Illegal Migration Bill

Baroness Lister of Burtersett Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Lords Chamber

These amendments are a commitment to the vulnerable and a commitment on the part of states to be held accountable for their actions towards the vulnerable. If the Government cannot commit to that accountability, I cannot accept that the stated purpose of Clause 1 is either appropriate or desirable.

[Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)]

My Lords, I speak in support of Amendment 4 and draw attention to my entry in the register, with regard to support from RAMP for this and later amendments.

It is vital that, in line with our international obligations, we uphold the human rights of men, women and children who seek asylum in the UK. It is worth remembering what Theresa May—no softy when it comes to immigration matters—said in the Commons:

“That matters because of the reputation of the UK on the world stage, and because the UK’s ability to play a role internationally is based on our reputation—not because we are British, but because of what we stand for and what we do”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/23; col. 592.]


Related to this is a warning from the Council of Europe Commissioner for Human Rights in her letter to the Lord Speaker that the Bill, as summarised in Clause 1, would

“provide an incentive to other states, in Europe and beyond, to follow the UK’s lead in evading and abdicating its responsibilities to people in need of protection”.

Given that much of the Bill is justified with reference to incentives, one hopes that this warning might resonate with Ministers. If other countries follow suit, we could well find that we have more, not fewer, asylum seekers trying to cross our borders.

Of the conventions listed, I will focus just on those relating to refugees and children, although I also draw attention to the concerns raised by Redress, which warns that the Bill threatens to cause the UK to violate key provisions of the UN convention against torture. I will not repeat the highly damaging verdict of the UNHCR, other than to note, as did my noble friend, the unprecedented strength of its criticism, reflected in the stark warning that the Bill amounts to an “asylum ban” in contravention of the refugee convention. Every briefing that we have received, including from the EHRC and the Law Society, echoes these concerns about the refugee convention. Indeed, the UN special rapporteur on the human rights of migrants, and other UN rapporteurs, have urged the Government to halt the Bill’s passage so as to bring it

“in line with international human rights standards”.

However, according to the Home Secretary, such claims are “simply fatuous”. She put forward two arguments in the Commons to justify her position. The first is that while the

“convention obliges parties to provide protection to those seeking refuge. It does not require that this protection be in the UK”.

However, the UNHCR explains that, under the Bill, the Home Secretary

“will not be required to assess whether removal”

to a supposedly safe country

“would be safe or reasonable for a particular individual or whether they will be able to claim asylum there. Individuals would have very limited opportunities to present evidence of the risks they would face”.

Thus, it warns that the removal duty placed on the Home Secretary

“creates real and foreseeable risks of refoulement”.

This is echoed by the UN rapporteurs. The proposed responsibility-sharing arrangements lack the required safeguards to protect the rights of asylum seekers and refugees.

Secondly, the Home Secretary prayed in aid Article 31 of the convention which, she argued,

“is clear that individuals may be removed if they do not come ‘directly’ from the territory where their freedom is threatened. Denying those arriving illegally from France, or any other safe country”

is, she concluded,

“therefore, entirely consistent with the spirit and letter of the convention”.—[Official Report, Commons, 13/3/23; col. 580.]

However, the UNHCR is clear that it is not consistent. Its legal observations on the Bill are explicit:

“Mere transit in an intermediate country cannot be considered to interrupt ‘coming directly’”.


As the EHRC points out, because of geography, “direct” routes to the UK are rarely available. Exploiting our geographical position to abdicate responsibility for asylum seekers shames us as a country. I therefore repeat the question that I asked at Second Reading: can the Minister explain why we should accept the Government’s interpretation of the refugee convention over that of the body with supervisory responsibility for it? That body was recently described by another Lords Minister as “a key partner”.

The UNHCR also warns that

“The Bill is inconsistent with the UK's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child … because of the many ways it threatens or undermines the safety and welfare of children”.


I will not go into detail here, because a number of amendments specific to children will follow, but it is worth noting now that, in the view of UNICEF, which is mandated by the UN General Assembly to uphold the UNCRC and promote the rights and well-being of every child, children should be removed from the scope of the Bill in order to uphold the Government’s

“duties to act in the best interests of the child”

as set out in the UNCRC. Similarly, the Children’s Commissioner, who has demonstrated a passionate concern about the Bill’s implications for children, has warned that it

“would place the UK in clear breach of its international law obligations under a range of children’s rights treaties”.

The equality impact assessment, which finally appeared on the morning of Second Reading, assures us that

“the Home Office will continue to comply”

with the duty under Section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009

“to have regard to the interests of children as a primary factor in immigration decisions affecting them”.

As UNICEF reminds us, this duty was enacted in order to implement the UNCRC “best interest” requirement. Yet, the equality impact assessment tries to wriggle out of the duty by arguing that:

“The duty does not mean that it is the only factor that must be considered”.


In effect, it is being treated as a secondary rather than a primary factor, an issue to which I will return in a later group. We still await the child rights impact assessment called for by the Children’s Commissioner as essential to ensure consistency with the best interest requirements. It was promised “in due course” in a Written Answer on 17 May, so where is it?

Relevant here too is the position of the devolved nations. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has warned that the Bill could contravene the Good Friday/Belfast agreement and Windsor Framework in a number of ways. Has the Minister read its critique, and will the Government be publishing a response to it? The Welsh Civil Society Forum points out that Wales’s “child first, migrant second” approach, in line with its incorporation with the UNCRC, risks being undermined. As the Constitution Committee points out in its critical report on the Bill, while

“international relations are reserved matters … observing and implementing international obligations are devolved”.

What is the view of the devolved legislatures?

In conclusion, we must take note of what national and international human rights bodies are saying about this Bill. To echo a point made by other noble Lords, if the Government genuinely believe that the Bill meets the obligations in the conventions listed in the amendment, why not accept it now? Refusal to do so will only reinforce the belief of the UNHRC and others that this Bill marks the abrogation of the UK’s global responsibilities.

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

I would happily support all the amendments, although I would prefer Amendment 4, which I think expresses it more accurately, perhaps, than the others. I only really want to make one point because so many points have been made with which I entirely agree and they are almost unanimous across the Committee, as perhaps the Committee is noticing. We heard from other speakers that the Prime Minister put his name to that convention or treaty earlier in Reykjavik in which he is supporting international conventions. The Minister in the other place spoke about caring about international conventions. The question I want to ask the Minister is: looking at this Bill, looking at how it has been pulled apart in Clause 1, does the Minister really feel able to say that the Government care at all about international obligations?