to forcibly transport illegal migrants to that country.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Sharpe of Epsom) (Con)]

My Lords, voluntary relocations to Rwanda support efforts to remove individuals with no right to be here. This will be offered to failed asylum seekers, those without leave to remain and those who have put in a claim to the UK’s asylum system that was unsuccessful. Once the Bill and the treaty are in place, we will look to enforce the removal of individuals entering illegally, so that their asylum claims can be processed in Rwanda.

[Baroness Chakrabarti (Lab)]

As always, I am grateful to the Minister, particularly this morning. Can he help me a little with the following logic? As I understand the Government’s own case, in pursuit of deterrence some genuine refugees who have come by irregular routes will be forcibly transported to Rwanda, while failed asylum seekers, including some who have made fraudulent claims, will be given the £3,000 golden goodbye.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, yes. The fact is that people who have paid £5,000 to £10,000 to a murderous criminal gang to get to the UK—let us not forget that they have been sold a lie and will not be able to stay here—are unlikely to be attracted by an offer of £3,000. I do not believe that it will have any effect on the deterrence principle.

[Viscount Hailsham (Con)]

Will my noble friend the Minister help the House by telling us whether the numbers of migrants who are paid a fee to go to Rwanda will count towards the numbers that Rwanda has agreed to take as compulsory relocations under the Bill’s provisions?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

As the scheme has only just begun, I do not know what the numbers are likely to look like in the end. However, as this is governed by a separate agreement, I imagine that the answer is no.

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister tell the House the size of the cohort that he described and to whom the offer will be made? What will the status be of those people when they arrive in Rwanda, given the present position of the Bill, the treaty and everything else? I draw attention to my interest in the register that I am supported by the RAMP.

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as I said, this will be offered to individuals with no right to remain. They are visa overstayers and failed asylum seekers, who are offered this option as part of our regular dialogue. It is very hard to say exactly how many people are likely to be offered this, so I cannot answer that question in its entirety. However, this builds on our already widely used voluntary returns scheme, which saw more than 19,000 people accept support to return to their country of origin last year. We have agreed with the Government of Rwanda that individuals who are relocated voluntarily will have the same package of support for up to five years as those who are being discussed under the Bill.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

My Lords, has my noble friend the Minister seen reports this morning in the Times, the Telegraph and other newspapers suggesting that this House has delayed the passage of the Rwanda Bill unnecessarily, resulting in people being exposed to the dangers of the channel? Will he take this opportunity to point out that this House was well prepared to pass the legislation back to the House of Commons for consideration before Easter, that it is no fault of this House that the legislation has been delayed and that this House has just been doing its job by asking the Commons to think again and is not responsible for delaying the legislation?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I am happy to reassure my noble friend that I have seen those reports and that I passed that very message back before those newspapers published their reports.

[Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)]

My Lords, if Rwanda is a safe country, can we have an explanation of why we are taking Rwandan refugees here in Britain?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I have discussed that many times from the Dispatch Box. The fact is that we take refugees from many countries, some of which are safe.

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, if I understood the Minister earlier, did he mean to tell the House that this arrangement with Rwanda—for people to go there with £3,000—is not covered by the UK-Rwanda asylum partnership agreement, and that there is another agreement of some description with Rwanda, the details of which have not been shared with Parliament? When will Parliament see that agreement?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as I said earlier, this is separate from the Bill and the treaty. I cannot answer the question, as I do not know when Parliament will see the agreement.

[Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)]

My Lords, in the proceedings of the Illegal Migration Bill—now the Act—that was passed last July, the Minister told us that the Act was necessary as a disincentive for people who would cross the channel. The Government have not brought the Act into force yet, eight months after it was passed by Parliament. Can the Minister confirm that those people who have arrived by boat since the passage of the Act until today have been able to claim asylum? How many have been doing so and what are the financial consequences?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, I am afraid that I do not have the numbers to hand, because the Question that I am answering is of a very different nature. I will have to come back to the noble Lord.

[Baroness Bryan of Partick (Lab)]

My Lords, I am surprised to hear that there is no budget for this policy, but I am sure that the Minister agrees with the two Ministers who answered Questions this morning about the importance of people being in work. Does he agree with me that many people who come to this country would make a valuable contribution if only they were allowed to work?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

I agree in certain circumstances, but we are talking about failed asylum seekers. These people will be offered the opportunity to work, but in Rwanda.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark (Lab Co-op)]

My Lords, is it the Government’s position that there will be a finite number of places and that some of the people who go there voluntarily will take some of those places but that will not have any effect on the deterrence of the Government’s policy?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

My Lords, as I have also said many times from the Dispatch Box, this scheme and the Rwanda scheme are uncapped, so there is no finite number of places.

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister consider his words a little more carefully before he describes people as “failed asylum seekers”, when we have actually refused to consider their asylum requests?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

No, I am afraid that I will not. They are failed asylum seekers, visa overstayers and people who are outside of the current system.

[Lord Faulkner of Worcester (Lab)]

My Lords, further to the excellent question from the Minister’s noble friend Lord Forsyth about the attitude of this House towards the Rwanda Bill, will he care to put his ministerial colleague Mr Tomlinson right on remarks that he made on the “Peston” programme last night? He said that the Government lost the seven votes in this House yesterday because of all the votes of the Labour Peers who were whipped into the Lobby by Sir Keir Starmer. Can he point out what the arithmetic is in the relationship between Conservative Peers and Labour Peers?

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)]

The noble Lord makes a good point. I am afraid that I did not see Minister Tomlinson because—noble Lords may be surprised to know—I was in the bar after yesterday’s efforts. However, I have some other statistics: Labour has voted against tougher measures on illegal migration 118 times and voted to block, delay or weaken our plan to stop the boats 105 times.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels: Fire and Rescue Services) (England) Regulations 2024

Lord Sharpe of Epsom Excerpts

Wednesday 20th March 2024 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Sharpe of Epsom]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 8 February be approved.

Relevant document: 15th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 19 March.

Motion agreed.